House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Transport questions, I wish to pay tribute to a former colleague, David Winnick, who died yesterday. David served as a Member of Parliament for 42 years, initially as the MP for Croydon South and then, notably, from 1979 to 2017 as the MP for Walsall North. He was a dedicated member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, including as its co-chair. David was also a long-standing member of the Home Affairs Committee. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending our condolences to David’s family and friends, who are very much in our thoughts today.
Let us move on to questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, and may I wish a happy birthday to Lilian Greenwood?
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On behalf of the Government, may I associate myself with your remarks about David Winnick and extend our condolences to his family?
Bringing Greater Anglia and other east of England train operators into public ownership will put passengers first. Since coming into public ownership in 2025, both Greater Anglia and c2c are delivering some of the lowest cancellation rates in the country, while new stations and upgrades across the region are improving reliability and accessibility as we move towards an integrated, passenger-focused rail network.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful for that answer. Greater Anglia has consistently been at the top of the performance scale for our railway operators, but could the Secretary of State tell me whether the nationalisation of the railway will lead to the increased likelihood of a much better commuter service between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, which is presently only an hourly service, and what the prospect is of a direct train line from Bury St Edmunds to London?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and those using rail services in his area. I can assure him that Greater Anglia continually looks for opportunities to improve service frequency. Services will be strengthened for customers and communities on regional routes, including in the Stowmarket area, in the new timetable from Sunday 17 May. As we work towards the establishment of Great British Railways, we will continue to look for further opportunities to strengthen services.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Nationalisation was supposed to put local communities in touch. Grimsby is the largest town in the east of England without a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for one for years, and now the Secretary of State has written to me to say that we are not going to get the train because of accessibility problems in Market Rasen station. It is ludicrous to spend £15 million on extending a platform that does not need to be extended and building a bridge that does not need to be built. What does the Secretary of State want me to do? Does she want me to get on my knees and beg for this train? Let me do so now—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have been campaigning for this for our local community for years.
Heidi Alexander
I think that is possibly a first for the Father of the House, and it underlines the strength of feeling that he and his constituents have about improved rail services. He is right; I did write to him on 17 March and confirmed that while we could run trains without major infrastructure changes, we would have to find additional funding to support the necessary service pattern changes. For LNER services to call at Market Rasen, significant upgrades would be needed to the station to enable safe and compliant operation.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are investing nearly £280 million to improve accessibility at stations through the Access for All programme. In January, 31 further stations were moved into delivery or design. I am very happy to say that, thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, Dalston Kingsland station in her constituency is among those progressing as part of the national programme.
Dame Meg Hillier
You know that you are making your mark when Ministers name your station before you do—or one does, I should say. I am delighted that it has got to the next stage. I invite the Minister or the Secretary of State to visit Dalston Kingsland to see the impact of not having a lift at this station when, along the rest of the Mildmay line, stations are accessible. It is a key station for the world-famous Ridley Road market in my constituency. Will a visit be possible?
Keir Mather
On the subject of step-free access, I know that Network Rail is engaging with stakeholders to progress designs. I am happy to facilitate a discussion between my hon. Friend and Network Rail on plans to improve accessibility. I have also heard that the Secretary of State is keen to attend the visit that my hon. Friend outlines.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You have elevated me to heights I did not even know I could reach, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for that answer to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Not a week passes without some of us getting complaints about accessibility, yet equality law is clear. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is accessibility at all train stations for all disabled people that meets equality legislation? Quite clearly, at this moment in time it does not.
Keir Mather
In the Government’s published accessibility road map, we have pledged to continue the Access for All programme. That is alongside the fact that step-free routes, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, have already been rolled out to 270 stations so far. The Railways Bill, which is still making its way through this place, contains a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities so that accessibility can be at the heart of our railway.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I know that driving test waiting times remain too high, but there are signs that we are starting to turn the corner thanks to the action that we have taken since coming into government. We are increasing examiner capacity, improving booking rules and using Ministry of Defence examiners to provide additional tests. We now have over 100 more examiners in post than in February last year, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has delivered over 124,000 more tests this financial year than last year. We will keep the House updated as progress continues.
Brian Mathew
Young constituents in Melksham and Devizes who are waiting months for driving tests are resorting to paying premium prices for cancellation apps, often getting slots halfway across the country, just to get on the road. One 20-year-old told me that the costs of the wait killed his motivation entirely and that driving was becoming financially out of reach. Given that in rural areas such as mine driving is not a luxury but a necessity, will the Minister commit not only to reducing waiting times in rural areas but to reviewing the affordability of the testing system for young people?
Simon Lightwood
This Government will continue to do all we can to drive down the waiting times, and of course, we will always keep the affordability of driving tests under review.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I, too, have heard lots of stories from learners in my constituency about their long wait for driving tests, and waits for medical driving licences are also going up. I am delighted that this Government are taking the driving test backlog seriously. Monmouthshire residents will be relieved to know that I have heard that a new examiner is being trained up in Monmouth test centre as we speak, with another joining in Abergavenny soon. Will the Minister update me on what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that examiners are recruited, trained and out doing driving tests as soon as possible?
Simon Lightwood
The DVSA continues its recruitment campaigns for new driving examiners. Examiner capacity is rising, with 1,553 full-time equivalent examiners in post as of February 2026—that is an increase of 108 when compared with the number of driving examiners in February 2025. DVSA has also had difficulty in retaining experienced driving examiners, some of whom retire or leave the DVSA for other roles. We are encouraging them to stay, with exceptional payments of £5,000 to examiners in eligible roles, divided into two payments over the next 12 months.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The waiting time for driving tests has got worse since the Government took office. As others have said, it is critical that, whether for work or education, young people are able to get a test and have the use of a car to grow our economy and get their lives on track. Cabinet Office Ministers answered a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), saying that 26,000 people applied to become a driving examiner. Why are more of them not in training or in post?
Simon Lightwood
I continue to be flabbergasted by the comments from the Opposition. Let me just remind the House once again that the National Audit Office reported in December that the Department for Transport had had “limited involvement” in helping the DVSA tackle its waiting time backlog “up to mid-2024” and that
“DfT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.
The DVSA conducted more tests in December 2025 than during any December in the last 20 years.
Greg Smith
The reality on the ground is very different: people are waiting far longer for their driving test than they should have to, and that is happening under this Government. Waiting times have got worse by weeks since July 2024.
The Minister likes to talk about recruitment campaigns. The reality is that there has only been one recruitment campaign, which led to those 26,000 applications. In other parts of the public service, such as the police, there are constant recruitment campaigns. Will the Government now put driving instructors on a constant recruitment campaign?
Simon Lightwood
It is absolute nonsense from the Opposition. Let me tell the House what this Government have done compared with the complete inaction of the previous Government. We are changing the booking service to allow only learner drivers to book and manage their tests. We are introducing a limit on the number of times that learner drivers can move or swap their test to twice, and are making use of the Ministry of Defence to drive up the number of tests available.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Labour Government are providing £7.3 billion for highways maintenance over four years, doubling the funding provided by the previous Government by the end of this Parliament. Our long-term funding approach is already reaping results, with 15% more pothole prevention works carried out in 2025 compared with 2024. Effectiveness is monitored through annual transparency reports, incentive funding requirements and the new traffic light ratings system, ensuring that funding is used to deliver lasting, visible improvements for road users.
Clive Jones
Wokingham borough council is the lowest funded unitary authority. Between 2020 and 2022 when the Conservatives led the council, they cut the road maintenance budget by £2 million, although they seem to have no recollection of doing so. Now the Labour Government are cutting £43 million from the council’s funding for the next three years. What steps is the Minister taking to provide councils like Wokingham with the funding they need to maintain safe roads, despite being drained of cash by the Government?
Simon Lightwood
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s numbers. Capital funding for highways maintenance has not been cut in Wokingham. Wokingham borough council is eligible to receive £28.9 million over the next four years as part of the £7.3 billion investment. That represents a clear year-on-year increase from 2024-25 to 2025-26, with funding due to continue to increase over the next four years.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
After months of struggling to spend the £895,000 given to Conservative-controlled Bexley council by this Government, the council is finally in a rush to resurface roads like Belmont Road in Northumberland Heath by the end of the financial year. Will the Minister confirm how much funding the Government will provide to my local council in future years to restore the condition of our roads across Bexleyheath and Crayford?
Simon Lightwood
By the end of this Parliament, we will have almost doubled the amount of money going to local authorities to tackle the pothole plague that we inherited from the previous Government. Of course, elements of that are incentives, so if local authorities do not follow the prescribed best practice, they will not receive all that incentive funding.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can I declare my interest, having lost three tyres to potholes this year? What assessment has the Department made of the efficiency with which potholes are being filled? What on earth is it filling them with, because within weeks and sometimes days, a newly filled pothole is back again?
Simon Lightwood
That is exactly why this Government are putting record funding into tackling potholes—so that we can finally turn the tide on having to refill the same potholes time and again. With that long-term funding, councils can now finally turn the corner and prevent those potholes from forming in the first place.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
North East Lincolnshire council has received over £4 million. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, the council seems to be struggling to get that money out the door and those potholes filled. Areas like Winchester Road have got absolutely disgraceful road conditions. Is the Department undertaking any monitoring of how much money is being spent and how much is going on these potholes?
Simon Lightwood
Under this Government, all councils must publish a statement on their website so that all local people can hold them to account on exactly how they are spending their money. Let me share an interesting fact with the House: Reform came out by far the worst in our recent RAG—red, amber, green—rating exercise, with a massive 25% of Reform-led councils rated “red”.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?
Simon Lightwood
We are almost doubling the amount of money going to local highways maintenance to turn the tide. That is why a massive percentage of the road investment strategy—something like £8.5 billion—is going on repairing and renewing our strategic road network.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
To improve the unreliable services that plagued the rail network under the previous Government, and to improve the experience of using the railway, this Government are bringing services into public ownership and creating Great British Railways. This generational reform is already improving passengers’ experience of rail services, as cancellations are starting to fall after years of decline.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Inter-city rail fares in England remain eye-watering. London to Birmingham costs £72 on the day, London to Manchester £172 and London to Liverpool £179, but flying the same route can cost as little as £80. In Spain, rail reform drove up passenger numbers by 107% on comparable routes, with tickets as low as €12. The rail fare freeze is welcome, but fares remain unaffordable for many people. The Railways Bill promises powers to regulate fares, so how will the “reasonable” criteria be defined and enforced?
Keir Mather
Operational questions relating to how GBR designates fares will be a matter to consider once it has been created, but passenger affordability is a top priority for the Government. That is why, this year, we have taken the historic step of freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years. Had we not taken that historic decision, regulated rail fares would have increased by 5.8% from March.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In Fylde, we are blessed to have nationally and internationally significant events. The women’s open returns to Royal Lytham and St Annes this year, and the Lytham festival is going from strength to strength. Our Sunday rail services are important for these events, but they are often cancelled because of a lack of conductors at Northern Rail, which was nationalised back in 2020, as well as the inability to get staff to do overtime. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and representatives from Fylde to discuss how we can get extra and more reliable Sunday services to support our important tourism industry?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is correct to point out that rail services can serve as a catalyst for economic growth and as a way to connect more people to the culture that communities like Fylde have to offer. I will ensure that his request for a meeting with the Minister for Rail and representatives from his local council is passed on.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In January, I was delighted to get confirmation that Ruabon station had progressed to the next stage of the Access for All programme. It is an absolute disgrace that disabled people and young mothers with prams can access the northbound platform only by climbing the steps and crossing the footbridge at the second busiest of Wrexham’s five stations. Will the Minister provide an update on progress in delivering a ramp at the station?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right in his ambition to ensure that accessibility is there for everyone right across our United Kingdom, including in Wrexham. I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with an update in writing on when the ramp is likely to be delivered.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Further to the pleading of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the train service—[Hon. Members: “On your knees!”] That makes two of us pleading with Ministers for that service, and I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) would happily kneel as well. I remind the Minister that LNER has been in state ownership for a number of years, yet it still cannot provide that service. There is an open access application from Grand Central Rail for a service to Grimsby, so will the Minister assure me that, given all our pleading, the Government will at least look sympathetically on that application?
Keir Mather
Although I might not have too much more to add on the question of LNER services, the hon. Member will know that open access decisions are a matter for the operationally independent Office of Rail and Road.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We still do not know how or what the Government want to achieve with state control of the railways. They say that there will be simpler fares, but the public are seeing simply more expensive fares. They say that passenger growth is necessary, but there is no target for that growth in the Railways Bill. They say they want to reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but in written answer after written answer, the Minister refuses to say how they hope to achieve that. Is this lack of a plan why the Secretary of State has been reduced to trying to claim credit for the work of others? She has been left red-faced and community noted after posting on X about the phasing out of the old class 455 trains on South Western Railway. She said it was down to the
“progress...on your publicly owned railway”,
when it was actually delivered under a Conservative Government and by a private company.
Keir Mather
I encourage the shadow Secretary of State actually to read the Railways Bill, which his party has consistently voted against, where the reason we are pursuing nationalisation is laid out in black and white. It is for one thing and one thing only: to deliver better services for passengers, to ensure that the railway is run in the public interest and not for profit, and to leave behind the decades of misery and delay under the privatised system, which did not serve any of the travelling public across the United Kingdom.
Mr Holden
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to agree with the Secretary of State, so I ask him whether he agrees with himself. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on 23 March, he said that
“public ownership is expected to save taxpayers up to...£110-150 million every year...This is several orders of magnitude less than the costs of scaling up DfTO staffing in anticipation of establishing GBR”.
Keir Mather
The shadow Secretary of State talks about value for money for the British taxpayer. The national rail strikes under the last Government cost the taxpayer £850 million in lost revenue between June 2022 and August 2024. I ask him how that compares with the operational savings that will be achieved by the nationalised railways. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the cost of establishing Great British Railways, which unlocks all these benefits for the travelling public.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The road safety strategy envisages a safer future for everyone on the road, including targets to cut deaths and serious injuries by 65%, and 70% for children, by 2035. It promotes partnership working across Government, local authorities, police and emergency services, industry and others to save thousands of lives, ease pressure on the NHS and support the economy.
Helen Hayes
The Tulse Hill gyratory in my constituency is very dangerous. We see frequent accidents, near misses and, tragically, lives lost. We urgently need to see the transformation of the gyratory to make it safe for all road users, yet we are struggling because the availability of Transport for London funding for major junction improvements depends on there being substantial new development in the vicinity of the junction, which is not the case at Tulse Hill. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government, Transport for London, Lambeth council and the local campaign group “Transform Tulse Hill” can achieve our important goal of making the Tulse Hill gyratory safe for all?
Lilian Greenwood
I know that there have been multiple pedestrian casualties at the gyratory in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and action is needed to prevent future issues. Last week, I met TfL to hear about its new Vision Zero action plan, and partnership working with great local leaders, such as Mayor Khan, is vital to achieving our ambitious targets for reducing deaths and serious injuries. I was pleased to hear that TfL has introduced interim safety measures to slow traffic and improve visibility while longer-term redesign options are being developed. I know that TfL and Lambeth borough council are working closely together on a proper solution, but I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Yesterday, sadly, a young boy going to school on Snakes Lane East in my constituency was knocked down. He is receiving excellent treatment, and my thoughts are with his family, but this underlines a problem that we have in my constituency: Broadmead Road bridge, which crosses the central line, has been closed since 2024, and that causes chaos in traffic and heavy vehicles going down roads they would never normally go down. Many of my constituents are very fearful about the worsening road safety. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to get Broadmead Road bridge redone and reopened using money from both the Government and TfL?
Lilian Greenwood
I hope that the right hon. Member’s young constituent makes a speedy recovery. I am aware of Broadmead Road bridge and the difficulties faced. It sounds like a really strong contender for the forthcoming structures fund, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be very happy to talk to the right hon. Member about the possibilities in that respect.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
For HGV drivers, the ability to stop and rest is essential to our road safety, yet HGV drivers and freight sector representatives recently told my Committee that the long-known critical shortage of HGV parking spaces continues. The Government do not need another survey, so when can we expect a diagnosis of the causes of this problem and then a plan to deliver more HGV parking spaces on all parts of our network?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Planning has historically been a barrier to the development of lorry parks. We have introduced a dedicated freight policy in the national planning policy framework to ensure that planning properly reflects freight needs, including parking and access to the transport network. Alongside that, our new national lorry parking survey will be published in the autumn and will give local authorities the evidence needed to deliver good-quality facilities in the right places.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The family of Mathew Hardy have set up a petition calling for the immediate forfeiture of driving licences upon a positive drink or drug test. They do this in circumstances where they lost their son just before Christmas. His partner is expecting a baby who will be born bereaved of a father. Does the Minister agree that the individual’s right to drive does not come before another individual’s right to life?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important case, and I send my condolences to the family in her constituency. Many people, including bereaved families, have raised with me how it feels when they see someone who has been arrested on drink or drug-driving charges being able to drive until their case comes to court. That is why suspension of licences is one of the issues covered in our motoring offences consultation. I hope that she, other Members and members of the public will respond positively to that proposal.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Bus services are vital for connecting communities to jobs, education and essential services. We have confirmed over £3 billion for buses over the next three years, including providing multi-year, long-term funding to give local authorities the certainty to invest in local services, and our Bus Services Act 2025 is giving local leaders the tools to ensure that services meet the needs of local people.
Juliet Campbell
Many residents in Beeston Rylands in my constituency have contacted me about the infrequency and unreliability of buses serving their area. This particularly affects elderly residents, as bus services can be a lifeline for that community. Will the Minister outline how the Government are working with regional mayors such as Claire Ward in the east midlands to bolster bus services in underserved areas such as Beeston Rylands?
Lilian Greenwood
We are committed to working with local leaders, including Mayor Claire Ward, to improve buses. We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with £65 million between now and 2028-29, which can be used to increase bus provision across the local area. I know that Mayor Claire would be very happy to work with my hon. Friend to help plan bus networks that work for local people, including those living in Beeston Rylands.
Mr Mohindra
South Oxhey was previously served by three buses per hour operating across two routes, but since last July that has been reduced to an hourly 328 service, which is sometimes cancelled leaving a two-hour gap between buses. The Minister has previously stated that the Bus Services Act 2025 will provide local authorities with the tools to manage bus services, but what steps will the Department take to hold bus operators to account on this issue?
Lilian Greenwood
It is for local authorities, who have been given both the funding and the tools, to decide what works for their local area. Obviously they can have bus enhanced partnerships with local operators, but they can also consider franchising when they feel that that is necessary in order to provide the services that local people need. I know that Hertfordshire is one of the places that is piloting franchising appropriate for rural areas.
Claire Young
Those transport authorities that delayed tendering for post-July bus services because of the lack of Government criteria for using finding are now going out to tender, but market information suggests that costs are shooting up due to the war in the middle east. Will the Secretary of State meet me and local representatives to discuss how the Government can support bus services during this crisis?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member raises an important point. We recognise that the increased costs for bus operators, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can have an impact on services. My officials are in contact with operators to understand better the impact of increased fuel costs as a result of the crisis in the middle east. I am sure that the Minister responsible for roads and buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be considering that issue further and will be happy to hear from her.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, we are ambitious to see modal shifts that get people out of their cars and on to buses, but we have an affordability problem. The mayor has a very generous transport budget, but only 6% can be spent on revenue. Will the Minister look at the ability to transfer capital funding into revenue, so that we can really boost our buses?
Lilian Greenwood
We in the Department work extremely closely with all our local mayors, including the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire. I know that my hon. Friend had a meeting with him only yesterday, and we would be happy to work with him to look at how we can better support bus services across that whole area.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
National Highways has assessed the status of the land and is taking steps to improve its condition, including replanting substantial numbers of trees, protecting ecological sites and creating new wildlife habitats.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I thank the Minister for his response the other day to my written question, which made clear that the trees would be replanted alongside the A14. I have surveyed that area in recent weeks, and it is real mess. The land has simply not been maintained after the environmental land-management schemes were put in place, so it is reassuring to hear that the trees will be replaced. However, there are other problems with some of the schemes: some of the buildings that were compulsorily purchased have not been maintained and have become dilapidated, National Highways is ransoming access to the land to local developers by charging a 30% shared value increase, just so that developers can gain access to the A14, and we have dangerous at-grade junctions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss some of the problems that we have with access to the A14 in Huntingdonshire, so that my constituents can be reassured that we are working hard to ensure that that road works as it should?
Simon Lightwood
On the specific topic of trees, it is an absolute scandal that something like 600,000 trees died as part of the previous Government’s road schemes—some 90% of the trees died at that particular scheme—but of course I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the individual issues that he raised.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are taking significant action to make journeys safer and smoother, while helping motorists to save money. We are investing £27 billion in motorways and trunk roads, and a record £7.3 billion to fix potholes and resurface local roads. We have extended the fuel duty freeze, launched a fuel price finder and introduced a £2 billion grant to support motorists who want to go electric. I know that events in the middle east will be unsettling for many, but I can assure the House that we have strong and diverse fuel supplies in the UK, and we will stand by the British people in the face of international turbulence.
Charlie Dewhirst
Anyone who has been to the pumps in the last couple of weeks will have felt the pain of price rises. I do not blame the Secretary of State for that—obviously, international events have taken over—but can she guarantee the House that there will be no further rise in fuel duty for the remainder of this calendar year?
Heidi Alexander
The Government have already taken significant steps to keep the costs of motoring low, extending the fuel duty cut that was due to end this month until September and launching the fuel finder tool. Together, those measures will save motorists £129 compared with previous plans. We will monitor developments in the middle east closely, and I repeat what I said in my original answer: we will stand by the British people in these times of international turbulence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The costs of motoring are going up for everyone later this year because of the choices of this Labour Government. A set of motorists who are too often forgotten are those who drive our heavy goods vehicles and light goods vehicles; as the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said in an earlier question, they are suffering because of their rest facilities. In particular, we are seeing increasing fuel thefts from our hauliers. Freight crime is an incredibly serious matter. Will the Secretary of State set out clearly what she is doing with urgency to support our hauliers, who keep our economy quite literally moving, and to get the facilities they need that will not just give them good rest space, but keep them safe?
Heidi Alexander
Secure, high-quality parking facilities and truck stops for HGV drivers are a part of that. I know that my colleague the Minister for Local Transport, formerly the Roads Minister, has met colleagues in the Home Office a number of times so that haulage firms and logistics companies can be sure that their vehicles are safe and their fuel supplies are secure.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
This Government believe in better buses across the UK, and half of the £1.4 billion local authority bus grant resource funding is going to support services in mayoral strategic authorities. Altogether, they will receive more than £11.5 billion of consolidated funding up to 2030 to improve and deliver better local transport services and modern infrastructure, and that includes £1.6 billion for Greater Manchester.
Mrs Blundell
As the Minister knows, since my election I have been campaigning for an express bus service from my constituency to Manchester city centre. Following key improvements to the network across Greater Manchester, a consultation that I did across my constituency shows that we still need the introduction of that express bus service. What conversations are taking place between the Department for Transport, the Treasury and our transport authorities specifically to prioritise closing gaps in bus provision and to ensure that there is sustained, long-term funding for buses to make that possible?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is a great champion for local transport. This Government are committed to supporting improved bus services, and at the spending review we confirmed more than £3 billion in long-term funding until 2028-29. We believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about services in their areas, and this funding includes £133.5 million for Greater Manchester that the local authority can use to expand the Bee Network, as she suggests. Of course, we very regularly meet Mayor Andy Burnham to discuss that.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Part of my constituency falls in the West of England mayoral combined authority, which oversees some local bus services. Although recent Government funding has been allocated to improve bus transport across the authority, much of it appears to be concentrated on getting people in and out of Bristol, rather than around the surrounding towns and villages. If the Government are committed to driving economic growth, should they not recognise the importance of investing in reliable rural transport networks to enable such communities to grow and thrive?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Rural communities also need access to good public transport, which is why we are exploring the ways in which we can better support rural bus services. As I mentioned earlier, there are five pilots looking at the possibilities of franchising in rural areas, which I know will be of interest to people, including Mayor Helen Godwin.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My Department continues to engage with a range of aviation stakeholders, including the Civil Aviation Authority, to better understand the impacts of the loss of access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service. This includes the practicalities, costs and benefits for industry and the taxpayer if we were to rejoin.
Mr Carmichael
I think I can speed things up there, because I can tell the Minister exactly what the impact has been. Since we lost access to EGNOS, the number of cancellations to island communities has trebled, which in turn has put up the cost of tickets, and occasionally air ambulance flights are unable to get in. That has been the cost of coming out of EGNOS, and it is about time we found our way back into it. Will the Minister meet me, and perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), to find a way of progressing this without any further delay?
Keir Mather
I would be very glad to meet the right hon. Member and our colleague. I understand the important role that EGNOS played in ensuring that we had those vital connectivity links to the Scottish highlands. That is why we intend to review the role that technologies such as EGNOS can play, to ensure that our airspace is resilient and fit for purpose, especially for remote airports that are more susceptible to adverse weather conditions. I am very happy to take that conversation forward with the right hon. Member.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Some 40% of flight diversions from Stornoway, Benbecula and Barra airports in my constituency could have been avoided if we were part of EGNOS, which was shamefully abandoned during Brexit by the Conservatives. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, this has huge social and financial implications —schedules are cut, and people are considering not just their travel arrangements but their living arrangements, because without 21st-century connectivity we cannot live 21st-century lives. I urge the Minister to consider the costs and benefits of rejoining EGNOS, and by all means to meet me and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as some Cornish MPs who have raised this issue.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his repeated and consistent advocacy on this issue. I am cognisant of the fact that air connectivity in the Scottish highlands is not a “nice to have” but an absolute necessity. As well as meeting the two Members, my officials would be keen to engage with a variety of stakeholders as part of the review, to obtain evidence on the benefits of the EGNOS solution. That evidence will be critical to ensuring that the Government work out their future position carefully and that any future decision delivers value for money to the taxpayer.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are clear that open access will continue to play an important role on the reformed railway under Great British Railways, which will oversee a network designed to deliver better outcomes for passengers. Existing open access operators, such as Hull Trains, will be able to continue running under their current access agreements, serving communities including Beverley and Holderness.
Graham Stuart
As the Minister knows, before Hull Trains, Hull and east Yorkshire were a forgotten part of the rail network. Hull Trains put that right, connecting the great port city of Hull, and indeed Beverley, directly to London. It is also one of the most popular train services in the whole country. I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said, so will he meet me—and perhaps colleagues—to discuss the future of open access and Hull Trains, to ensure that it is safeguarded into the 2030s and beyond, as I know he wants?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his request for a meeting, which I will make sure is reflected to the Rail Minister. I understand the importance of the contribution that Hull Trains makes, both to the east riding of Yorkshire and across the country. Under the Railways Bill, it is absolutely right for GBR to be the directing mind for the railway, to ensure that we can make best use of the network, but we are also very clear that where open access represents best use, those trains will get on the network. Hull Trains has a very important part to play in rail connectivity in the United Kingdom.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We are empowering the Mayor of the West Midlands to deliver the better, more reliable connections that communities in Dudley need and deserve. Mayor Richard Parker is already putting the £2.4 billion in more flexible, integrated funding that we are providing to good use, delivering on transformative local priorities such as metro expansion, bus franchising and light rail.
Sonia Kumar
For far too long, communities across the Black Country have had to put up with poor transport links. That is why the long-awaited opening of the metro station later this year is such welcome news for people and businesses in Dudley, even after delays. This key investment will help bring visitors to Dudley High Street and drive the renewal of our town centre, but our area desires one more project. What further investment will the Department for Transport commit to bringing to Dudley? Will the Secretary of State commit to attending the opening of the metro? I am happy to treat her to some orange chips from Dudley.
Heidi Alexander
The metro’s expansion represents a major boost for growth in Dudley and the west midlands, delivering fast, affordable and reliable connections to Birmingham, Wolverhampton, the Black Country and beyond. Together with the Dudley interchange, it will transform local transport, unlocking access to jobs, education and new opportunities for the community. I very much enjoyed my last visit to Dudley and the Black Country Living Museum, and I will certainly ask my office to check my availability for the opening of the metro.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
National Highways targets the most serious potholes for repair within 24 hours. Under the new road investment strategy, published today, it must keep 96.2% of road surfaces in good condition and resurface around a quarter of its network over the next five years. In addition to National Highways’ work on the strategic road network, Lancashire combined county authority is eligible to receive £268 million in highways maintenance funding over the next four years as part of our £7.3 billion investment in local roads.
Sarah Smith
My constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden are blighted by potholes, which cost them hundreds of pounds, but to add insult to injury, twice recently the Reform-led county council has come out and repainted our road markings before coming a day later to complete resurfacing works on the same bit of road. Lancashire county council has had record levels of funding from this Government, with £100 million confirmed over two years. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the council is refusing to update residents on its repair times and whether it is meeting their demands and requirements?
Simon Lightwood
It is not acceptable for this Reform-led council to refuse to provide basic information to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As I mentioned earlier, 25% of Reform-led councils have been rated red—the lowest rating. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that Labour councils have come out on top. I hope that her constituents will keep that in mind when they go to the polling stations in a couple of weeks.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The scourge of potholes is pretty universal, but will the Minister join me in encouraging all my Spelthorne residents who have a complaint about a pothole to report it via the Surrey county council website? Reporting potholes is the only way to get them sorted.
Simon Lightwood
I absolutely agree that constituents should report potholes to their local authority. The good news is that by the end of this Parliament we will have almost doubled the amount of funding to allow those councils to get on top of this pothole plague.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government are today announcing one of the biggest ever investments in England’s major roads. That £27 billion spread over five years is a down payment on better motorways, smoother journeys and less congestion across the country. We will finally kick off dualling the A66 between Cumbria and north Yorkshire and unlock private investment to deliver the transformational lower Thames crossing. We will renew and repair our main highways with a record £8.4 billion of investment. But that is not all. Today I am giving the green light to 16 local road schemes that previous Governments left in limbo, including the Norwich western link, the Wigan east-west link, the A650 Tong Street in Bradford and the A259 south coast road in Brighton. We will get these projects built, strengthening local economies and breaking down barriers to opportunity. For too long, this country failed to tackle its crumbling infrastructure. This Government are putting our money where our mouth is, with fewer potholes and quicker journeys. We are building a road network that people and businesses can finally rely on.
Emma Foody
The Secretary of State and others in this place will be aware of my campaign for investment in the Moor Farm roundabout. The current situation causes misery for local people and is choking investment not just in my constituency, but across the north-east. I have held debates, asked questions, and had meetings with Ministers and National Highways. In fact, I have spoken about it more than 50 times in this place, but I am feeling lucky today. Does the Secretary of State have any update on my campaign to secure the crucial upgrades?
Heidi Alexander
I am delighted to confirm that improvements to the A19 at Moor Farm have been included in the pipeline of schemes that we have asked National Highways to develop for construction. I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for making such a strong case for this scheme in particular.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In September last year, the Secretary of State told the House:
“I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze”.—[Official Report, 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1031.]
That was when diesel and petrol were significantly cheaper than they are today. Why is Labour hiking fuel duty by 5p a litre this September?
Heidi Alexander
We have extended the fuel duty cut, which was due to end this month, until September, and we have launched the fuel finder tool. Together, they will save motorists £129 compared with previous plans.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
At the Budget last November, the Government announced a comprehensive review of public charging costs, which will examine what is driving higher prices and potential measures to make public charging affordable for all users. The review is set to report this autumn.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
An October 2024 Active Travel England analysis of case studies found that walking and cycling schemes typically generate a benefit-cost ratio of between 3.5:1 and 19:1. Given the plans for significant devolution of transport funding, how will the Government ensure that local authorities deliver consistent standards and improvements to streets and routes to enable walking and cycling, and the huge accompanying economic and health benefits?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the benefits of active travel. This Government are so enthusiastic about that, and we have set out £626 million of active travel funding to support it. Very shortly we will publish our cycling and walking investment strategy, which will guide local authorities on how best to spend the money.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have ambitious plans in England, and a record £7.3 billion investment and clear standards to ensure that councils fix roads properly for the long term. Only Scottish Labour has a plan to build on this approach and to end the pothole plague north of the border.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I have visited Stanmore station, and I understand the difficulties that are presented to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. We are investing in the Access for All scheme nationally and, as he has indicated, Transport for London is investing in his constituency too. We are ambitious in this space, because the railway should be there for everyone. It should be an inclusive service that we offer to the entire country.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend remains a great champion for this project. The Government are delivering on devolution. We are providing the Lancashire combined county authority with £641 million in this spending review. The decision about whether to progress this scheme as a local priority is one for the authority. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue engaging with it with the same enthusiasm with which she engages with our Department.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, but I reassure the House that, in our many conversations with airlines and airports in recent weeks, we have not been told of any immediate disruptions to jet fuel supply. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely, and work with airlines and jet fuel suppliers to understand what mitigations may be required should any disruptions arise.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
I sympathise with the frustration of local residents. I am as keen as they are, and as I know my hon. Friend is, to see services start on that section of infrastructure. I know discussions continue between Chiltern and the trade unions on operational arrangements and the preparatory works to trains and stations. I assure him that, as soon as we have a start date, he will be the first to know.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests showing that, last summer, Hull Trains paid for 32 teenagers to travel to London to attend my parliamentary summer school.
This time last year, I was advocating for more connectivity for my constituents by backing the application from Hull Trains for a service between Sheffield and London King’s Cross via Worksop and Retford. Despite my disappointment at the refusal, I am keen that companies such as Hull Trains continue to make open access bids. How will Great British Railways ensure independent oversight, and what resources will the Office of Rail and Road be given to guarantee transparency and independence in the decision-making process?
Keir Mather
GBR will have responsibility for ensuring that it has the capacity to run services that are paid for by the British taxpayer and that it is tasked to operate. Outside that, it will decide on the best use of the network. Open access can play a vibrant role in that system, which could include services from my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Nawaz has been in touch with me with real concerns about the financial impact that roadworks are having on his small business. He may be entitled to compensation if the roadworks are caused by gas or water companies, but not if they are works by telecoms or electricity companies. The impact on local businesses and constituents is the same whether roadworks are for cables or for pipes, so could the Department look at that discrepancy?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady will know that roadworks on local roads are the responsibility of each local highway authority. As she says, there are some specific routes for businesses to claim losses when the works are carried out by utilities such as gas or water companies. If she has proposals for a wider scheme and would like to write to me about them, I will consider them.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to address the problem of number plate fraud? Number plates are being falsely registered to wrong addresses by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, vehicle number plates are being cloned, and false number plates are being used, all of which is contributing to an increase in petrol theft from our forecourts. What are the Government doing about it?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is right to raise this question, which a number of my hon. Friends have also raised. The DVLA is working very closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and, as he will know, alongside the road safety strategy we have a consultation on motoring offences, which includes proposals for tougher penalties for those displaying illegal plates.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Rail users at Hitchin and Arlesey stations in my constituency have to put up with services that simply are not reliable enough. I am glad that, after pushing the operator, Ministers and officials, we have been able to drive up driver recruitment and secure crucial investment to upgrade the back-up signalling capacity that has caused a lot of disruption over the past 12 months. With the operator coming back into public ownership later this year, what further steps can we take to finally give my constituents the rail service they deserve?
Heidi Alexander
Thanks to my hon. Friend’s steadfast support, major works are under way: renewing electrification, installing axle counters and improving drainage to prevent flooding. Those upgrades will boost Thameslink’s reliability, including for services to his constituency. I can also tell him that driver numbers have risen by 50 since July 2024. We will continue to press Govia Thameslink Railway to strengthen performance and cut cancellations.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I continue to hear from residents and businesses about the timetable changes at Berwick-upon-Tweed station, in particular the loss of many direct services from Berwick down to London. What economic assessment is the Department undertaking of how those changes are working?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to reflect on the fact that a reliable and frequent train service is important to economic growth. I would be happy to speak about the detail of those particular changes with the Rail Minister and come back to him, including on whether there are any potential mitigations we could bring in.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Heugh Street bridge in South Shields was closed over four months ago by the council, as it deemed it to be unsafe. It was used by over 5,000 vehicles per day and the closure is damaging my local economy. The council is currently unable to give any timescale for reopening the bridge and I am led to believe there is no funding for it to do so anyway. Can my hon. Friend the Minister please assist us in any way at all?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. This sounds like a scheme that could benefit from the structures fund.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Government are rightly focused on bus services, but can I urge them to also think carefully about safety in bus stations? We have a big problem at Skipton bus station at the moment and there is no CCTV. I encourage the Minister to focus on local authorities and mayors to get obligatory CCTV in our bus stations to keep people safe.
Lilian Greenwood
The Government have committed to a number of ideas to improve the safety of the travelling public, especially women and girls, and that includes looking at safety in bus stations. I will ensure that the particular issue the right hon. Gentleman raises is examined.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I again thank the ministerial team for what they have done to get the midlands rail hub project so far along so quickly, with funding now unlocked for the west and central sections, but the east section is dragging ever so slightly behind. Will they look again at whether the south Staffordshire line can be included in rail hub east, to unlock the wonderful benefits of cross-regional travel via that line for my constituents and those in Uttoxeter and Derby?
Heidi Alexander
I was grateful to my hon. Friend for his time a couple of weeks ago, when we discussed this matter. He is right to highlight the transformative benefit of the midlands rail hub expanding capacity into Moor Street station. I will come back to him on the potential around the south Staffordshire line.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire is tinkering with the Department for Transport’s highways funding ratio, reallocating about £4 million from North Yorkshire to the city of York. When North Yorkshire council has already lost the rural services delivery grant, how can the Minister think that is fair?
Simon Lightwood
The Department continues to give funding that is devolved to local leaders. It is up to the democratically elected local leaders to decide how to spend it. Funding is allocated for the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to deal with that.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on local government reorganisation.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for the—[Interruption.] I am always happy to be at the Dispatch Box; I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation.
For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aim on local government reorganisation is simple: clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. We are getting on with delivering that aim.
Yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth; Norfolk; and Suffolk. In addition to the Isle of Wight, that will see 16 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 44. The proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities. They will help to expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring forward the secondary legislation to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course.
On East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, we have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections, which will allow councils and partners to provide focused views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people’s lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively from day one.
We have set out the timetable, with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027 ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.
Sir James Cleverly
People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions?
Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage.
The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation?
The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people.
I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement?
This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.
Alison McGovern
Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.
Mr Speaker
Just to let people know, normally Front Benchers would not speak during an urgent question, but for those whose constituency is affected by this issue, and who have direct involvement, there is a dispensation today.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s move to reorganisation, which will benefit cities such as Exeter. Yesterday, the Minister may have seen official communications from Devon county council that said that reorganisation will
“put the lives of vulnerable people at risk”.
Notwithstanding the fact that, according to Ofsted, children’s services and SEND services in Devon have been failing for many years, does the Minister agree that such comments are irresponsible and not true? Should reorganisation happen in Devon—I hope that it will—will it not be up to authorities to ensure that services are safely and effectively moved to new structures?
Alison McGovern
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and other Ministers in the Department for Education to improve our children’s services. We will ensure that we do that through this reorganisation process. Nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids, and it is up to us in central Government and local government to work together to deliver good childhoods for all of them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.
In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.
The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend stresses the need for locally led decision making. She will know that there is widespread support across the Thames valley for a foundation strategic authority for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and that a bid along those lines is with her ministerial colleagues at the moment. She will also know that there is genuine concern about a different proposal, wholly unacceptable to local leaders, that is being mooted. Will she reassure me and colleagues across the House that when it comes to FSAs, MSAs, SDSs or any initialism that she chooses, there will always be priority given to locally led decision making?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Lincolnshire is such a huge county geographically that there is no enthusiasm for abolishing districts. Be that as it may, the Government are determined to override local residents. There is a rumour coming out of the Labour-controlled City of Lincoln council that the Government will go with a Greater Lincoln. That would be a disaster for West Lindsey, and would leave Gainsborough out on a limb and carve us out of the county. Before the Minister makes any final decision, will she please meet me, so that I can put to her the concerns of West Lindsey district council? We could live with the central Lincolnshire idea—the whole of Lincolnshire—but not Greater Lincoln.
Alison McGovern
I am always glad to meet the Father of the House. We will just make sure that it is done within the process for taking decisions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
How does the Minister expect local authorities in Essex to be ready for elections for unitaries in a year’s time, while at the same time undertaking local government reorganisation, creating a new Greater Essex integrated care board for the NHS, dealing with unprecedented demand for social care, and implementing the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? As Essex county council has said, the breakneck speed of change across the board is simply unmanageable. Will the Minister even now rethink this proposal, and call off elections for the new unitaries next year?
Alison McGovern
We are committed to the timetable that I have just set out to the House. We are working very closely with colleagues right across government on reorganisation, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to address the issues that the right hon. Member has mentioned. I have already responded to the point about the importance of children’s services.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Eighty-four per cent of the people in Christchurch voted against being forced into a unitary merger with Bournemouth and Poole, and they are still living with the consequences of that merger; a formerly debt-free council is now burdened with enormous debts and inefficiency. This year, the Minister agreed that it could increase its council taxes by even more than 5%. That is what happens when areas are forced into unitary reorganisation, against the wishes of the local people.
Alison McGovern
I think it is safe to say that people have a range of views on this topic. I am happy to listen to them all, but in the end, we need to move forward and improve services.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The children with SEND in my constituency are being let down and ignored by the too-large Lancashire county council. Those of my constituents who are also served by Blackpool, a much smaller unitary, are getting the SEND services that they deserve and need. Does the Minister agree that making things smaller and getting away from the two-tier system helps our constituents by making services better, and looking after our children and our elderly?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I inform the Minister that the previous Conservative Government listened to the people of Essex, and the MPs and county and district councillors for Essex, and cancelled any plans for LGR? That is because county government in Essex predates the Norman conquest. It is more embedded in our history than almost anything else, except perhaps our churches and ancient buildings. Nobody in Tendring district or Colchester city wants to live in an amorphous area called “North East Essex”. What is more, people there know that this upheaval and reorganisation will cost public services, inflict damage on continuity and push up council taxes—and it is good for us, because we will simply blame this wretched gerrymandering Labour Government.
Alison McGovern
Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having an opinion on this subject. I hear what he is saying. Close to me is the county of Cheshire. It was reorganised some years ago, and nobody would say that Cheshire no longer exists. We will move forward with these proposals. In the end, there is nothing that we politicians like more than discussing the architecture of power, but our job is to never lose sight of the wellbeing of the residents we represent.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the hon. Lady achieved her present promotion, I wrote to her to explain why the independents, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on New Forest district council had co-signed, with me, a letter to her predecessor, explaining that out of the four options on offer, the one option that they should not choose was the only one to split up constituencies and interfere with boundaries. The only thing it had going for it was that Southampton city council, led by Labour, wanted to do a land-grab across constituency boundaries. I entered into this process in good faith, and I was prepared for the possibility that, out of the four options, the one selected might not be the one I preferred, but the one thing I thought that the Government would not have the sheer effrontery to do is choose the one option that was disastrous and went against their own criteria. I am ashamed of this, and I bitterly regret supporting Hampshire being part of the first tranche. I should have known better.
Alison McGovern
I do hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his views. The five-unitary proposal offered financial stability, balanced with care for rural and urban needs, and it creates the building blocks for successful devolution. I understand that we will respectfully disagree on some of these proposals, but I none the less thank him for sharing his opinion so clearly.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government’s approach to devolution and local government reform has been chaotic and costly; the delay of the mayoral election in Norfolk and Suffolk is costing our counties £50 million in investment funding. Can the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the three-unitary model for Norfolk can be delivered sustainably, and can she guarantee that funding will be there to ensure that is the case?
Alison McGovern
We think that this option reflects Norfolk’s communities and local identities, and the proposal also had wide support, which is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the need for investment in this country. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to secure investment for housing, public transport and across a whole range of other areas, which we need to help this country grow. Our record on investment is a strong one.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches on this issue, which has profound consequences for my county and my constituency.
I am appalled by the Government’s proposal to break up the great county of Essex into five unitary authorities. That is simply not acceptable. My constituents do not want this at all and they were not part of any engagement. Will the Minister tell my constituents across Witham how much more they will pay in council tax—she has already said that she has been forensically looking at the finances—and outline the impact of council tax harmonisation? What level of Government grant funding will there be for each new council? How much of the countryside will be at risk? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has already mentioned the impact on social services and education. What about planning? This will lead to a major upheaval in Government planning policies. What does that mean for Essex and my constituents? How on earth can the Minister justify to constituents across Essex county why they should pay more in council tax for a policy they simply do not support?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Lady for setting out her views and concerns in the way that she has done. I will happily write to her with further detail on the finances, because there are issues with previous decisions in Essex that are of great concern to me. As I mentioned before in relation to Cheshire and other counties, the counties remain—they are part of our history and our culture; we are looking to have effective unitary authorities.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your dispensation to speak on behalf of my constituents.
Not once in six years in this House have my constituents written to me saying that we need to cleave West Sussex in two, with two educational catchment areas, two different highways authorities, two social care services and two expensive town halls and council offices. Will the Minister, at this late stage, listen to my constituents, reject the proposals put forward by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to cleave our ancient county in two, and join me in saving West Sussex?
Alison McGovern
Well, it’s always worth a try! As I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of our historic counties; it is about effective councils. If I may say so, the hon. Member’s point on what his constituents write to him about gives the game away. The reason we are doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and to make sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life, wherever they are in England.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: Essex has existed since before the Norman conquest, and during those years, everything from the River Lea to the North sea was part of the great county of Essex. Yet today, the people of Havering and my constituents in Romford are not included in any discussion or any consultation; they have no meaningful way of participating in discussions about how we want to go forward. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the people of my borough were given the right to also become a unitary authority, free of the control of the Greater London Authority and City Hall? Will she at least allow Havering to become part of the ceremonial county of Essex so that our identity as part of the ancient county of Essex remains strong?
Alison McGovern
It is good to hear somebody on the Opposition Benches speaking in favour of reorganisation. The hon. Member raises an important point about ceremonial counties. If he would like to write to me about it, I will respond, as he would expect.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There was only one voice demanding the sacrifice of part of the rural New Forest district—it was Labour in Southampton, wasn’t it?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Following on from the reference to Lincolnshire by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I warn the Government that this will come back to bite them. It is over 50 years since northern Lincolnshire was put into County Humberside, and it is still an issue that divides local opinion. We have two unitaries that were carved out of Humberside when it was put to death: north and north-east Lincolnshire. They both want to stay the same. As the Father of the House said, we do not want change in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister get on with making a decision so that we can have the certainty we need?
Alison McGovern
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, given that I grew up in the Wirral where for many years people have been in a heated debate about whether it is Cheshire or Merseyside. I will take account of his views as we move forward.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Labour is causing chaos in local government in East Sussex. After firing the starting gun on tearing up our local government boundaries—something that no resident in East Sussex wanted and that was not in its manifesto—the Government now will not let us out the blocks. My residents are absolutely clear that they do not want to be lumped in with Labour-run Brighton and Hove city council, which will dominate any new unitary authority, sucking up all the money, resources and attention. Is it not true that the only reason the Government are not letting us get on with an East Sussex proposal is because they want to help out their Labour mates in mismanaged, disastrously-run Brighton and Hove city council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. As I have said on Sussex, it is important that we get it right. We want to ensure that we achieve our objectives on economic growth and ensuring that services can be delivered well. We will move forward quickly, but this next intensive period of consultation will not affect the overall timetable.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The criteria for choosing the Government’s preferred options for local government reorganisation seem to have been applied differently in Surrey than in Hampshire and Essex. Will the Government release their reasoning behind it? Let me be clear: when it comes to Hertfordshire, I do not want any reorganisation at all, but if this is forced upon us in Broxbourne, I favour the four unitaries option. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this so that I can put forward my case for my constituents, as it was wrong how many colleagues found out yesterday about their options from the media?
Alison McGovern
There were a couple of questions there. I have met the hon. Gentleman before and, in compliance with the process we are undergoing with reorganisation, I will happily meet him again. He has put his views clearly on the record and they will be taken into account.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The local government reorganisation consultation for Devon closes today. It has had many responses that have all been completed in good faith. Can the Minister reassure Devonians that responses to the consultation will be digested and taken fully into account, especially in the light of the strength of feeling against the plans put forward by the Labour-controlled cities in Devon to expand into Devon’s beautiful green belt, which is surely a land grab to deliver the Labour Government’s housing targets?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for putting her views about Devon on the record. I reassure her that the views of the consultation are taken fully into consideration and that our team at MHCLG have worked extremely hard to do that, and I want to use this opportunity to thank them for doing so.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As the Minister well knows, the consultation for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire closes today, and I urge all my constituents to have their say and ensure that they fill that out by midnight tonight. The Minister knows my feelings clearly about option E and Huntingdonshire unitary authority because she sat through my half-hour debate on the topic, but can she reassure my residents that the feedback given will be taken on board? At the moment, there is a real fear locally that Huntingdonshire will be split in two, and that the identity and character of our historic county will be lost forever in favour of the northern half of Huntingdonshire being merged with Peterborough in option D. Option E is very much the option that the district council wants to go for. Can she reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his question but for giving me the opportunity to hear him speak about the wonders of Huntingdonshire on a couple of occasions. I cannot comment on those proposals specifically, but he has never shied away from putting his views on the record, and he has done so again today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Minister referred to the importance of local identities. As she knows, in the local government reorganisation, my Spelthorne constituency will be subsumed into something called “West Surrey”. I am very much looking forward to meeting her on 22 April to make representations about why it should be called “West Surrey and South Middlesex”, to take account of Spelthorne’s special circumstances. If she is to commission her officials to do any research work in advance of that meeting, may I recommend a book called “The Real Counties of Britain”, written by Mr Russell Grant, which would set the context for our discussion perfectly?
Alison McGovern
By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will appreciate this question. Labour-run Southampton city council has huge debts, and Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh has £800 million-worth of debt. Given the proposal for them to be merged, will the Government do anything about that debt, or will they allow the new council to fall immediately?
Alison McGovern
As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.
Mr Speaker
Well, this will be a very interesting connection! I didn’t realise Strangford was up for reorganisation.
Jim Shannon
We slogged through 10 years of reorganisation and restructuring in Northern Ireland, and not a penny was saved. Indeed, if anything, prices and rates have gone up—this year, the rise in rates has been exceptional. I say gently to the Minister that perhaps it is time to consider and learn from what Northern Ireland has done and where it has gone wrong, so that we can do better here.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.
Alison McGovern
It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 23 March will include:
Monday 13 April—Debate on a motion on SEND provision and reform. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Wednesday 15 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Thursday 16 April—General debate on the Modernisation Committee’s first report of the 2024-26 session on “Access to the House of Commons and its procedures” and the House Administration’s response.
Friday 17 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 April includes:
Monday 20 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
I can also announce to the House that the state opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 13 May 2026.
As is usual, the current Session of Parliament will be prorogued ahead of the King’s Speech and this time will be used to enable logistical and security preparations for the state opening of Parliament.
The date of Prorogation will be confirmed in due course.
John Lamont
I begin by echoing your remarks, Mr Speaker, about our former colleague, David Winnick. I pay my respects to him.
We must all condemn the antisemitic arson attack against the Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on Monday morning. It was a sickening attack on the Jewish community. Antisemitism has no place in our country, and we must stand together against this hatred and intimidation.
Today is Purple Day—the international day of epilepsy awareness. It is an important opportunity to raise understanding of a condition that affects many people across the United Kingdom. I ask the Leader of the House to join me in recognising the work of charities, campaigners and clinicians who support people with that condition.
May we also take a moment to remember Saleh Mohammadi, aged 19, who was a talented wrestler, and all those executed by the Iranian Government? Their courage must not be forgotten. Every Member of this House should stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.
We all want to see the conflict in the middle east brought to an end as quickly as possible, but with rising oil prices, the Government must clarify what they are doing to control inflation and pressures on household budgets. Before the general election, the Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300. I ask the Leader of the House whether that promise still stands, and when he expects the Chancellor to come forward with her next inevitable U-turn on fuel duty.
With less than 50 days to go until much of the country goes to the polls, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), has given a damning assessment of the Government and the Prime Minister. She said that Labour is “running out of time”, that it is not delivering change fast enough and that it represents
“the establishment, not working people.”
She also described some of the Labour Government’s policies as “un-British”. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment, or is the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wrong?
There are also, of course, critical Scottish Parliament elections. The smart way to stop the SNP majority is to vote Scottish Conservative on the peach ballot paper. The SNP is distracted by independence and divisive issues while people face rising prices, weak growth and job insecurity. John Swinney now proposes another push for independence, admitting nobody knows his tactics. Meanwhile, the Labour Government are failing to deliver change. They have abandoned the oil and gas industry in Scotland and broken promises to pensioners and farmers. The Chancellor is driving up bills while increasing debt.
Labour’s repeated U-turns show a Government in chaos, and that chaos is now out in the open, with the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, calling for the Prime Minister to go. Mr Sarwar and the Prime Minister have not spoken in over a month, so I ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister has been banned from Scotland. Has the man supposedly leading the United Kingdom been told not to venture past Carlisle or Coldstream? Is that how weak the Prime Minister has become? Scotland, a place that the Prime Minister visited several times during the general election campaign, is now a no-go area for him.
What of the rest of the Labour Government? Have they also been banned from Labour’s campaign in Scotland? This week, Anas Sarwar said:
“I’ve been open about saying that this is an unpopular UK Labour government and we have an unpopular prime minister, that’s a statement of fact.”
Does the Leader of the House accept that fact? Will this unpopular Labour Government help the Labour campaign in Scotland by staying away, or will they help the SNP by getting involved? The Scottish Conservatives offer a clear alternative: responsible spending, economic growth and lower taxes for hard-working families. This election is about stopping an SNP majority—something we have done before and something we will do again.
Finally, on Tuesday, the official Opposition lost some of our precious debating time because the Chancellor decided to make a statement. Unfortunately, the statement did not announce anything new, and what there was had already been briefed out to Chris Mason at the BBC. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for another half-day Opposition day debate before the end of the Session?
Mr Speaker, as we approach the Easter recess, may I wish you, the Leader of the House and all Members and their staff a very happy Easter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the shadow Deputy Leader of the House for his questions; it is always good to see him in his place. First, I join him in his remarks on the terrible attack in Golders Green. I hope the whole House will join us in condemning this attack on Jewish community ambulances; it was an horrific antisemitic hate crime, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.
This week marked nine years since the murder of PC Keith Palmer, who died protecting this House. His courage and commitment will never be forgotten, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with PC Palmer’s family, friends and colleagues. We thank the police and security officers who keep us and this place safe today.
I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to David Winnick. With a distinguished tenure of more than 40 years, he was unwavering in his commitment to his constituency, and I am sure Members will join me in sending our condolences to David’s friends and family.
I have just announced that the King’s Speech will take place on Wednesday 13 May. At its conclusion, this parliamentary Session will have seen the delivery of over 50 Bills. Through that legislation, we are improving renters’ rights, changing planning laws to streamline the delivery of new homes, bringing our railways into public ownership and strengthening employment rights. We are delivering on the changes that we promised, and we will continue to build on that in the next parliamentary Session.
I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House in wishing all Members a very happy Easter. It will be particularly special for the newly ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to take the role. I hope that all Members will be able to spend some time with their families and in their constituencies during the recess.
Let me turn to the specific remarks from the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I join him in recognising the important work of the charities, consultants, families and others involved in the battle against epilepsy on national epilepsy day. I also join him in standing in solidarity with the people of Iran. Of course, we hope that the conflict will end soon but also that it ends justly.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House asked about the cost of living. We are already bringing down energy bills by £120, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will keep the House updated. As this international crisis unfolds, we will need to take careful stock of what is happening, particularly to energy bills, and we will not only keep the House updated but, if further action is necessary, we will take it.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House referred to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have just read out a list of this Government’s achievements in the first Session. She was at the heart of many of those achievements, so the divide that he seeks to create is not one that exists in reality.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House talked about letting people down, including pensioners. Pensioners will next month see a considerable rise in their state pension as a result of the triple lock, which we are committed to keeping, unlike the Conservative party.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House also talked about the situation in Scotland. I can reassure him that there will be plenty of support for our colleagues and plenty of opportunities for campaigning north of the border, where the choice is a very clear one: to continue with the failure and underachievement of the SNP Government or real change under Scottish Labour. That is the choice, and there will be plenty of opportunities for every member of the parliamentary Labour party and of the party to be out making the case for that change. In terms of what he said about the Scottish Tories, it was great to see him finishing on a joke.
Mr Speaker
May I say to the two Members who came in late, please do not stand to ask a question as I do not want to embarrass you both?
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
On Friday, I met my constituent Andrew Mackay, whose wife, Katy, passed away at the end of September. Like Andrew, Katy was a retired civil servant, having worked for Border Force for over 40 years. Nearly six months later, Andrew is still not receiving his widower’s pension. Despite his repeated calls for updates, his only contact from Capita, which administers the civil service pension scheme, has been confirmation that it has received the necessary documents. After more than 80 years of combined public service by him and his late wife, Andrew feels badly let down. I have previously written to Capita and, following my meeting with Andrew, I wrote to the Minister, but could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Capita and what can be done to hold it to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that this issue has created immense feeling among hon. Members across the House, and concerns about Capita have been raised by many hon. Members during business questions and at other opportunities. The delays are simply unacceptable and they must be resolved as a matter of urgency. I note that Capita representatives are currently appearing before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the matter, so I hope that not only can some light be shed on what is happening but that progress can be made. If my hon. Friend gives me the details of the specific case he raises, I will ensure it is raised directly with Ministers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I echo your tribute to the late David Winnick.
I join Members from all parts of the House in condemning the attack in north London—this House stands united against antisemitism. I am grateful for the Government’s swift commitment to replace the ambulances, which was an important gesture.
I welcome the confirmation of the date for the King’s Speech. As the Leader of the House knows, I will not be present as my first baby is due in a few weeks’ time so I will be on leave, but I hope it all goes well—[Interruption.] Well, as well as it can.
On Iran, it is clear that Trump’s reckless war is causing death and destruction in the region, and that it is having repercussions for everybody across the world. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has made a couple of statements on this issue already. She addressed the particular problem facing heating oil customers and has offered some reassurances that there will be broader targeted support in the weeks to come, but may I bring the House’s attention to another group who have not yet been spoken about: district heat network customers?
Community-based district heat networks are often tied to a single supplier. Customers often live in blocks of flats, usually in cities, and at the moment they are not covered by the Ofgem price cap. Having been a district heat network customer myself, I know that customers are sometimes protected from global supply shocks, but that depends on the network, where the heat comes from and the contracts that the supplier has signed up to. Because they are not protected by the Ofgem price cap, those customers will be extremely worried about what the latest events mean for them, so will the Leader of the House organise for the relevant Minister to come to the House to reassure those customers about what support will be put in place for them in the forthcoming energy crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Government’s response to what happened in Golders Green.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of heat network suppliers that commercially contract for fuel that powers heat network. As he said, they are not subject to the domestic energy price cap. New regulations came into force in January to allow Ofgem to regulate heat networks, giving it the power to investigate and intervene where heat network prices charged to consumers appear to be disproportionate or unfair. We are committed to supporting those who need help most with energy bills during the crisis, and the Chancellor outlined our early steps on that, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
On a personal level, I wish the hon. Gentleman and his partner well over the next few weeks—we look forward to hearing good news. May I also say that it is something of a mystery that the names Alana and Alan have not made a comeback as a popular child’s name? I leave that with him.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Leader of the House concerning our colleague David Winnick?
The Leader of the House has just announced that the Crime and Policing Bill will come back to us for consideration of Lords amendments on 14 April. It will return to the Commons massively expanded and including measures to restrict protests, which were inserted in the Lords. Those measures were snuck in in the same way that a predecessor Conservative Home Secretary did with the Public Order Bill of 2022-23. As this Government seek to restrict the campaigning methods that the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement used, will the Leader of the House confirm that he has spoken to the Chief Whip and Mr Speaker, who have been written to by dozens of MPs? Will he confirm that if the Government will not withdraw the relevant clause, there will be a full debate and a dedicated Division on this proposal for Members of this House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am always conscious of the importance of providing sufficient time for parliamentary scrutiny, and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s lobbying on this matter. As I have just announced, we will have a full day after the recess to consider Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, so my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his case. What is called for a Division is a matter not for me, but for the Chair.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the two weeks after Easter. I note that yesterday the House rose early when the Government business finished. We could have had a three-hour debate in Backbench Business time if that had been made available. I also note that we are not being given any time in the week after Easter, other than half a day on the Monday when we come back.
In Westminster Hall, the debates on Tuesday 14 April will be on hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. On Thursday 16 April, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, followed by debates on the housing needs of young people and the NHS federated data platform. On Tuesday 21 April, there will be a debate on the merits of the independent national revision body on overseeing wheelchair provision. On Thursday 23 April, there will be a debate on access to education and training for young adult carers, followed by a debate on gambling advertising.
I remind the House that Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries should not put in bids to the Backbench Business Committee. I am aware that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) became a PPS after she submitted her bid, and I am grateful to her for arranging for someone else to take on her debate. In addition, may I urge the House to respond to the Modernisation Committee’s consultation on Backbench Business time and petitions?
We had a lively debate on potholes in Transport questions. We have all had the dreadful experience of having a tyre go when driving over a pothole. The pothole is reported and the workforce from the council come round, pour some pitch into it and roll it, but then it rains and the pitch is washed away. In Harrow, we have a unique solution to that. We have a Pothole Pro—affectionately known as Pothole Pete—that recycles the surface and cements a layer to ensure that it cannot be removed. That means that it is far more efficient and effective. Will the Leader of the House commend this to councils up and down the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and for the commitment of his Committee to this place. He and I have discussed on a number of occasions how best we can use time in this place. As he has said, the Modernisation Committee is looking at that now, and I echo his request that Members take part in that consultation and put in a submission.
I cannot make a promise that I am unable to keep. Timings over the next few weeks will be somewhat uncertain, because we will be depending on messages that might or might not come back from the other place, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.
The issue of potholes has been raised with me from across the House on a number of occasions and, I note, it was raised this morning in Transport questions. We are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country. As my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has said, drivers are fed up with the state of roads, and the extra funding that we have provided is for potholes and road maintenance; it is not to be diverted elsewhere. As for my reaction to Pothole Pete, I will draw it to the attention of Transport Ministers and seek their views, rather than give my own.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, I had the pleasure of holding a chess tournament at the Royal School Wolverhampton in my constituency, bringing together primary and secondary school pupils to socialise and compete for individual and team medals. I even managed to play a couple of games myself. Chess is invaluable to young people, helping them to develop intellectual and emotional skills such as problem-solving, resilience, patience and concentration. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the outstanding work of the Chess in Schools and Communities charity—without which the event would not have been possible—and the Royal School for hosting the event, and will he please ask the Secretary of State for Education to advise us on when the funds earmarked to develop chess in schools will be made available via a tender?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question—I know that he is both a keen advocate for chess and a keen player. I join him in commending the Chess in Schools and Communities charity for its work in teaching chess to young people, and the Royal School Wolverhampton for hosting the event. I will raise his specific question about funding with the Department for Education and get him the answer he needs.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This morning’s papers report that my two national health service trusts are the worst in the country. One of the more stupid proposals of the management of one of those trusts was a plan to downgrade Goole and District hospital in my constituency. Under the leadership of the former chief executive, one Jonathan Lofthouse, those underperforming trusts repeatedly lied to me, so the House will not be surprised to hear that we had some robust conversations. Mr Lofthouse was then put on gardening leave at the astonishing salary of £285,000 a year. I would have sacked him out of hand; instead, he is now NHS England’s director of turnaround and recovery for my region, the very body tasked with fixing the failing trusts of which he was a cause. This is the institutional rewarding of failure, and it is by no means the first time. Can we therefore have a debate on the national health service’s habitual strategy of failing upwards managers who have let down our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am shocked by the suggestion that anyone should lie to Members of Parliament—that is entirely unacceptable. The right hon. Gentleman has put on record his concern about that, and I have no doubt that he delivered his concerns in a robust manner. He tried his very best to give as much detail as he could in the limited time we have this morning; I suggest that either he seeks an Adjournment debate on this matter to give further voice to his concerns, or if he wants a meeting with Health Ministers to make his case, I will arrange one for him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As the current Youth Parliament draws to the end of its term, can I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your continued support of our Youth Parliament? Earlier this week, I met Bobby Forbes, who is Cumbria’s Member of Youth Parliament. Yesterday, the Select Committee that he chairs published a report on reform of personal, social, health and economic education. As this Government are rightly extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, could the Leader of the House please explain to us as Members of this Parliament how we could discuss the recommendations of the Youth Select Committee’s report?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. The Youth Select Committee is an excellent initiative, and this Government continue to take steps to ensure that young people’s voices can be heard in our democracy, not least in the dependence we placed on the voices of young people when we drew together our national youth strategy. If I may, I will share my hon. Friend’s question with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which works very closely with the Committee. I also recommend that she applies for a Westminster Hall debate, so that all MPs have the opportunity to discuss the report’s recommendations and the good work that I hope is being done in their constituencies to promote the voices of young people.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My office has seen an increase in my constituents coming to me because of an uptick in visa processing delays—visas for which they are often paying an increased fee. I really do worry about the sustainability of the Home Office’s processes, particularly in the light of the immigration reforms that this Government are making. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an update from the Department about what it is doing to address those delays?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw the hon. Lady’s concerns to the attention of the Department, and ensure either that she gets an update individually or—if appropriate—that the House gets an update.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Currently, the rules and standards for taxis vary across the country, and they can operate in completely different areas from where they get their licence. Government action to tackle that will take a step forward next week when the consultation ends. Derby taxi drivers have worked with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) to push for higher standards, greater safety and a level playing field for taxis. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging drivers and passengers to take part in that consultation? Will he ensure that there is parliamentary time to hear from Ministers about next steps, once we have the results?
Sir Alan Campbell
Taxi and private hire vehicles play a vital part in local transport, connecting residents to the local economy and enabling businesses and residents to reach wider transport networks. I certainly join my hon. Friend in encouraging local authorities, taxi and private hire vehicle businesses and passengers to participate in the consultation before it closes. We also have the Minister with responsibility for these matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), sitting next to me.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I endorse your tribute to the late David Winnick? I had occasion to observe him in action in this House for the first 20 years of my time here, and I can certainly confirm that he was a strong character with an independent mind. That is the best tribute one can make to a resolute Back Bencher.
May I appeal for a debate in Government time on the importance of the credibility of consultation processes, bearing in mind that we have been through one for local government reform and our contributions seem to have been overwhelmingly ignored? It would be a shame if people felt that there was no point in participating in a consultation process because the outcome had been predetermined on party political grounds.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says about David Winnick. He was a man of independent mind, and as a former Whip, I can attest to that.
On the wider matter of consultations and reviews, I hope that the public do not get to a situation where they believe that their views, having been given, do not count. The reality is that in some cases people will give their views and they simply do not get the outcome that they want. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are keeping under review the number of consultations and reviews. At the appropriate time, I am sure that Ministers will want to bring forward their views, and perhaps we will have a debate on the matter.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon, suffered the loss of their unborn child, Matilda, at 36 weeks. Like every parent in England and Wales who goes through this trauma, they were required to attend the registrar’s office in person to register the stillbirth. Sitting in a waiting room with new parents and babies made the grief even harder than it needed to be. I am supporting their calls for the parents of stillborn babies to be able to register remotely, as they can already in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House advise on the best way to secure that change, and will he join me in crediting the campaign led by Cassie and Ryan?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and for how he has done so. I am sure the whole House will join me in recognising Cassie and Ryan’s campaign for this change after such a devastating experience. I understand that the General Register Office is considering options for registering births and deaths over the telephone or online to minimise the burden on bereaved families, but I will make sure that Ministers in the Home Office have heard my hon. Friend’s question and that he gets an update.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I will bring up one more time the state of our roads, particularly in Hampshire. I was a horse vet before I was elected, so there is probably not a single road I have not driven down. Thankfully I had a 4x4, because I genuinely needed that for the roads, not just the farm tracks. Where I live in Shawford, they are not just potholes, but craters; it is like driving on the surface of the moon. Hampshire county council, run by the Conservatives, is saying that it has no money to fix the potholes. I know that council budgets are not the remit of central Government, but potholes have become such a problem. Is there the opportunity to have a debate or a review, so that we can have some emergency funding to fix these roads? It is not fair that our constituents need to pay for financial mismanagement.
Sir Alan Campbell
We are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country, and a record £7.3 billion for councils over the next four years, but in some cases questions need to be directed towards councils on how they are using that money. As I said previously, the Secretary of State is very keen that it is spent in the right way, but I appreciate the concern of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, indeed, of the farmers he previously worked with. I am quite sure that they will all be keen to learn about the action we are taking not only to tackle potholes, but to tackle vets’ bills.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Yesterday I was very sorry to be absent from the very powerful Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is seeking justice for our nuclear veterans after previously covered-up information has proved that there was radiation fallout. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that this is the longest-running scandal in British history. May I plead with him that, in preparing for the new Session, he advocates for a one-year special inquiry to be included in the King’s Speech?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on these matters, and I thank her for that. I will not speculate on what might or might not be in the King’s Speech, but I will certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Morgan McSweeney resigned from the Government in disgrace over his role in the Mandelson scandal. The key word is “resigned”—he was not made redundant. I have been asking the Cabinet Office whether he has received a taxpayer-funded cash payout from the Government as part of his deal for exiting No. 10. I asked a named day written parliamentary question the day after he resigned, and the question was ignored. I asked another named day written parliamentary question that was due an answer on Monday, and it was ignored. I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House yesterday, and I have still heard nothing. It is a straightforward question: either he did receive a cash payout for leaving No. 10, or he did not. If he did, how much was it? The Government have had six weeks to provide this information, and I have made three formal attempts to get them to do so. Does the Leader of the House think that is acceptable?
Mr Speaker
Order. We still have a lot of Members to get in. The hon. Gentleman is clearly riled by this issue and keeps raising it, so he might be better off applying for an Adjournment debate.
Sir Alan Campbell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly echo what you have just said about applying for an Adjournment debate, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. He will know that my very strong view is that Members of this House who ask reasonable questions—indeed, any questions—should get an answer wherever possible. I will follow up on his behalf and see if we can get the answer he seeks.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
As Members across the House will be well aware from their own constituency caseloads, the performance of Capita in administering the civil service pension scheme has been disastrous. May we have a debate in Government time on the decision to award Capita the Synergy contract for shared services across Government Departments, which is worth up to £950 million—notwithstanding Labour’s manifesto commitment to bring about the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation? With respect, could I prevail on the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to meet urgently with the Public and Commercial Services Union, whose members are worried that they will face similar delays in receiving their own salaries and will find themselves unable to pay their rent, mortgages and other bills?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister. The payroll contract was signed following a robust 12-month procurement process, but it was undertaken prior to the recent issues with Capita’s administration of the civil service pension scheme. Whether it is pensions or payroll, our priority is to ensure that we get continuity of service and value for money for the public.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about the rise of the far right across the whole UK? There is barely a constituency in the country that is not touched by its poison, hate and misinformation as it tries to continue to divide our communities, but on Saturday we fight back. The Together Alliance—an alliance of political parties, trade unions and cultural organisations—will take to London’s streets with the message of love, hope and unity in what will be the biggest ever march against the far right we have ever seen. I am pretty sure that the Leader of the House will want to wish this endeavour well, and maybe we will even see him along with us on Saturday.
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that people make their voices heard with their concerns about the far right. It is important that we stand up to the division that the far right seeks to bring not just to our local communities, but to our nation, particularly in the run-up to local elections. It is important that we expose not only that, but—where the far right is present in local government—its record, which is invariably appalling.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) may call me Pothole Pete after this question. Residents in Bracknell Forest are frustrated about potholes, so I welcome the fact that Bracknell Forest council has committed over £7 million to fixing local roads in this year’s budget, backed by millions of pounds of support from this Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that this shows how a Labour council and the Labour Government can work together to address residents’ priorities and deliver better roads across the borough?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I agree that where councils are doing it right—in this case, a Labour council is doing it right—it is important that their record is out there. As I have said, our record funding settlement over the next four years will enable local authorities to fill millions of additional potholes. This is not just about throwing money at the problem; it is about making sure that the money is spent on fixing roads. Where good local councils, such as my hon. Friend’s, have such a record, I hope residents, if they are going to the polls in May, appreciate that situation.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I represent Salisbury hospital, which has one of the eight specialist spinal units in the country. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). We are very concerned about the Government’s plans to commission spinal services through integrated care boards, which directly contradicts a recent report advocating a national strategy as the best way to maintain specialist nursing numbers and avoid a postcode lottery for treatment and outcomes. Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to give a statement to the House on the rationale behind this decision, which has massive implications for a very vulnerable community of patients?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are concerns across the House about the way that spinal injuries have been treated in the past. I am pleased that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who has an exemplary record in this regard. Because people, including my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, are concerned about this, if he wishes to meet the appropriate Health Minister, I will help to arrange a meeting for both of them, and for other Members if they are interested.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
In January, 15-year-old Jordan Kerr went to the aid of a person who had collapsed on the platform at Drumchapel train station. Jordan administered CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—having learned that skill in the Army cadets, and ultimately helped to save the passenger’s life. Will the Leader of the House join me in offering our thanks and congratulations to Jordan and wish him all success in his campaign to have a defibrillator installed at Drumchapel station?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. Over 110,000 defibrillators are registered in the UK, and over 30,000 have been added over the past two years, many as a result of local community-led action. I join her in offering our sincere thanks to Jordan for his lifesaving actions—and I also thank those involved in the Army cadets for the fantastic work they do in training young people—and in wishing him all the best with his campaign to install a defibrillator at Drumchapel station.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Michael is autistic and actively psychotic, and he has a confirmed lack of capacity. His parents have power of attorney. His chronic medical problems include cysts deep in his chest that could burst at any time, bowel disease, myopathy and sleep apnoea. His family contacts me with increasing distress as Michael has not washed or changed his clothes in eight months, refuses food, makes direct threats of violence to his mother, forbids his parents from using the phone, and compels his father to drive him around town after midnight. A multidisciplinary team decided on 3 March that a court of protection application was needed, but no agency accepts responsibility for filing. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to ensure that his proposed reforms to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 address cases where capacity assessment has been made? All the professionals agree on the course of action but no statutory agency will act, leaving his elderly carers at risk of violence in their own home.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very concerned to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises and will certainly draw her concerns to the attention of the Health Secretary.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Tommy’s Lounge in Huddersfield is a dedicated drop-in support hub for veterans and their families. It provides peer support, mental health signposting and community connection. However, the service is facing a funding shortfall. The Government have announced Operation Valour to build a national network of recognised veteran support centres. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers what emergency funding is available for established community veteran support organisations such as Tommy’s Lounge, and how the Government will ensure that existing services are not lost while the Valour framework is rolled out?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and commend everyone at Tommy’s Lounge for their work supporting our veterans. I will raise it with the Veterans Minister on her behalf. Operation Valour is a cornerstone of the Government’s veterans strategy, the first in over seven years. It will better connect local services, charities and national services, but she is absolutely right to draw attention to what happens while those services are being rolled out.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Government have designated April the Month of the Military Child to recognise the unique demands and pressures on the children of service personnel, particularly in times of heightened international tension and when we have military personnel deployed on operations overseas. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging all Members to pay particular attention to whether they have sons and daughters of service personnel in their constituency, to focus on them and understand them as much as possible, and to see what provision is being made for them in schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is particularly significant at this time of international conflict. The House will take note of what he says. I certainly join him in saying that where there are children of military families—and, indeed, friends and family who will be concerned—MPs should do everything they can to ensure they get the full support they need.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
In Bolton West, my constituents are concerned that proposed funding for a section of link road called Park Avenue has been trumpeted as unlocking a further 4,000 homes near Westhoughton. The link road will only take traffic so far, causing congestion elsewhere. My constituents do not object in principle to new house building, but developers have a track record of building homes first and then completing infrastructure as an afterthought. In the meantime, my constituents continue to endure what is now a decade of frustration with insufficient roads, school places or GP capacity. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of an infrastructure-first approach to local development?
Sir Alan Campbell
For too many homeowners, as my hon. Friend says, the experience of living on a newly developed housing estate has been tainted by the consequences of unadopted infrastructure. We have recently concluded our consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework and we will publish our response in due course. I will ensure that the House is kept updated.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Following roadwork infrastructure improvements in Ilkley, many residents and local businesses have been struggling since the middle of January due to utility works that are taking place on the middle of the A65. Following many a meeting with Bradford council’s traffic management officers, it seems that the traffic management plan that was signed off initially did not mandate that the work was undertaken round the clock 24/7, including weekends. This has led to huge inconvenience, so may we have a debate in Government time on how, to start with, we can have better traffic management plans that cause the least disruption for residents and local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that Bradford council has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which will obviously be shared by his residents. I invite him to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise not just this specific issue, but the wider issue of utility works going forward.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The majority of businesses on our high streets add great value to our communities, but there are some where criminality takes place, and that is putting people off visiting their local town centres. Where premises are host to illegal activity, councils can issue closure orders prohibiting access, but those orders can only be made for a maximum of three months before dodgy businesses are allowed to open and operate again. Would the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that local authorities have additional means, set out in statute, to bear down on illicit activity that really harms our high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are committed to reviving our high streets. The Home Office is in the process of establishing a cross-departmental taskforce to develop a strategic, long-term policy response to things like money laundering and illegality to ensure that our high streets are fit for purpose. I will make sure that Ministers have heard her concerns and that when the taskforce begins its work, she gets regular updates.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
A constituent of mine experienced several instances of sexual harassment within the Church of England’s diocese of London between 2017 and 2020. Within that timeline, she was also raped by a church worker after she was coerced by the Church to report historical abuse. Through a series of written questions, I learned recently that the Church of England body responsible for managing safeguarding risks is also responsible for managing reputational risks. It strikes me that those two objectives are incompatible. Does the Leader of the House agree?
Sir Alan Campbell
It certainly sounds that way. Sexual harassment—wherever it takes place and whoever is responsible—is entirely unacceptable. If the hon. Gentleman seeks a meeting with the relevant Minister to address his concerns, I will ensure that he gets it.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Not for the first time at business questions, I am raising the Arthur Terry Learning Partnership, which is a multi-academy trust in the west midlands that runs six schools in my constituency, and 24 in total. The trust found itself in significant financial distress at the start of this year, leading to nine days of strike action across a number of schools. The new leadership at the trust is working hard to rectify that; it has taken great strides, and the strikes are now paused. The major blockage for the trust now, though, is servicing a debt that was accrued under previous leadership. Will the Leader of the House secure a meeting for me and other affected Members with the Department for Education to discuss what we can do about how that debt is restructured, with the aim of saving up to 23 teachers’ jobs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise these matters on behalf of his constituents. I will do everything I can to ensure that he gets that meeting with the relevant Minister.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My constituents share the same hospital trust as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who raised a number of issues earlier. I certainly share his concerns and criticisms. It is important to my constituents to be reassured that, despite the failings of senior management, frontline services are still being delivered. Last week, I visited the renal unit at Grimsby hospital, which is operated by Nephrocare. The unit has an excellent manager, Renata Jaworska, and the service it provides was clearly well received by the patients I spoke to. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the provision of services by companies similar to Nephrocare, which clearly provide an excellent service within the structure of the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and I join him in thanking Renata and all the hard-working staff at Nephrocare. The Government are committed to improving our healthcare, and our 10-year health plan will fundamentally rewire and future-proof our NHS. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate, not only to highlight the good news in his area, but to look at what the future might be.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The right of tenants and residents in social housing to manage their own estate is an important one. Many tenant management organisations deliver excellent services for their residents. However, that is not the case for residents of the Loughborough estate in my constituency, who have been badly failed by the Loughborough estate management board for many years, with poor repairs and maintenance services and truly shocking conditions on the estate. The mechanisms to resolve those issues are within the control of the very organisation that is failing residents. The renewal ballot for the LEMB is now more than a year overdue, and a recent annual general meeting was held outside the rules, with many residents denied entry. Can we have a debate in Government time on resident and tenant management organisations, and changes in the law that may be needed to ensure that, when things go as badly wrong as they have on the Loughborough estate, steps can be taken quickly to intervene?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question on behalf of not just the Loughborough estate, but her wider constituency. Many tenant management organisations provide excellent resident-led housing services, but when they go wrong it is right that they are held to account. We are reviewing the relevant regulations and guidance with the help of an expert steering group, and we will set out our next steps once the review concludes. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears of my hon. Friend’s concerns and that she gets an update when those next steps become clear.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
A small business owner in my constituency who relies on Facebook and Instagram to market her flower business has had her accounts disabled and advertising blocked after she was mistakenly flagged as spam by the system; she has heard nothing back. All the while, we know that scam and spam adverts—many powered by artificial intelligence —litter social media platforms. Will the Leader of the House make time to consider the importance of social media to British businesses and the responsibilities of the social media companies to support legitimate businesses and tackle scammers? If the Government are pulling the AI Bill, will legislation come forward urgently to tackle AI-powered scams?
Sir Alan Campbell
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his concerns about what has happened to his constituent. He is right that it is vital for many small and medium-sized businesses to be able to access social media. I will not speculate about what will happen in legislation, but I am sure that Ministers will have heard his concerns.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
In recent weeks, I have heard from many fathers in my constituency concerned about the attitude they have encountered from the Child Maintenance Service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, including assumptions that they are trying to shirk payments, absence of support when ex-partners cut off their contact with their children, and accusations being recorded without their side even being heard. Yes, there are manipulative and abusive men out there, but most dads are not like that and deserve to be treated fairly, not with prejudice. May we have a debate on the experiences of fathers in dealing with our family courts and the CMS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the House. I am sure that colleagues will have heard similar from some of their constituents. The Child Maintenance Service plays a vital role in supporting families, but the Government are clear that it can do more to deliver a fair and trustworthy service. He may know that last week there was a Westminster Hall debate on the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is six weeks since, at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the case of my constituent who had three family members killed in a dangerous driving crime by a foreign offender, after which the Prisons Minister refused to act to prevent the offender’s deportation. I requested a meeting with the Minister on behalf of the family, who, as victims, want to explain the impact on them, but a month on there has been no reply. Will the Leader of the House use his office to remind Lord Timpson of the importance of timely responses to such requests?
Sir Alan Campbell
Lord Timpson is a truly excellent Prisons Minister. I do not know the detail of what may have gone wrong in this case, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to his attention.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of visiting the newly opened Pens Meadow SEND school in Dudley. That fantastic and long-awaited school has transformed opportunities for local children, families and staff, and stands as a testament to the vision of the headteacher, Marie Hunter. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the school and thanking Marie and her team, and will he grant time for a debate on improving SEND provision in the Black Country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. We will reform the SEND system, because we need to transform the life chances of every child with additional needs. We have already committed £4 billion to make every mainstream school in England an inclusive school. I join her in welcoming Marie Hunter and all of the staff at the new Pens Meadow school. I have just announced that there will be a debate on SEND on the first day back after the Easter recess, and I hope that my hon. Friend can make her case then.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
This week, I was shocked to hear about the unacceptable living conditions that my constituents are enduring at Haynes Park Court in Hornchurch. Leaseholders and tenants paying substantial service charges report rat infestations, black mould, damp and water leaks, alongside concerns about antisocial behaviour throughout the estate. Despite repeated attempts to engage with the managing company, London and Quadrant, about these issues, residents feel ignored, neglected and completely let down. Does the Leader of the House agree that housing associations like L&Q must be held to account? Will he make time for a debate on improving living conditions for my constituents and others who are facing similarly appalling conditions at the hands of housing associations that are failing in their duty to local residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
Housing associations are required to deliver on the regulatory standards set out by the social housing regulator. Referrals can be made to the regulator where there are concerns that registered providers are not delivering on the proper standards, but I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Member’s concerns.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
When I went campaigning with Paul Godzik, Suzanne Grahame and Siobhan Paterson, three outstanding Scottish Labour candidates in the Holyrood elections, I was often asked, “What’s the difference between Scottish Labour and the SNP?” Well, let us try this one on for size. I joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Grangemouth in December as she announced £120 million to save 500 jobs on site and the future of the UK chemicals industry. Let us compare that with the SNP Government announcement yesterday. They have decided that they are going to buy more buses built in China than in Larbert and Falkirk. I know how I feel, but what does the Leader of the House make of the SNP abandoning Scottish workers, communities and industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the record of this Government in supporting workers at Grangemouth. He is also absolutely correct in his analysis and condemnation of the record of the SNP in this case and in many others too. The reality is that the SNP Government are, and have been for some time, letting down Scottish workers. It is disgraceful that they are making decisions without due regard to what is best for Scottish workers. I hope that they have heard my hon. Friend here today and that his constituents and people more widely reflect on that when they get the opportunity to do so in just a few weeks’ time.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Two people a day are diagnosed with cancer during or right after pregnancy, yet their maternity leave cannot be deferred. That means that mums are missing out on precious time bonding with their baby—time they will never get back—as they undergo urgent and necessary treatment. It is clear that legislation must be changed to properly support mothers with cancer, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the merits of allowing mothers to defer maternity leave until their cancer treatment is complete?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a very interesting question. It brings together two things that the Government are determined to do: to make sure that we provide the very best support for people suffering from cancer, and to make sure that we support parents, particularly new parents, if this should arise. I do not know the answer to the hon. Member’s question what can be done, but I will bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister and see whether the Department is about to bring forward something that might address it.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The latest Department for Education performance tables rank Rochdale sixth-form college as the No. 1 sixth-form college in England. It already scored highly on exam results, but it is now first in England for A-level progress, applied general progress, academic progress and, crucially, progress for disadvantaged students in both A-levels and BTECs. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the students and staff at Rochdale sixth-form college on proving that Rochdale students really are a class act?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House. I join him in congratulating everyone at Rochdale sixth-form college, including all the students, on their exceptional, fantastic achievement. Our education reforms will ensure that the country’s education system delivers opportunity for all, and we have invested £800 million extra in further education for 16 to 19-year-olds. I shall certainly draw to the Education Secretary’s attention the success in his constituency, and long may it continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Naimi, a young Baha’i in Iran, was tortured into giving a false confession that was later broadcast on state media. He has been subjected to severe beatings, interrogation, and mock executions, in which he had a noose placed around his neck. All this happened in an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detention facility. This has serious implications for the wider Baha’i community in Iran. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Iranian authorities regarding Mr Naimi’s case, and to raise concerns about the treatment of Baha’is and the use of false confessions in Iran?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and I thank him for that. We strongly condemn the repression of religious minorities in Iran, notwithstanding the grave uncertainty about what is happening now. This issue will continue, whatever the outcome of the situation there. The case that he raises is concerning. I will make sure that he gets a response from the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office on what it has done, and what its intention is. On a personal note, may I wish the hon. Gentleman happy birthday for yesterday?
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
At Jameson Road landfill site, the stink is only getting worse. It is making the lives of my constituents unbearable, yet the crooks responsible at Transwaste still have not gone back to Yorkshire, and have set up a new company called Transwaste NW, presumably to hide their dodgy activities. Will the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will not allow firms like Transwaste to evade accountability for their crimes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can, because this is a very concerning matter. This week, the Government published their waste crime action plan, which sets out a zero-tolerance approach to waste crime. I understand that the Environment Agency is considering all regulatory options to reduce and prevent any impact on the people of Fleetwood, and it has been clear with Transwaste about these expectations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call out Transwaste today. The Environment Agency will continue to hold it to account, and will work closely with the local council.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent host excellent tourism hotspots and venues, and my constituency plays a key part in that. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the businesses in Burton and Uttoxeter that won in this year’s Visit Staffordshire tourism awards, including: Uttoxeter racecourse; Denstone Hall farm shop and café; George Lowe and Lowe’s on Carter Street; and the Duncombe Arms in Ellastone?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone in Burton and Uttoxeter on winning the Visit Staffordshire tourism awards. It just goes to show what a fantastic community my hon. Friend represents. I am also advised by my Parliamentary Private Secretary that Staffordshire is a lovely place. I am absolutely sure that the awards to which my hon. Friend refers are well-deserved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will get everybody in, but may I remind Members that business questions should pertain to the business of the House, and that it is customary to ask the Leader of the House to grant Government time for a debate or a statement? We appear to have had a run of questions to which the business has not really been that relevant.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Last week, I was delighted to welcome £20 million of long-term Pride in Place funding for Heavitree East and Whipton in Exeter. This funding will be transformational for those communities, after years in which they have felt left behind by the last Government. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the most exciting aspect of Pride in Place, which is that it is designed to give residents a full say in how the funding is used in their community, and might there be a debate in Government time on community engagement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in celebrating receipt of this funding. We have committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 neighbourhoods, and we have begun to set up neighbourhood boards, so that local people can decide for themselves how best to spend the money. He may wish to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on this important programme when we return after the recess.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, residents in Shiremoor and Cramlington have been contacting me about significant delays to post deliveries. Some report letters arriving once every 10 days. This is having a real impact on constituents, and in one case, a delay in receiving post resulted in an interruption of disability living allowance for a child. Given that Royal Mail has stated that there are no widespread issues, what steps can Members take to hold Royal Mail to account, so that I can ensure reliable postal services for my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
Last week, a well-attended Westminster Hall debate addressed the declining performance of Royal Mail. It reflected falling confidence among Members of the House, and the increasing anger about service failures, as described by my hon. Friend today. It is clear that there is cross-party support for improving the situation. I hope that Royal Mail hears that message loud and clear, and I will also ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are raised directly with the Department, because things need to improve.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Yesterday’s announcement by the Government of an increase in the number of youth hubs, and the confirmation of the new locations, which include one in my constituency, is such incredible news. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this wonderful news for West Dunbartonshire? It will go a long way towards breaking down barriers to opportunity for the young people of my constituency. Will he also arrange for a statement on this matter after the recess?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is indeed wonderful news. We are working hard to make sure that young people are supported. Youth Futures hubs will bring together services for young people, so that they can access opportunities and get the support that they need in their local communities. The national youth strategy is about empowering young people. It was written by, effectively, young people, and it puts them in the driving seat when it comes to designing local youth services. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that other colleagues would want to take part and praise what is happening in their area.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Heritage is devolved, and the Scottish Government have not yet provided a replacement for the listed places of worship VAT reclaim scheme, causing significant distress and uncertainty for places of worship in my constituency. Angus Robertson has justified this by saying that the UK Government did not inform them that the scheme was ending. It has since been established that they were first informed about the change by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in January 2025; that gave them a year and two budgets to replace the scheme. Instead, in their most recent budget, they cut Historic Environment Scotland’s funding. Can we have a statement on the subject after the recess from a DCMS Minister, so that Scottish Members from across the House who have raised this matter during business questions can call on the SNP to drop the political posturing and deliver a scheme for Scottish places of worship?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a regular attendee of business questions, and I know that many share his appreciation of the importance of places of worship in communities. The reality is that we gave the Scottish Government the largest funding settlement since devolution began, and we gave them notice of what we were going to do, so he is absolutely right: the SNP needs to stop posturing on these matters, stop the political point scoring, and get on and deliver.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My constituents have been let down by poor bus services in Leeds South West and Morley for too long, so I am delighted that all buses in Leeds will be brought back under public control next year. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my residents to complete my better buses survey, so that we can make sure that the Weaver Network actually works for us, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the importance of publicly controlled bus networks?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our Bus Services Act 2025 is letting local leaders in communities like my hon. Friend’s take back control of services. I join him in encouraging his constituents to complete his survey and make sure that their voices are heard. I also recommend that he applies for what I am sure will be a popular Westminster Hall debate.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
There are 461 looked-after children in Telford and the Wrekin, and I want to see every one of them given the care, support and opportunities that they need to thrive. I am grateful to the organisations large and small, and the residents across Telford, who have helped me in my efforts to deliver an Easter egg to every looked-after child in Telford. They include Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, Housing Plus Group, Sophie’s Sweetcheeks, Dawley Social Club, the Outpost and many more. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking these organisations, wish every child in care across our country a happy Easter, and grant Government time for a debate on corporate parenting?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend describes how strong his local community is; people there are coming together to make sure that looked-after children get the support that they need. That is certainly the hope and intention of this Government. I thank everybody involved in those efforts, and I wish them a happy Easter. When we return, I will certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend’s request.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Sunderland is a happier place than Mar-a-Lago at the moment. Perhaps that is why the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is visiting today, having called on the UK to do all we can to support the US and Israel’s war on Iran. But I am here to stand up for Sunderland, not for Donald Trump, so can I impress on the Leader of the House that my constituents do not want to be drawn into a war that is not our own, and that they are concerned about rising petrol prices? Will he make ample time after the recess for these views to continue to be heard, and will he ensure that the Government continue to make decisions solely in the British national interest?
Sir Alan Campbell
What a contrast—from celebrations after the local derby last Sunday, to the approaching dark cloud of the arrival of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns on behalf of his community. We are responding to the crisis in the middle east with the calm, level-headed leadership that the situation demands. We are entirely focused on our national interests. That is in stark contrast to Reform, which does not know, from one day to the next, what the national interest actually looks like. I know that the good people of Sunderland have a strong sense of community, and the good sense to reject policies of division.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The clocks change this weekend, and at a stroke we will have light in the evenings. We could have light at evenings all year round if we adopted Churchill time; it would also cut bills, reduce road traffic accidents and boost the hospitality industry. Given that this is a cross-departmental issue, how can I best get traction on this, so that we can be the Labour Government who really light up everybody’s lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but I am afraid I have to disappoint her. The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK, so there are no plans to introduce double summer time or any such changes.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Government are committed to effective cross-departmental working, yet my constituent Suzi has had tremendous problems getting different agencies to work together simply to get an effective wheelchair delivered to her home. Does the Leader of the House agree that cross-agency working needs to improve, and will he arrange for a statement to be delivered to the House on the progress that the Government are making?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, let me express my sympathies for Suzi. We talk about many issues in this place, and it is easy to forget sometimes the impact on people’s lives in our constituencies. I agree with my hon. Friend that cross-departmental working is important. If he provides me with the case details, I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Long Eaton Town Deal Board has been accelerating towards delivery of so many projects—a new events field, a new office space, a pair of beautiful bridges across the Erewash canal, and a stunning rebuild of our town centre. So many have contributed, but none more so than our board chair, local business leader and proud champion of Long Eaton Richard Ledger. Last week, Richard was awarded the freedom of the borough of Erewash for his immeasurable service to our patch. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating him on this award, and will he consider granting time to discuss the importance of such awards for our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend on congratulating Richard Ledger and the successes of the Long Eaton Town Deal Board. As he knows, through our Pride in Place programme, we are helping communities to take back control. This goes to show what can happen when communities are in the driving seat, have the resources that they need, and have fantastic individuals like Richard Ledger, who can make best use of the resources and show leadership on these matters. Should he wish to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, I am sure that he and other Members could use it to speak about the good things that are happening in many of our constituencies.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Residents in Vernons Mews in Nuneaton, managed by Marston management company, are facing homelessness for the third time following a prohibition order that was first issued in August 2025 by Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service. For months, I have been working cross-agency to tackle myriad issues, yet a temporary fire system installed back in August 2025, which the fire safety crew deemed inappropriate for the residential building that it is in, is still in place and there are no permanent solutions. May I join the call for Government time to be given to the issues of tenancy management companies, and will my right hon. Friend please update me on what further steps can be taken to address these failures?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. As she points out, similar concerns were raised earlier. I am sorry to hear of the issues faced by her constituents and I understand her frustration. We are committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents to drive the standard of their service. I will make sure that Ministers are aware of the case. I hope that they will be able to provide her with an update on our plans, but I have also listened to her call and that of others for time to hear further about these matters.
National Savings & Investments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings & Investments. On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of that failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates as they should have been. Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customer holdings where they were spread across multiple profiles or systems.
Hon. Members will be aware of historical challenges in financial services in this regard. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following notification that a customer had passed on. That received significant attention at the time. However, what is now clear is that NS&I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as fully as I and, more importantly, their customers, would expect, and nor did the last Government act.
Bereaved families, whose loved ones held accounts with NS&I, will rightly be anxious about this news, so let me turn to the action that we have taken and the further steps that we are putting in place today. Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured that external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of the errors. Through this work, NS&I has reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025. The number is likely to fall in future, but although it represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, that is still far too many.
NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit-taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising today. The Government’s priorities now are threefold. First—and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place—NS&I has received written assurances from its customer-facing supplier Sopra Steria that the causes of the tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation, given that it was responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025.
Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds. Those deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. The issue is about tracing and not the security of any funds, but it is important, none the less. NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team and hired an additional 100 staff. I have asked it to publish a delivery plan in May detailing how they will take forward the work to reunite funds with their owners. This will cover: the number of cases affected; how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds that they are due, including interest on savings; and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid.
There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor. I reassure people that the onus is not on them but on NS&I to act—to contact estate representatives and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week. I will also ensure that MPs have a dedicated means of contacting NS&I to raise any constituency cases directly.
Dealing with bereavement is always challenging, and I am sure that we all recognise that finding out, as party of that, that such errors have been made could be distressing. We are committed to ensuring that NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of the error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan in May.
Current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website. Because in the past some searches have focused too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed NS&I to make it simpler for people to search for all the accounts or products that they might hold.
Our third priority is institutional. NS&I plays an important role, helping the public to save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues that I have laid out today. It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation programme. The programme was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track.
With all this in mind, I also want to make sure that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, I have appointed Sir Jim Harra—former first permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to take over as the chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. I also recognise the 22 years of public service of his predecessor Dax Harkins at NS&I.
As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to the tracing problem and to set out what lessons must be learned by NS&I. I have discussed this with Sir Jim and am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NS&I in the months ahead. I will ensure that Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion.
NS&I holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those saving with it and by this Government. I repeat NS&I’s apology to its customers and reiterate that every penny of their savings is safe, and—as always—they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. This scandal affects tens of thousands of people, and it could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NS&I is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere for people to put their savings—a place where savers can trust that their money will be looked after. As we have heard, 24 million people do so. It is also a savings scheme that the Government can use as a benefit to taxpayers, borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country. It needs to be demonstrably secure.
In reality, bereaved families have been short-changed, with NS&I losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking newspaper reporting today, we have heard how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further six to nine months for a resolution. Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. NS&I has in the past tried to blame some of these failures on covid and the outsourcing of staff, but whatever its excuse, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management.
NS&I is letting down its customers, and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NS&I that was meant to cost £1.3 billion has now ballooned to £3 billion. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digitalisation plan, calling it a “full-spectrum disaster” and concluding that NS&I is “over-confident” and
“has no workable plan, and no idea of eventual cost.”
If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, why have this Government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that NS&I is short-changing savers at a time when raising money for the Government has never been needed more.
NS&I is an arm’s length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an Executive agency of the Chancellor, so it is concerning that the Minister has today admitted that NS&I notified the Treasury of these operational failings on 18 December last year. It has apparently taken a breaking news story in The Daily Telegraph for the Government to make a statement today. Can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? He also says that the previous Government failed to act. That implies that there was something to act on. Can he set out what actions he has taken between coming to power on 4 July 2024 and 18 December 2025?
I have some further questions for the Minister. What provision has been made for compensation and who will pay for it? Where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports that the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this issue and the botched digital transformation process. Can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned, or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether the chief executive received bonuses over this period of poor performance? Finally, what confidence do the Minister and the Government have that this is the true depth of the problem affecting bereaved families? What work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? I am not trying to imply that it is the tip of an iceberg, but I ask the question to ensure that this is the limit of the problem.
People have been let down. While NS&I has apologised for the mistakes, it will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The Government need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. The Opposition will work collaboratively with the Government to ensure a swift resolution.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. I obviously absolutely agree with him that customers deserve better and they deserve reassurance. I have tried to provide that today by setting out what we are doing, and giving everybody reassurance that their savings are 100% safe and are guaranteed by the Government.
The hon. Member asks why we have come to the House today. This has been the intention for some time. As he says, we were notified in December. During that period, we have reviewed the over 34 million cases of customer records, as I mentioned, and have put in place the process to ensure that we have fixed this problem as we go forward, so that we can provide the reassurance for customers that I know we both want. I have also put in place the change of leadership that I have set out today, about which the hon. Member asked. I can confirm that the former chief executive of NS&I has resigned today and that he did not receive a bonus last year.
The hon. Member asked about the cost to taxpayers. There has been some deeply misleading reporting over the course of the last 24 hours, so I want to be absolutely clear: the money we are talking about returning to estates belongs to those estates—it is their money. The returning of people’s money to them is not a liability to other taxpayers; it is the right thing to do, and that is what is going to take place.
The hon. Member asks whether it would have been reasonable to have expected the previous Government to act. I am sure that he would rightly note that NS&I is operationally independent; I think the challenge comes given that it became clear in around 2018 that there were significant problems in this area—I mentioned the Santander case in particular—and there was widespread coverage at that time; within NS&I, people realised that this could pose problems for them.
The hon. Member has taken an excellent tone today. I was less impressed to read the comments of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), in the Telegraph, in which he talked about a “staggering failure of oversight”—he was the Treasury Minister in 2018 when the Santander case came forward! As often, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has shown better judgment than his superiors. Then again, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has also talked about
“incompetence on a staggering scale”,
which is an irony given that he, too, was a Minister in the Government carrying out the incompetence to which he refers.
I broadly welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has conducted himself today. It is absolutely right that we provide the reassurance to taxpayers and, most importantly, to savers with NS&I; I hope that I have done so today.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am glad to see that he is stepping in, and I am pleased to hear that National Savings & Investments will focus on reuniting bereaved families with their money, which it holds after things went badly wrong. How will he and the Government raise awareness with savers of the fact that they do not need to use claims management companies and that they can rely on NS&I putting things right?
Torsten Bell
As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is absolutely right—the priority for us is to ensure that people are reunited with their money and that they do not incur costs in trying to get it back. That is why I have been so clear with NS&I over the past few months that it makes sure that it understands the problem it is dealing with and that it needs to set out a delivery plan as soon as May for how it will reunite people with their money. That will involve contacting representatives of estates in the first instance, and that is what people need to rely on. As I said, I want to be clear with the public today that the onus is not on them; the onus is on NS&I to contact the people whose funds deserve to be reunited with them, and that is what we will all be focused on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the action he has outlined that the Government are already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings & Investments because it is Government-backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. The news that the money of tens of thousands of people was essentially lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution, and the fact that these cases involve bereaved families makes it particularly damaging.
To restore trust in the institution, it will be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. Will the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected? Have the Government committed not only to reimbursing or returning the money that the families are due, but compensating them fully to reflect the distress that has been caused? He has already mentioned interest; will he confirm that all that interest will be returned? Will legal costs also be reimbursed? Some of the bereaved families resorted to legal action to get what they believed they were owed, and I am sure that they will feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. Will the Government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there will be much stronger oversight of the system going forward?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his questions —let me try to do justice to them. He is completely right that one of the reasons customers choose NS&I is that they trust the institution, but they also know that it has that 100% Government backing. It is important that we are all clear with everybody that that remains in place, that no funds have been misplaced and that everybody will be entitled to every penny of their savings.
On rebuilding that trust, that is why I have put new leadership in place. Sir Jim’s review will lay out those lessons. He is an interim chief executive, and we will be recruiting for a permanent replacement, so he is in a position to give us the full truth about what he sees. He is an experienced public servant and public sector leader, so we should look to his review. As I say, I have asked him to report in three months’ time. I will ensure that the appropriate Select Committee Chairs have that review. It will set out the lessons that we need to learn.
The hon. Member rightly asks about compensation. As I set out in my statement, we will ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid along the lines of how the FCA encourages best practice. That will include compensatory interest where funds have been withheld from estates for longer than they should have been, and that will be done automatically. People who have more complicated cases will as always be able to go direct to NS&I to have them considered on a case-by-case basis.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for providing an update. Many families across the country will be incredibly anxious about this news. Can he tell us a bit more about how he will hold the new executive and non-executive teams to account, to ensure that lessons are learned and there are no more systems failures in the future? Beyond the two Select Committees he mentioned, how will he keep the House up to date?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the anxiety that I am sure some people will be feeling, but it is more than that: we are talking not just about any old savings, but about bereavement cases. We do not want issues to be dragged back up in historical cases—as I said, 75% of them took place between 2008 and 2025, but there are also older cases, too. I appreciate that that will be difficult for many people, and it is our job to ensure that NS&I provides as much support as it can for those people.
On the new leadership, I have been absolutely clear that we will see a delivery plan in May setting out the full timeline for rectifying the errors. As I said, on a longer timeline—although only three months, so there is not long to wait—I am asking Sir Jim to give us his wider review of the lessons from this and for the future of the governance of NS&I.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to restore trust in NS&I, and to take the appropriate compensation measures. I was in the Treasury for a while, and I had conversations with the previous chief executive—the one prior to 2023. Like the Minister, I took advice from my officials on what assurances I could have from NS&I on the delivery of programmes to transform the IT infrastructure, and I was given those assurances. I welcome the appointment of Jim Harra, who I think is an excellent public servant and is very well placed to understand the nuances of this issue. Will the Minister review the mechanisms by which his officials keep on top of what is happening at NS&I, so that he can be absolutely sure that when things go awry, they are brought to his attention and he can make the necessary interventions? I do not think that that happens currently.
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister for some duration, so he brings experience on these issues. He is right to say that, when it comes to an Executive agency such as this one, Ministers’ job is to receive assurance and provide strategic direction, so let me just say a bit about how we have been thinking about that. In terms of assurance, I have asked in the shorter term for written attestation not just from NS&I but from the providers that do most of the customer-facing work in that organisation. I have asked for assurances from the current provider that we will not see any such mistakes going forward, and, as I said, I have asked Atos—the previous provider—to provide attestation that it will co-operate fully, given that it was the provider throughout the entirety of the last Government, until 2025. I hope that that gives the right hon. Gentleman some assurance about how we are seeking assurances.
More broadly—this is a slightly separate issue, but I think it is relevant to the question of the organisation’s leadership—the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the challenges in the transformation programme, which started in 2020 but has gone far too slowly and over budget, as the Public Accounts Committee has made abundantly clear. We have already put David Goldstone, the former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, in to support that programme of work—we need to ensure that it is back on track. We will update the Select Committee—and the right hon. Gentleman, if he would like—about that process of work.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Sadly, I have administered the wills of two relatives in the past year, both of whom held NS&I accounts, so I know acutely how difficult and emotional that time can be. I have two questions for the Minister in that regard. Can he assure my Carlisle constituents that any moneys owed to them and their families will definitely be paid, and can he give an assurance that NS&I will handle these cases very sensitively, taking into account the distress that many families will be experiencing?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is completely right. I am sure that she speaks for many people today. The experience of administering estates is challenging for us all at the best of times, and it is of deep regret to me—and, I am sure, to everyone at NS&I—that we are putting anybody through complications. I can give her the reassurance that everybody will be paid all moneys due and held by NS&I. We will make every endeavour to reconnect people to their funds. That will include, as I say, directly contacting the representatives of estates, who will have contacted NS&I in the first place to notify it of a death. Were that not to be successful, we would then put in place a chain of contact below it. The details will be set out in the plan in May, but I can give a reassurance that that is already being worked through. We will use the time between now and May to continue to examine the data that NS&I holds—I have said that we are reviewing over 34 million cases—to ensure that we have the absolute best contacts and are able to go as soon as the delivery report plan has been set out.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of distress. I can absolutely give her the reassurance that everybody involved understands how they should be handling matters. As I said, for the Treasury’s part, that includes recognising that there will be worries about the implications for some estates of taxes due. I will set out how we intend to address that in May.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for making this statement today, and welcome the appointment of Sir Jim Harra, who did indeed have an excellent record at the head of HMRC, as interim chief executive.
I think we ought also to have a word of praise for the consumer affairs team at The Daily Telegraph, who have drawn welcome attention to unwelcome statistics, such as £116 million in unclaimed premium bond prizes, £3 billion spent on digitisation and £43 million spent on consultants for doing we know not what. Given that the Financial Ombudsman Service can award only token sums by way of compensation for maladministration, can the Minister assure NS&I savers that, when it comes to the question of compensation that must be paid to them by NS&I, there will be some dedicated method whereby those who are already severely out of pocket can have speedy resolution of their claims and recompense?
Torsten Bell
Let me try to take the right hon. Member’s questions in turn. I would think of compensation as two buckets. There will be automatic compensation relating to the withholding of funds. The FCA provides guidance on how that should be administered, and we will ensure that is put in place in full. More complicated cases—he has given examples in which the deprivation of funds has had implications—will be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than by using the FCA formula that I have mentioned.
I am keen to praise journalists where we can, but I am afraid that, in the case of The Daily Telegraph in recent weeks, praise needs to be caveated. It is important to raise cases brought up by members of the public, but some of the reporting I have seen in the past 48 hours has been incredibly inaccurate. I will give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. The Daily Telegraph has published a piece claiming that 160,000 cases relating to NS&I have been brought to the Financial Ombudsman Service, when in truth that number is in the hundreds. That was printed on the front page of the newspaper without basic fact-checking taking place. Today, the paper has talked about taxpayers’ money being used to reunite people with their funds. That is entirely inaccurate for the reasons that I have set out. I worry that that will have worried some MPs and members of the public. It is important that we raise questions of customer service, in which NS&I has fallen short, as I have said, but we should not be blind to what has been inaccurate journalism in the past 48 hours.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I have very fond memories of the National Savings & Investment savings account that I held as a child—I regularly paid money into it at Little Lever post office. I understand how important it is for the Government to right historical failings at NS&I, and to reassure my constituents. I commend the Minister and the Treasury for the decisive action that they have taken, including the appointment of a new NS&I chief executive who is well respected across this House. What more can the Minister say to assure savers in Bolton West that NS&I will get to grips with the issues that he has mentioned today? In the light of his comments about false reporting in The Daily Telegraph, and given the extreme sensitivity around bereavement and funds, what more are his Department and officials doing to dispel the false information that has been put out by newspapers?
Torsten Bell
I am sure that many Members across the House, and many people across the country, share my hon. Friend’s experience of early engagement with NS&I. The brand has very high awareness and support for exactly the reasons he gives. On his question about an assurance that there will be change, I hope that I have set that out. The most important thing is putting in place new leadership and ensuring that we have spent the time with external advisers involved in recent months to understand the problem in detail and to set the path to putting it right. He will have heard what I have said about some of the media reporting. I hope that my statement has laid out the facts on the implications for taxpayers and the nature of the problem we are facing.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the way in which he has addressed the House. I want to pick up on the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). The administration of a deceased loved one’s affairs is a lengthy and difficult process at the best of times. It will come as a tremendous shock to many of our constituents to learn that matters that they thought were settled are in fact not so. We can also all think of examples of public agencies that have promised tact and sensitivity, but have not always followed through in practice. Will the Minister look at individual cases that we might raise with him as constituency Members, and will he meet with groups of Members who have constituents affected by the issue?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that administering the affairs of deceased family members or friends is always challenging, both emotionally and administratively. That is why it is so important that we get this right, now that we have set out the scale of the problem. On his specific question, I encourage him to support constituents. That is why I have said that I will require NS&I to put in place a direct method of communication for MPs who wish to raise constituency cases, and obviously I will be happy to meet him or anybody else who has constituents affected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very thorough responses.
Resident Doctors: Industrial Action
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the proposed industrial action by resident doctors.
Yesterday evening, the British Medical Association called its latest round of strikes for 7 to 13 April, immediately following the long Easter bank holiday weekend. The announcement came just hours after its resident doctors committee rejected an historic deal that would have boosted pay, created jobs, improved career prospects and put money back in the pockets of its members. This was deeply disappointing after months of highly constructive and good-natured talks between the Government and the leadership of the RDC. In that context, the fact that the BMA’s immediate response was to call such extensive strike action, rather than return to the table, speaks volumes about what we are up against.
I will set out how we have reached this regrettable position. Since the start of this year, the Government have been holding extensive and intensive discussions with the BMA resident doctors committee leadership, who engaged in good faith. I have spoken personally to or met with the chair several times, and those engagements were, of course, on top of the near-daily dialogue that his team held with officials from my Department.
Together, we got further than many thought possible. As a result of our discussions, a landmark deal was put formally to the full resident doctors committee on 22 March. Based on our engagement with the BMA officers, we were optimistic that it would be received positively, although I was aware of the officers’ preference that it should be a deal over two years rather than three years, and that they had expected the independent recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration—the DDRB—to come out slightly higher than it did. Regrettably, despite the deal having been designed with and supported by the BMA leadership, the committee itself rejected it yesterday.
I will run through what the RDC has unilaterally rejected on behalf of the 81,337 resident doctors in this country. The headlines of the deal are: reform of the pay structure, so resident doctors would benefit from more frequent pay rises at each stage of their training; pay rises over three years baked in, linked to the independent DDRB recommendations, as requested by the BMA; and reimbursement of Royal College exam fees from April this year, which resident doctors currently pay out of pocket. They can be as much as £2,200 for psychiatry, £2,300 for paediatrics and £3,700 for ophthalmology. Other headlines are: contract reform for locally employed doctors to ensure they also benefit from greater job security, equal opportunities for pay progression, and improved terms and conditions; and up to 4,500 more specialty training places created over the next three years, including 1,000 for this year’s applicants.
Alongside the deal, the Government have just passed the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that domestically trained resident doctors no longer compete on equal terms with overseas graduates for specialist jobs. The Act will reduce the competition ratio for jobs from almost 4:1 to almost 2:1. The deal also follows the 28.9% pay rise already delivered by the Government.
As a result of the proposed package, resident doctors would have seen an average pay rise of 4.9% this year; starting pay for new graduates entering the profession this year would have been nearly £12,000 higher than four years ago; the lowest-paid foundation year ones and foundation year twos would have seen a pay boost of at least 6.2% and 7.1%, respectively, this year; and there would have been 1,000 more resident doctor jobs in a matter of days from this April.
Along with pay decisions that I have already taken, the package would have meant that, this year alone, resident doctors would have been, on average, 35.2% better off than four years ago. There are not many, if any, professions in our country for which that is true. The DDRB recommendation is 3.5%, which is significantly less than what is on offer as a result of pay structure reform.
The BMA has pointed to the war in Iran as reason to reject the deal. I will spell out the consequences of what this country is facing. The Government want to see de-escalation and a swift resolution to the conflict, with a negotiated agreement that puts tough conditions on Iran, specifically in relation to its nuclear ambitions. However, we are planning on the basis of a prolonged conflict, because that is the prudent thing to do. In that eventuality, there would be an impact on the economy and on the public finances. Were that to happen, a future offer to resident doctors would not look better than what is on offer today.
The Government’s tolerance for costly and disruptive action that undermines a critical public service is fast diminishing. In three years’ time, I do not want resident doctors to look back on this moment with regret as they turn down three years of guaranteed pay rises, more money in their pockets through reimbursement of exam fees, and more jobs. The BMA is choosing more strikes. As a direct result of its decision, and despite our best efforts, resident doctors will be worse off. Indeed, on the very day that 1,000 more specialty training places would have opened up for resident doctors with this deal, the BMA will be on strike, demanding more job opportunities.
Let me turn to the impact on patients and the NHS. Yesterday, the British social attitudes survey revealed that patient satisfaction has increased for the first time since before the covid pandemic. Dissatisfaction has seen the sharpest decline since 1998. Patient satisfaction with access to GPs has gone from 60% when this Government came to office to more than 75% today. Wating lists are the lowest they have been for three years, four-hour performance in A&E is the best for four years, and ambulances are arriving faster than they have for half a decade. All of this has been achieved despite the BMA’s strikes, so I want to reassure patients that the NHS’s recovery will continue.
In the most recent round of strikes, the NHS team pulled together and delivered 95% of planned elective activity. I am confident that we will see the same outstanding efforts if further action is taken. But to the BMA, I say: we can achieve so much more, and the improvements can be so much faster, if you take this deal and stop your strikes. Strikes have a significant financial cost. Every penny spent on keeping the show on the road during strikes is a penny that cannot be spent on improving staff pay and working conditions or better care for patients. The impact on the other staff working in the NHS, who are left to pick up the pieces, is severely felt.
So I am asking the BMA’s resident doctors committee to reconsider. I will meet again with its officers. I also repeat my offer to meet with the entire committee, who have thus far refused to meet me since I became Secretary of State. Indeed, they are the only group of people I have offered to meet who have declined, which I find extraordinary in these circumstances. The deal on the table shows what we can achieve when we work together. In contrast to my predecessors, I have shown good intent from the outset. I have listened to the complaints that resident doctors have about their working lives—I agree with them, and I want to work with them to improve their working conditions as we improve the NHS.
But when it comes to making a deal, the reality is that it takes two to tango. The BMA has until next Thursday to reconsider before we have to call time on the extra jobs, and the focus of the NHS and my Department turns to minimising the disruption from this unnecessary and unwarranted strike action, which would also consume the money set aside for this deal. But there will be a cost to the NHS, to staff and to patients. This was an historic opportunity, developed in tandem with the BMA leadership. I urge the committee to reconsider. I urge the BMA to call off its industrial action. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Only yesterday he was boasting about progress in the NHS. Today we are back here again, facing more strikes, more disruption and more uncertainty for patients—quite the contrast. In opposition, he made resolving these strikes sound straightforward: “Just get around the table. Just negotiate. Just sort it out.” He repeatedly stated that the power to stop the strikes lay in the Government’s hands. Well, the power is now in his hands. He has had every opportunity to prove it, and yet here we are again. Not so easy after all, is it?
The Government came into office promising to end these disputes. Instead, they have conceded heavily on pay, at enormous cost, and still failed to make it work. The Secretary of State says a comprehensive deal was on the table, developed with the BMA leadership. Despite that, we still face further strikes, so what exactly has this strategy achieved? After all the concessions, all the cost and all the disruption, there is still no resolution. If, as he says, the BMA leadership helped to shape the deal, why did it not secure the support of the wider committee? This morning, the chair of the BMA’s resident doctors committee said that all the Secretary of State needs to do to avoid these strikes is come back with a better offer. That was the Secretary of State’s argument in opposition, too. He has now had every opportunity to test that theory in government, and it has not worked, just as we warned.
There is also an irony here that will not be lost on the public. The BMA says that a 3.5% pay rise for doctors is a “crushing blow”, yet it is offering its own staff just 2.75%. While it demands more from the taxpayer, it will not even meet its own standard for fairness. The inconsistency is obvious and hypocritical.
The Government’s own position on affordability no longer seems to add up. In October, Ministers were clear that anything above 2.5% would have consequences for wider NHS commitments. They said that every additional 0.5% would cost around £750 million, yet we are now beyond what they previously said was affordable, so what has changed? Were those warnings overstated, or are other parts of the health budget now going to pay the price? The Secretary of State even pointed to global events as a reason for future constraints. That is a long way from “just negotiate and sort it out”. After repealing minimum service levels, the Government cannot now be surprised that patients are once again exposed to greater disruption.
Labour promised to end the strikes. It paid a very high price, and it still did not get the result. Ultimately, it is patients who are caught in the middle of all this, but it is unfair on others in the NHS, too. Consultants are left picking up the pieces yet again. Other doctors and NHS staff are expected to carry the burden and keep services running—they do not get to walk away. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair.
The Secretary of State says he may now have to call time on the extra jobs he announced. Were those jobs ever truly secured, or were they always conditional on the BMA accepting the deal in full? When he says that strike action will consume the money set aside for this deal, is he not really admitting that his own approach has ended up burning through the very resources he said would improve pay, jobs and conditions? What is the cost of this latest round of strikes expected to be, and where will that money now come from? What assessment has he made of the impact on patient safety, consultant morale and the training progression of junior doctors? What is his plan to end this dispute, rather than simply manage the next round of disruption?
Patients need certainty. The NHS needs stability. That is why we have been clear that doctors should not be allowed to strike and that minimum service levels must be restored to protect patient safety.
Wes Streeting
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his response and questions. Beneath some of the criticism of the Government was a consistent message about the unreasonable and unnecessary position of the BMA, but let me address his criticism none the less.
The shadow Secretary of State accused me of “boasting” yesterday about the progress this Government are making on the NHS. For once, I cannot say we are following the pattern of our predecessors, because of course, they did not make any progress. From the moment they entered government, we saw the NHS begin to slide in the worst direction, to the extent that we went into a modern health emergency—the pandemic—woefully underprepared, leaving our country more damaged as a result. I am proud of the progress we are making. We know that what we have seen in terms of results and patient satisfaction are grounds for optimism, not cause for complacency. What we are trying to do as a Government is absolutely essential for the country, to give it back an NHS that is there for people where they need it, when they need it. That is why the BMA’s position is both disappointing and self-defeating for all of us.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about the approach I took in opposition. There is a difference between the approach that this Government have taken and the approach of our Conservative predecessors. We have always been prepared to get around the table; we never close the door. As I said from the other side of the House, the power to end strikes does sit with the Government when they are willing to compromise, willing to negotiate and willing to treat the workforce with respect. That is what this Government have done, in contrast to our Conservative predecessors, which is why it is so disappointing that with a deal available—a good deal—the BMA is turning away.
The BMA should reflect not just on the contrast with the past, but on the contrast with the future. There is no more pro-NHS, pro-doctor Health Secretary or Government waiting in the wings. I am not even sure that the alternative is a Conservative Health Secretary; that person may well come from Reform UK—the party whose Members occasionally turn up and sit in the corner, when they can be bothered and when they are not flouncing out in a hissy fit. Catch them on a good day and Reform Members may even say the quiet bit out loud: they do not believe in the NHS. They do not believe in it as a public service free at the point of use, and they are certainly not going to treat the BMA or resident doctors with more respect or generosity than a Labour Government. I think the BMA needs to reflect on that.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about affordability. One of the great things about the deal that we agreed is that it is affordable because it involves productivity gains—not just the productivity gains that we have already achieved in the NHS, the target being 2% and the reality that we have achieved 2.7%, but the productivity gains built into the pay structure reform.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the jobs. I will be honest, and I am sure NHS chief executives will want to say more about this. The fact is that I and Jim Mackey have had to do a considerable degree of persuading and arm-twisting to persuade NHS trusts to create additional specialty training places, because they have not been convinced of their necessity or utility. Part of their reservation has been about the conduct of resident doctors and the BMA. I have had a hard job to do to sell that. Those jobs will not materialise if the BMA rejects this deal, I am afraid. There is a not a “something for nothing” culture here.
I say to the crab people who still believe that they are pursuing a really effective “bank and build” strategy that they should look at what they are confronting now, and look their members and their colleagues in their eye. This is not bank and build any longer; this is a high-and-dry strategy, and it is not going to work. That is why it is important that we end this dispute and that we do it together, in the spirit of partnership. There is still time to do that—there is still a week. The door is not closed; the offer is still there, and I urge them to take it before it goes.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I share the frustrations of Ministers and of the Government. I know that they have worked really hard on this. Dr Fletcher of the BMA has also worked hard, and I am sure that there is a deal to be done somewhere. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, to prioritise UK graduates, was very welcome, but I wonder whether we can also do something to fix the foundations of medical careers, by devising a much better system than the crazy foundation lottery that sends a doctor from Norwich to Belfast and a doctor from Belfast to Norwich. That would be a great expression of good will. Meanwhile, I am sure that my colleagues in the NHS will work around this strike—our patients will be safe—and I am sure that our NHS will continue to improve under this brilliant Labour Government.
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support in trying to influence a more constructive approach, for the advice that he has given me and members of the resident doctors committee, and for the experience that he brings to these exchanges. He is right to praise Jack Fletcher for the constructive approach that he and his officers have taken. It has not been easy, but I know that officials have enjoyed the constructive engagement, and I thank enormously the officials who have worked tirelessly on this. I think all those involved in the discussions, on both sides of the table, are disappointed by the outcome, and that is why I urge the BMA to seize the offer before it is too late.
My hon. Friend talks about other changes, such as to placements and rotations. I think that BMA officers recognise my desire to not only do this deal, but to create a new business as usual with the BMA, where we have people around the table on a regular basis looking at what we can do to improve the health service for patients and staff and to make real progress on those issues. We cannot do that if we are in conflict. That is the tragedy of the position we find ourselves in. I think we have built trust through engagement and dialogue with the BMA committee officers. It is only disappointing that members of the committee are not prepared to get around the same table as me, because if they did, they might realise the sincerity and the opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
People across the country will be extremely concerned about the prospect of further strikes, having faced so much disruption already in recent years. It is important to recognise that the strike is a symptom of an NHS still coming to terms with the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government. Doctors are burnt out from working in high-pressure environments under poor conditions—often trying to save lives on corridors with no space or privacy. However, we all know how difficult public finances are, and that is now being compounded by Donald Trump’s reckless war in the middle east. Therefore, a further 26% pay rise is not affordable or realistic at the moment, and it is time the BMA recognised that.
There is much more the Government could be doing to support both staff and patients. The BMA has a mandate to strike until August, yet patients struggle to get GP appointments and suffer months of pain while stuck on waiting lists. How will the Secretary of State stop the situation dragging on throughout the year and causing yet more harm to patients?
We must also show staff and patients that things will get better. Lib Dem plans to recruit and retain more GPs, offer one-to-one midwife care and fix the social care crisis would offer the NHS the hope that is needed by easing pressure on staff and patients. Will the Secretary of State consider fixing crumbling hospitals as a priority, to give staff and patients the working conditions and dignity that they need and deserve?
At Shropshire’s major hospitals, it is common to see ambulances queuing up outside, unable to offload their patients, while staff inside are struggling to cope with patients in corridors. Will the Secretary of State commit to ending the misery of corridor care by the end of this Parliament? I welcome his intention to build additional training places, but will he outline a timetable for publication of the workforce plan, because that is critical for the future of our NHS?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support. I really hope that resident doctors appreciate that this is a party with a spokesperson who supports the NHS and wants to see it improving, but, even from the vantage point of opposition, is clear that what the BMA is demanding is unaffordable. We know from experience that it is easier to make promises in opposition than to have to deliver them in government, so when an Opposition party is also saying that the demands are unaffordable, resident doctors should accept that. [Interruption.] Thank you for the noises off from the Conservative Front Bench.
I reassure the Liberal Democrats that we are committed to ending corridor care by the end of the Parliament. I am really impressed by some of the progress that we have seen recently in some hospitals: Queen’s hospital in Romford has shown it can be done and other hospitals are showing real progress. We are determined to put the foot down on the accelerator. We will absolutely see capital investment to improve the NHS estate. We have 2,000 more GPs now than when we came into office—the highest number of GPs on record, in fact—although there is more to do.
Let me give this commitment to the “Agenda for Change” workforce. So much of the oxygen and airtime has been consumed by doctors, but 1.5 million people work in the NHS, many of whom will never be paid as much as the lowest paid doctor. They have been overlooked for too long, and we are determined, through the negotiations and discussions that we are having with “Agenda for Change” unions, to put that right. That will be my focus for the future of the workforce.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the GMB’s parliamentary group. The week after next, there will be another strike, when GMB members of the BMA’s own staff go out on industrial action, as has already been referenced. Their employer’s offer is 2.75%, which is lower than the 3.5% for doctors that the BMA called a “crushing blow”. Does the Health Secretary agree with the GMB union when it says:
“These strikes have laid bare the BMA’s ongoing hypocrisy”?
Wes Streeting
It is frankly breathtaking hypocrisy. It rather looks like doctors in their ivory tower saying one thing, and lecturing us about what is and is not affordable, but when it comes to how their subs are spent and how their own union behaves towards its own staff, not being prepared to pay them. I have been very complimentary about the officers who have been engaged with Ministers and my officials in recent weeks to try to get this deal over the line; so have BMA staff. I am stunned by the BMA’s unwillingness to practise what it preaches. I will not be joining resident doctors on the picket line. I should have declared, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am GMB member, so if there is one picket line that I will be visiting during the doctors’ strikes, it may well be that one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
This is clearly the wrong move again. It is really stark; we keep hearing from patients across the country about how much they want the NHS to improve, but this is another blow to them, and they may even wonder if it is safe to go into their local hospital during the strike period.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the Committee and talking about corridor care. The really interesting thing about that session was that the hospitals that have turned things around did so because of leadership from the top. Their executives and board members were going into hospitals out of hours and on weekends to speak with resident doctors, nurses and patients, to see what things were like on the ground. When was the last time the Secretary of State did that? This is not a “gotcha” moment—I have not done that recently, but I want to. If we are to lead a change in culture in the NHS, we should all show how we would do it, and should urge board members and executives to do the same, in every hospital across the country.
Wes Streeting
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely spot on. I am relieved to report that I was doing exactly what she mentions only last Friday; I was walking the corridors of Queen’s hospital in Romford. I was there in January as well, seeing the worst of the situation. I have been spending time on the frontline in the places that were under the most pressure, just as I did last winter. I went along, not to look down my nose at people, but to listen, and to see at first hand what was happening, why it was happening, and what we need to do differently. The team at Queen’s hospital can really take pride in what they have achieved, but we have to sustain that progress. Last week, there were no trollies on the corridor, and in February they saved 10,000 corridor hours. That is thanks to brilliant frontline staff and senior clinical leadership on the front door, and we will see that again during strikes.
There is a certain irony about the fact that during resident doctors’ strikes, urgent and emergency care improves, because we have more experienced, senior clinical decision makers in urgent and emergency care. There is something to learn from that. I do not say that to denigrate resident doctors for a moment—they are learning and building their experience, and we do not want to lose that—but we are seeing that improvements can be made, and have to be made everywhere. We have to see this as a priority, because corridor care can never be the safest care, and it is never dignified care.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One thing we have not yet heard is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the motivation of the BMA committee members who are so militantly rejecting a deal that he evidently regards as generous. As he says, they are refusing even to sit down and talk with him. What is behind that? Why are they behaving in what appears to be an unreasonable and extreme way? To what extent does he think they represent resident doctors?
Wes Streeting
If the committee had ever taken me up on my offer to meet the entire committee, I might be able to answer the question, but since it has never done so, I do not know. It is for resident doctors to decide, based on what I have set out, if the committee’s rejection of this offer is reasonable.
Given the material benefits that the offer would bring to resident doctors in a matter of days—an additional 1,000 jobs and significant pay uplifts—and what that would mean for the next few years, I have to be clear that this is our best and final offer. We cannot go any further. If I may say so, we are at a point where the public would judge that we have gone as far as we can; I think quite a lot of people in the country who are watching would say that we have gone further than we should. I do not take that lightly. Resident doctors should not look a gift horse in the mouth, and I hope that they will make those representations to their committee.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his robust view and position on the BMA. In reference to what was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on the inflationary pressures that we will feel as a result of the conflicts in the middle east, do the figures for the three-year deal use the inflationary projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England? If not, given that this is all about pay, and that the BMA will always come back for more—I think it is being unreasonable at the moment—does the Secretary of State agree that we need new rules around minimum service levels if we want to have a reliable NHS in this new world?
Wes Streeting
Pay structure reform and future pay are linked to the DDRB, which is an independent pay review body; its recommendations are one of the things that the BMA wanted the deal to be shaped around. The Government’s position on minimum service levels has been clear.
The hon. Gentleman sets out an alternative position from the Conservative party. I think the BMA should look at that, and judge whether it would be better to do a deal with this Government and move forward constructively. Does it honestly think that if it hampers NHS progress, and goes on endless strikes over the coming years, it will have a better Government to work with at the end of this? I do not think so.
I ought to say one final thing, which we should take really seriously. I have been thinking about this issue in the context of the covid inquiry report, and where we are in terms of threats to this country, the war in Iran, and the war in Ukraine. This country was more exposed during the pandemic than it might have been if the NHS had been in better shape. This country faces some serious threats in the world, and the NHS is not in good enough shape. In that context, we have to start thinking about whether the actions of the BMA are tolerable.
Coastal Erosion
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Jenny Riddell-Carpenter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These must be questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Member, and not the Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I am pleased to present the sixth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Erosion of trust: the impact of coastal erosion on communities”. I will start by talking about not policy or funding, but people and their stories—stories that our report rightly sought to share.
Ten weeks ago, I told the House that we had lost four homes to coastal erosion in the village of Thorpeness in my constituency. It is with great sadness that I tell the House today that the number has now risen to 11. That is 11 family homes lost to the sea this winter. We have a 90-year-old who is displaced, with no home to go to. We have an 88-year-old who lost her family home, which was full of memories—all now gone. Too many have lost the only home that they owned, and so many of them are now relying on the generosity of friends, quite simply because no other help is available.
Of course, this is not just about Thorpeness. This story is repeated across the country. The sea does not stop for these homes. Happisburgh, Hemsby, the East Riding, the Isle of Wight—all those places and more are losing land and properties to the sea. The realities of climate change and rising sea levels mean that we can no longer ignore this crisis. The Environment Agency predicts that within 80 years, more than 10,000 properties could be destroyed by or lost to the sea, along with 180 km of road.
This report is the first output from our inquiry on climate and weather resilience. We heard from local authorities, scientists, community groups and residents living with the daily reality of coastal change, and the message was consistent: coastal erosion is not just an environmental issue, but a housing issue, a public health issue, a mental health issue, an economic issue and, above all, a human issue.
People spoke about grief. They told us that this is not just about the loss, but the years leading up to it. They told us about anxiety, isolation and the strain on families and communities. They told us about a sense of injustice—a sense that they are bearing the cost of a problem that they did not create, and that systems that do not properly support them. We also heard about trauma tourism; people are flocking to visit erosion sites and demolished homes, filming the belongings that were left behind, and sharing those stories online. It is difficult to overstate how distressing that is for those going through that loss. This report makes it crystal clear that the human impact must be properly recognised in policy and funding decisions. Crucially, communities must be part of those decisions. For too long, they have been talked about; it is time that they were talked with.
We also found that the system is failing people from the very start—from the moment they buy their home. Coastal erosion is not consistently disclosed in property transactions, despite the fact that the data exists and is publicly available. Madam Deputy Speaker, if my home were about to fall into the sea, I could sell it to you legally today, with no duty to tell you about the risks. That cannot be right, and it certainly should not be legal. Our report therefore recommends that coastal erosion be treated as material information in conveyancing. As for insurance, there is simply no equivalent to Flood Re for coastal erosion. That leaves families exposed and unsupported. If we can make schemes like Flood Re work —which it does—we should be exploring how we can do the same for properties facing erosion risk.
At present, the coastal erosion assistance grant provides £6,000 towards demolition costs for homes that need demolishing because of the coastal erosion threat. That amount has not increased since 2010, and demolition now costs around £35,000, and often more. This winter in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal, the cost reached as high as £50,000. On top of that, eligibility for the fund is restricted to those who bought their home before 2009. In Thorpeness, residents who bought after that date face the prospect of paying for the privilege of demolishing their own home. The council stepped in, because it could see that that was plainly wrong, but that cut-off is arbitrary, out of date and unfair. The Committee’s report makes it clear that this fund must be reviewed.
I welcome the Government’s recent funding announcement for coastal communities. It is a step in the right direction, but short-term funding is not the same as a long-term plan. There is no national strategy for what happens when people lose their homes; families are often left to navigate this alone, or have to rely on already-stretched local housing systems and are forced away from jobs, schools and support networks. We have seen pilots that show what can be achieved, such as the coastal transition accelerator programme; however, those programmes are time-limited. We cannot keep piloting solutions without ever embedding them. Our report calls for a long-term national strategy for relocation and financial support, one that builds on what we already know and gives communities certainty about their future.
We also need to stop creating future problems through the planning system. Shoreline management plans provide a long-term view of coastal change, but they are not consistently used in local planning decisions, meaning that development is still being approved in areas that we know may not be protected in the future. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on future residents, so we are recommending that those plans be properly embedded into the planning system. Finally, we must address how we fund coastal protection and how we value our coastline. Too often, the system does not capture the true value of coastal communities—their economies, their heritage, their role in our national infrastructure, and the real human cost when things go wrong. In Suffolk Coastal, our coastline is our economic powerhouse, driving energy, tourism, and of course our port. However, we do not place economic capital on it, or value it sufficiently.
Underlying all of this is a simple question that people ask me time and again: “Why does support so often fail to reach us?” Our Committee’s report sets out practical, achievable steps to change that—to recognise the human cost, fix what is not working, and put in place a more joined-up, longer-term plan. Coastal communities deserve more than sympathy; they deserve action, support and long-term funding. The Committee has listened; we have pulled together our report, and we are now asking the Government to do the same. I commend this report to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on her powerful contribution, and also congratulate the cross-party EFRA Committee on its thoughtful and thought-provoking report. Coastal communities are at the frontline of adverse weather events and the negative effects of climate change, and the report highlighted the human impact on those communities, and specifically their mental health. It echoed a lot of the findings of the previous EFRA Committee in the last Parliament—we produced a report on rural mental health that highlighted some of the impacts, including anxiety and trauma. Will the Select Committee put pressure on the Government to look at both this report and the previous report on rural mental health, so that the mental health of rural communities can be supported in the long term?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The hon. Member is absolutely right that our report highlights the significant strain that coastal erosion places on communities, and the impact that has on their mental health. I will read with interest the report from the last Session and see what its recommendations are, because I have no doubt that there are a huge number of parallels between the two reports.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Member has given an impressive exposition of the report. I am curious about the mental health benefits of exposure to the coast, and in particular whether she and her Committee would recommend a particular type of coastal defences. In Sidmouth, there is talk of either breakwaters and recharging shingle on the beach or a splash wall, which the community is less keen on. Has her Committee looked into that question at all?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I am sure he will be aware that the shoreline management plans dictate what level of investment and defences are appropriate for an area, be it managed realignment or managed retreat, but we must always ensure that we look at better options within each of those categories and put the right adaptations in place. In my area, the reinvestment in shingle has been incredibly useful, but we can adapt technologies and options for future programmes as well.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member and her Committee for this excellent report. I have the start of the Jurassic coastline in my constituency, and I share a coastline with my neighbour and hon. Friend—I will call him a friend—the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Based on the Committee’s report, is there enough focus on the planning process and planning houses in those areas? We are being asked to place a lot of houses in coastal areas, and I am not sure whether this issue is being given due regard.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
We explicitly talk about planning in our report. It is a key issue; when we are building new homes and new communities, we must take coastal erosion into account. Recommendation 37 makes that exact point. It is critical that people buying homes in the future in places where we know there is risk now should be protected, and we should not be building in those places.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
North Norfolk residents, researchers and council staff all contributed to this inquiry. I welcome this report—I think it is excellent, and I thank the hon. Member for presenting it today.
I wanted to ask her about two points. First, she has already touched on Flood Re; does she agree that the Government must work at pace to bring about the coastal equivalent? Secondly, on the wider social cost of coastal erosion, I will reference Happisburgh in my constituency, where recent discoveries redefined the Anthropocene. Does the hon. Member agree that a failure to protect coastal communities is not just measured in financial costs to homeowners?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
My district council, East Suffolk council, has worked incredibly closely with the hon. Member’s council on bringing forward measures and on cross-learnings. When we have talked about Thorpeness in my local area, we have discussed lots of learnings from his constituency. The impact of coastal erosion on those communities—the financial impact and the mental health impact—cannot be overstated. As our report makes clear, we do not value our coast enough; we do not understand the value it creates for our communities, financially and over the longer term.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady, the member of the Select Committee, for doing an excellent job this afternoon.
Palliative Care
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement, on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee. Layla Moran will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of her statement, Members may be called to ask questions on the subject of the statement, and they must be questions, not speeches. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our sixth report, which is on the subject of palliative care. This is the second report we are presenting to the House in as many weeks, because the Committee is in a hurry to play our part in fixing the NHS and social care, and especially to shine a light on those areas that feel more intractable and that historically get less attention. This is clearly true for the area of palliative and end-of-life care. We welcome the more recent renewed focus on the very sensitive issue of death—it will happen to us all, yet too often as a nation, we leave it far too late to talk about it. That is perhaps why, despite the fact that it will be a universal experience, death does not often receive the political attention it deserves.
We began by asking our independent expert panel to look at the heart of this system. The panel is made up of health and care experts from a range of disciplines—clinicians, lawyers and health economists, as well as temporary members with expertise in palliative care—and is ably led by Dr Jane Dacre. I am grateful for their work. Their report drew on available evidence, the Government’s own standards and the lived experience of patients, their families and professionals. The panel found a sector in critical condition: fragmented, failing and forgotten. Our report took those findings and combined them with the session where we quizzed the Minister for Care—I thank him for being in his place today—and his officials.
Our 22 conclusions and recommendations span six main areas: the modern service framework, commissioning, data, workforce, bereavement, and hospices. Nowhere is the failure of this sector more acute than in the care of babies, children and young people. The expert panel identified serious inadequacies for this vulnerable and under-served group. One clinician told us that children are “just an add on”, and another said:
“There is a severe lack of 24/7 cover for community children’s nursing, and no investment into it either.”
We are concerned that the Minister was unable to commit to providing clear and specific standards and guidance for babies, children and young people, and we strongly recommend that standards for that group and for the transition between child and adult services are made a priority. We also need pan-integrated care board guidance on commissioning services for babies, children and young people. There are too few of these services, so we need to pool resourcing.
The expert panel’s report also revealed a distressing and deep-seated postcode lottery for all in palliative care. A lived experience witness said:
“I went there, and he was screaming—clearly dying, in absolute agony and very, very distressed. And it took for me to ring so many different people to get someone to actually listen to me say, ‘I don’t care if he had pain relief two hours ago, he needs some more now and he needs something different.’
He died early the next morning. I know this would not have happened in my local area—so that made it an even more distressing experience”.
That heart-wrenching story—there are many others—is so common in these reports. We found that many ICBs lack sufficient understanding of their local needs to commission effectively. Competing financial pressures mean that palliative care is so often pushed to the bottom of the pile, and the culture of understanding needs to come right from the top. Structural and geographic inequalities persist, and deprived and marginalised communities face significant unmet need. To fix that will require high standards and accountability across the country, which is why the forthcoming modern service framework is so important, and we welcome it.
The Minister told the Committee that making palliative and end-of-life care one of the first five modern service frameworks was a “bat signal” to the system. We welcome that, if not the mental image of him as the caped crusader, but we approach the MSF with a healthy dose of scepticism. What is fundamentally different this time? There have been frameworks before, most notably the palliative and end-of-life ambitions framework and the NHS national standards for palliative and end-of-life care. This time, we need more than well-intentioned ambition; we need action, accountability and assurance. The Committee recommends that ICBs and the Department are held accountable, with clear consequences for failing to meet standards. We must ensure that ICBs have the support, tools and resources required to implement these high standards. We cannot allow this to be another framework that gathers dust on a shelf.
The thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not meeting the guidance that already exists. Let us take 24/7 advice lines, which could offer guidance, reassurance and support for care at home, potentially reducing A&E admissions. At present, just 43% of ICBs offer them properly. That is despite the fact that 24/7 telephone advice lines have been recommended as a minimum service requirement by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Department for more than two decades. The role of pharmacies is also critical, but they too need support to deliver. The Minister has committed to 100% coverage of telephone lines by 2027, but we push him further: the MSF must mandate ICBs to deliver not just telephone lines, but access to all services, including symptomatic medication and in-person care. Unfortunately, death does not wait until 8 am on a Monday morning.
A further concern was the effects of the shift to the community. We worry that funding restraints and workforce and skill shortages will make that transition difficult. In the same breath as saying that they want this shift, the Government’s forthcoming NHS reorganisation Bill is proposing to remove local authority representation from ICBs. Local authorities are responsible for social care, and social care workers are the backbone of end-of-life care, with 22% of deaths occurring in care homes. If we want to strategically commission end-of-life and palliative care, it is nonsensical to remove local authority voices from the top table and that strategic role right from the off. We therefore urge the Government to reconsider their position.
We also urge the Government to fix data sharing. One clinician told us:
“If there was more willingness to link data and allow ICBs to have a better view of it and work with partners”—
hospices and the third sector—
“they could better understand the need and actively address health inequalities.”
Of the 1% of our population who die each year, only around half end up on the palliative care register, and that is despite financial incentives for GPs to put them there.
The Government have a welcome stretch target of 90%, but they have also removed the financial incentives for GPs to maintain the registers. We are concerned that that will result in a decrease, not an increase, in those who are registered. We recommend that the Department reports progress on the 90% target annually, and we welcome the single patient record to drive integration, but we want to understand better how that data will be shared not just with the NHS, but across all partners involved in end-of-life care.
We cannot deliver this change without our workforce—the people. Vacant posts in this area are mounting, and only 30 to 40 new consultants qualify each year. We await the 10-year workforce plan with bated breath, but we hope that it also includes specific measures to address children’s palliative care staffing. It is not just the specialists but the generalists who should get better training in this area. At the moment, too many nurses in the community might send a patient to acute care because they cannot adequately manage risk with confidence. If they knew what to do in that moment, they may decide not to call 999 and instead have better care where the patient is. That is clearly better for everyone involved and is far less distressing.
Finally, I come to hospices. So many are recipients of fundraising from marathon runs and bake sales. It strikes the Committee as nonsensical that this important part of the sector is funded primarily through charity. We welcome the multi-year settlements made more recently and the money into capital, but we make the point that if hospices are to help lead the way out of this crisis, they need much better and more long-term support.
The Government’s modern service framework must be more than just a press release. It must be a pledge to every citizen that when their time comes, they will be supported, not stranded. We owe it to the thousands of people facing their final days today, and to the families who will remember their care forever, to finally get it right this time.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent statement about what sounds to be a fascinating and detailed report? I was particularly impressed with the amount of time she dedicated to considering children’s palliative care. She may recall the debate in Westminster Hall earlier this month, when I mentioned that the charity Together for Short Lives had a particular idea about how to combat what she rightly emphasised—namely, the wide variation from place to place in the availability of palliative care services, particularly specialised ones for children. Did her investigation consider the recommendation that the NHS ought to organise the existing children’s palliative care services into palliative care operational delivery networks, similar to those used in neonatal care service provision?
Layla Moran
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on this issue over many years. Together for Short Lives was indeed a contributor to the two reports. Its specific recommendation on babies, children and young people’s care was that we need better specialist pan-ICB commissioning that is modelled on other services. They are a tiny proportion of an already tiny population, and they are so often forgotten. As I mentioned in my speech, they are considered an add-on at the end of a commissioning process, but we need to start with them. They deserve so much more thought than they currently get.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Health and Social Care Committee’s statement and thank the hon. Member for all her work in leading the Committee. We all know that we have an ageing population. It is an issue that is going to increase, and we know that the pressures on our palliative care system will also increase. The assisted dying Bill has been going through Parliament, and I know that it elicits strong feelings—both for and against—on both sides of the House. Does her Committee feel that the light that has been shone on assisted dying has taken away from the discussion we need to have about palliative care?
Layla Moran
If the hon. Gentleman reads the introduction, he will see that we put the report in the context of the discussions on the assisted dying Bill. Like this House, the Committee has a range of views on the issue—for and against, and in between—but the point we make is that we all share a desire for palliative care to improve. My own take on it is that the conversations we have been having about death—not just us as a House, but as a nation—as a result of that Bill have urged action. We have had the standards on palliative care for 20 years, and they have not been met. I think this is an opportunity. Regardless of where one stands on the matter of assisted dying, let us grasp the nettle and take the opportunity to finally get this right this time.
Backbench Business
Transport Accessibility for Disabled People
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of transport accessibility for disabled people; notes the recommendations of the Transport Committee in its First Report of Session 2024-25, Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport, HC 770, and the Government’s response to that report, HC 931; and agrees with the Committee that there is an urgent need for review of the legislative framework and the enforcement regime to ensure that the gap between rights and obligations and the daily experience of disabled travellers is closed.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling today’s debate. The Transport Committee’s report, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, was published a year ago. It was reported to the House on 10 June, and the Government response was published on 1 July. The timing of this debate enables me to provide a timely update on the work achieved by the Government and transport sectors over the past year, and to cover areas where more needs to be done. I am going to cover strategy, infrastructure and enforcement, and I will conclude with a few questions for the Minister.
Our report follows an in-depth inquiry that started in 2023 under the leadership of my predecessor as Chair, Iain Stewart. We travelled with people with disabilities to understand their experiences and the challenges they face, and we heard from a wide variety of people and organisations, whose knowledge was invaluable. The report has also informed much of the Committee’s other work over the last year or so, on buses, taxis and the street environment—areas where poor design and maintenance, and a lack of priority, continue to inhibit transport access unnecessarily.
In the year since the report was published, several important steps have been taken, and I thank the Government and others for these. The accessible railways road map was published alongside the Railways Bill in November last year and includes actions ahead of the formation of Great British Railways, such as a minor works budget and improved lift information. GBR will later set out its own plans through the long-term rail investment strategy. The Bus Services Act 2025 requires accessible network plans, streamlines disability awareness training and supports more accessible bus stop design. The aviation accessibility implementation group was established to deliver improvements in air travel for disabled passengers following the earlier task and finish group recommendations.
On railcards, eligibility has been extended to Blue Badge holders and will soon expand further to cover a wider range of visible and non-visible disabilities. On pavement parking, after five years of waiting—most of that was under the last Government—the Government have finally announced their next steps, and we await legislation. On taxi licensing standards, we welcome the amendments to the devolution Bill, including new national minimum standards that will include robust accessibility requirements. The Railways Bill introduces a duty on the Secretary of State and GBR to consider disabled passengers’ needs, and ensures that GBR is covered by the public sector equality duty. We welcome the publication of the equality impact assessment, and we will scrutinise it closely.
Let me now cover three strands that are essential if we are to embed and deliver lasting change. First, there needs to be a practical, ambitious and integrated transport strategy. The last Government’s 2018 inclusive transport strategy aimed for equal access for disabled people by 2030, but when we gathered evidence for our report, it was clear that that ambition was not being met. Much of the strategy focused on “considering”, “exploring” or “consulting”, rather than on delivering substantive change. Our report called for a new inclusive transport strategy; instead, the Department said that accessibility would be embedded as a “golden thread” in the forthcoming integrated national transport strategy.
That may be positive, but we still have not seen the strategy, which was originally expected by the end of 2025. We cannot judge whether accessibility will truly be prioritised until it is published. The Department says that the strategy will include clear actions and milestones for accessibility, so I hope that Ministers will ensure that those actions are ambitious, properly funded and capable of delivering inclusive transport—not just in principle, but in practice. After a decade of best-practice sharing and awareness raising, disabled people do not need warm words; they need a practical pathway to full accessibility.
On infrastructure, we need to avoid embedded barriers. When people think about accessibility, they usually picture lifts, ramps, level boarding, tactile surfaces, accessible bus stops, hearing loops, and reliable audible and visible announcements—and rightly so, as these are basic enablers. Inaccessible infrastructure is one of the most stubborn barriers to people with disabilities accessing our transport system. Transport assets are long-term investments, so mistakes become embedded for generations. The built environment can be enabling or deeply disabling. As many disabled people tell us, people are not disabled; too often it is the environment that disables them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her opening speech. Does she agree that society’s disabling barriers prevent disabled people from being able to have accessible transport, and that the Government and others need to understand that we have to change the infrastructure? That is how we are going to create an inclusive and fully accessible transport network.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is a passionate advocate—not just in transport, but across the piece—on the needs and rights of disabled people. To a large extent, this issue in transport is a subset of the societal challenge that she rightly raises.
The barriers that I have described prevent access to employment, education and services, and prevent people from having social lives. Following long delays, eight Access for All station upgrades have been confirmed, with 23 more moving to detailed design, and another round may be funded in the next spending review. These upgrades are welcome, but they feel like a drop in the ocean. At current investment rates, the rail network will not be fully step-free for a century, according to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s estimate in 2022. As Emma Vogelmann, formerly of Transport for All, has said:
“Accessibility must be delivered as standard across the whole network, not rationed station by station over generations.”
Judging by Transport questions this morning, as well as every previous one I have sat through, Members who have been waiting for station improvements in their constituencies clearly feel the same way.
We also await the Government’s new rolling stock strategy, which must set out a clear approach to level boarding. On holiday in France and Italy last summer, I saw clear ambition for that, as demonstrated by the lift access being built, if not already installed, across a number of rural stations. I hope GBR will inject that missing ambition into the UK rail system.
On electric vehicles, Transport Focus recently found that not a single charger on the strategic road network met voluntary accessibility standards, so we risk building new barriers into our future infrastructure, and those barriers will be expensive to fix later.
This is not just about hardware; we must embed accessibility into decision making. Witnesses to our recent inquiry into the Railways Bill expressed concern that, under the Bill, GBR must balance the interests of disabled people with cost. Of course, cost is always relevant, but we have repeatedly seen accessibility lose out. So we have recommended that GBR be required not just to consider but to deliver tangible improvements to accessibility.
On enforcement, we must ensure that rights are real. One of the most striking findings of our inquiry was that disabled people often have rights on paper that do not translate into real experiences. The reason is simple: enforcement is too weak.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to contribute substantively to this debate, owing to a commitment to lead another debate in Westminster Hall shortly.
Bus passes are hugely valued by the disabled community, but there is a frustration along the lines that the hon. Lady has hinted at, which is that some people cannot make use of their bus passes without a companion, yet the inclusion of a companion bus pass in the entitlement to have a bus pass is discretionary, not mandatory. Would she agree with me that it is not much good giving a bus pass to a disabled person if that does not cover the companion they need with them to make use of it?
Ruth Cadbury
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is a good example of a systemic policy issue that could well be addressed.
Enforcement currently relies on individual passengers pursuing complaints or court cases, which is unrealistic, expensive and often ineffective. Many people do not know who to complain to, court processes are costly and unpredictable, and even successful judgments do not always lead to improved practice. As a result, many people just give up travelling, because what is the point? For example, earlier this month the Office of Rail and Road secured commitments from Northern Trains to improve disability training and passenger assistance, which is welcome, but the ORR’s concerns dated back to 2019, with formal action emerging only years later. Such delays mean that disabled passengers continue to be failed daily, and a system that relies on individuals is unfair.
On the enforcement gap, we concluded that regulators need more powers, more resources, a clearer mandate to intervene earlier and a cross-modal approach. The Government did not, unfortunately, accept these recommendations, and there is still no clear plan to close the enforcement gap. We appreciate the Department’s commitment to explore collective action on accountability, but we would ask the Minister for an update. When we raised enforcement with the Secretary of State in correspondence—it is listed on the Order Paper—and when she last appeared before us in November, she told us that she wanted operators simply to comply with the law rather than relying on enforcement. We agree that compliance is ideal, but robust enforcement is a necessary part of achieving that compliance, and disabled people should not be expected to force the system to uphold their own rights.
We very much welcome one aspect of the Government response to our report, which is a commitment to review the overly complex and fragmented legal framework governing transport accessibility. The Department has agreed to take forward this work with the Law Commission, and I was delighted to see that the Law Commission has launched its review this week. That is long overdue, but it could bring long-term benefits.
We appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the planned accessibility charter, but it must be more than a restatement of existing duties. The areas it must tackle include the street environment, enforcement of the public sector equality duty and clearer expectation on transport operators, and it must be genuinely co-produced with disabled people. My question is: how will the charter be enforced? As new statutory duties are created under the Railways Bill, enforcement routes need to follow. The new passenger watchdog is intended to be powerful, but it currently lacks the enforcement powers that we believe are needed.
In conclusion, accessibility is not a “nice to have”; it is a fundamental right and a precondition for equality. From taxis to railways and from aviation to the street environment, enforcement should be at the heart of the strategy for accessibility. Do the Government agree that there is an enforcement gap, and if so, what steps will they take to deliver stronger, earlier and more effective enforcement across all modes of transport? How are disabled people directly shaping the integrated national transport strategy and the accessibility charter, and what measures will give the charter real teeth so that operators and local authorities are held accountable?
Finally, I thank all the disabled people and disabled people’s organisations that contributed to our inquiry, those who have shared their experience since and those who continue to advise us. We will keep drawing on their expertise as we scrutinise the Government’s progress on all modes of transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start with an immediate six-minute limit.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. I am conscious that transport is devolved, but what I have already heard in the debate tells me that there are a lot of similar themes.
My constituency of North East Fife is quite a rural one, and in recent weeks I have spent a couple of days travelling around it on the bus with those who use wheelchairs to understand better the challenges they face. One reason why they use public transport is that other options are limited. There is a distinct lack of accessible taxis in North East Fife and beyond—that is a licensing and economic issue—and we find that a lot of the taxis are used for school contracts, which means that members of the public wanting to use them cannot access them. That is a real challenge.
As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth pointed out, getting to the bus stop in the first place is a challenge, because of the pavements, dropped kerbs and street furniture. When I was out with a constituent the other week, we actually had to move road signs from the interminable roadworks in Guardbridge for her to get to the bus stop in the first instance. There is also the fact that, in most cases, there is space on the bus for only one wheelchair, so if a wheelchair user is friends with somebody else who uses a wheelchair, they cannot go to things together. There is already a real impact on people’s lives in that regard.
There are different types of buses, and we experienced them all during our days out in North East Fife. For some services, people have to give two hours’ notice that they have a wheelchair and want to use the bus, so that the provider can ensure that it provides a bus they can use. I just find it bizarre that we are in such a situation. Also, in some cases, a wheelchair user can have people leaning across them to pay their fare, which is such an invasion of their privacy.
Another challenge in a rural constituency where we have had ongoing changes and reductions in bus services is that multiple buses are sometimes required to get between population centres. I have a constituent who lives in Guardbridge and works in Cupar, but now has to go to St Andrews and then to Cupar to get to her place of employment. That does not feel like a real choice for wheelchair users.
Finally—I am sure we are all aware of this through our casework—for wheelchair users, in particular, to use public transport, the access allowing them to get on to the bus needs to work. I was with a constituent last week when the ramp did not work. The bus was therefore put out of order, everybody on the bus had to get off, and nobody who was looking to get on the bus after my constituent could get on. That was highly embarrassing for that individual, because she felt responsible for inconveniencing the other passengers, and it is simply not good enough.
I want to talk about Access for All, which is reserved—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth also highlighted it. Leuchars is the nearest railway station to St Andrews, which is hopefully known to all Members, because I have mentioned it here in the Chamber a lot; if they like golf, they will know St Andrews well. There is no lift at the station, and we have been trying to get funding for a new bridge for six years—my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues on Fife council have been trying for even longer. The gradient of the ramp up to the bridge is 1:12, or just over 8%. For a ramp of over 10 metres, the British Standards Institution recommends a gradient of no more than 1:20, or 5%.
That is simply not the case at Leuchars, where the ramp is not short; it is many metres. It is a real challenge for those using wheelchairs and prams, and the first thing that visitors to St Andrews have to do, rather than being able to access a lift, is humph their cases up the ramp and down again. It is completely unfair on local people, because they are often excluded from using public transport, and they tell me that they do not use the train as a result. Last year, ScotRail hosted a roundtable on the future of train services in Fife, and it listed Leuchars as being lower priority. I cannot get my head around that classification and, accordingly, I am waiting for a meeting.
Access for All is an example of where devolved and reserved do not work together very well. Much like the infamous Spiderman meme, the answers to my queries five years ago involved the UK Government pointing to the Scottish Government, who pointed right back at them. I know I am not the only Member of this House to be extremely frustrated by the scheme effectively slowing to a halt.
In a written statement in January, the Government downgraded, and indeed halted, some proposed work on projects under Access for All. I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of how that squares with reporting by Disability Rights UK in 2024 that Access for All had actually been underspending prior to that. The statement went on to say that there might be some funding available in the next spending review, but that means we are not expecting any announcements for another three years, at which point we will be heading into a general election. Are we seriously saying that there will be no Access for All spending rounds in the whole remainder of this Parliament?
Finally—this is less about funding, but directly relevant to what our constituents can expect—I would like to hear whether the Government will be publishing any outcomes from the review of design standards for accessible railway stations. Using public transport should not be a luxury; it is something we should be trying to encourage our constituents to do at every opportunity. Putting disability considerations to one side, if we are talking about economic inactivity and how we enable access for people to get to work, and indeed for those with disabilities into work, this should be an absolute priority for our public services.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on her sterling work as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for us to debate what I think is a very important issue.
It is no secret that I have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights, inclusion and equality of disabled people, not least due to my own lived experience. I have been calling for and pushing for all modes of transport to be fully accessible and inclusive. It is essential that disabled people should have equal participation in society at all times. I genuinely believe that having access to transport is a human right, and we really should look at it in that context, yet all too often we hear stories of the many barriers disabled people face when they travel. We have all heard the stories of disabled people being left on planes for hours on end, or turning up at a train station and their assistance not being there for them. When I travel and have booked assistance, I worry about whether that assistance will be there. That should never be somebody’s experience in daily life.
We know the issues around pavement parking. I introduced my own Bill to ban pavement parking 18 months ago. Having obstacles on the road, especially those awful e-scooters—everyone knows my views on those—creates many problems, not just for disabled people but for families with young children pushing a buggy and so on. And then there are buses. We all know that buses are one of the best forms of inclusive transport for disabled people. However, there are times when the ramps are not working or the allocated space on the bus is not available. We must ensure that we tackle that issue. It would be wrong of me not to mention floating bus stops, because I hate them too. They are huge problem, so I might as well tie them into this transport debate. Floating bus stops should be banned from all new infrastructure, because they prevent disabled people from being able to travel freely.
I am really proud of the work we have done in my constituency, in the nearly nine years I have been campaigning, to ensure that all the modes of transport that go through Battersea are inclusive. Clapham Junction, one of the busiest interchange stations in Europe, is partially accessible. I was proud that we secured funding for Wandsworth Town railway station to be made step-free. It is a shame that it no longer sits in my constituency after the boundary review, but I will claim that win, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I should.
We all remember the fight we all had to go through to ensure that we kept ticket offices open, when the previous Government wanted to close them. That was a battle worth fighting. I cannot use ticket machines, and there are many others who cannot use them either. They are vital pieces of infrastructure.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is absolutely spot on. We can have all the infrastructure in the world, but if we do not have the workforce to manage it then it will not work. We have to value the workforce, because I rely on that workforce when I travel and I know that many others do, too. We successfully kept our ticket offices open, which is a good thing.
I am really proud of the changes we have made in my constituency, but that brings me back to this point. Why is it that, in 2026, disabled people are still fighting for an inclusive and accessible transport network? That cannot be right. Many people cannot engage in travel. The Select Committee’s brilliant report a year ago highlighted that 67% of disabled people experience problems when they are travelling—that is just staggering—from not enough priority seating to the poor quality of pavements for active travel, a lack of step-free access and so on. Talking of step-free access, in my constituency—I am sorry to keep referring back to it—we have Battersea Power Station tube station, which is an underground station but is step-free. That is so important, because we should be able to use all modes of transport; we should not be restricted to taxis, private hire or just buses.
Inaccessible travel can be the factor that locks disabled people out of so many things: going to work or study, attending health appointments, or just participating in life. Those are the effects that an inaccessible infrastructure and travel network have on disabled people. We must do better to move things forward. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not want to hear “We are going to work towards” or “We are going to look into”. I genuinely believe that we need to see proper action on creating an inclusive and accessible transport network. Frankly, as I said earlier, it is a crying shame that in 2026 disabled people still cannot travel independently. We need a strategy, and we are going to have one.
Marsha De Cordova
Thank you. This place is not accessible either, because I need someone to tell me when my time is running out, but we will work on that, too.
We need solid infrastructure, backed up by the right investment, and the workforce to deliver it. We need to tighten up enforcement, because without enforcement, the onus is on disabled people, which it should not be. There must be enforcement. We should focus on the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, and having an inclusive transport network is a key pillar of that. As disabled people say, there should be nothing about us without us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which is linked, of course, to the Transport Committee’s report on disabled people’s access to public transport.
I am a passionate advocate for public transport. Over my years of campaigning, I have pushed for more buses and trains, in order to make people’s lives easier and more affordable; and I have pushed to get more people riding them, so that we can take action on climate change and boost our local economy. Increasing ridership, though, has to mean increasing it among all groups. Our Committee found that too many people face accessibility barriers, meaning that they either have a far worse experience when using public transport or simply cannot use it at all.
Disabled people use public transport 28% less than people without disabilities; public transport is a more affordable mode of travel than private car or taxi, so poor accessibility is another financial burden placed on a group who already have significant premiums due to their disabilities. In many rural areas like North Norfolk and North East Fife, the taxi service can be patchy at best, due to the nature of rurality. If a disabled person cannot or does not drive and cannot access a taxi, they will be isolated from employment opportunities, and cannot visit family and friends as easily as others. A two-tier system in rural North Norfolk is unacceptable; that is why it is so important for the Government and local councils to take steps to deliver greater accessibility in the transport system.
For many dealing with accessibility barriers in their area, the fight to get them removed can be long and drawn out. I ask Members to cast their mind back to the 2019 general election. I was a candidate in Mid Norfolk, and visited Wymondham station with a group of local campaigners to see the issue that they face with the station having no southbound step-free access. Since then, the campaigners have seen four Prime Ministers come and go, as well as five Transport Secretaries, ten junior Transport Ministers and seven Norwich City managers, and there is still no step-free access. I am very glad that. following years of campaigning from local Liberal Democrat councillors like Suzanne Nuri-Nixon—now well supported, I am assured by Suzanne and others, by my constituency colleague, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough)—the Government have recently announced that they will be bringing forward plans for these improvements by the autumn. It will, however, have been a long seven years since I got involved, and even longer for many local residents, who have been without equitable access to their town’s railway station. In a country that demands equality for our citizens, making disabled people feel like they are second-class, and forcing them to wait so long for improvements, really is shameful.
I am glad that much of North Norfolk’s rail infrastructure is step-free and accessible, but the same cannot be said of our rural bus network. In rural areas, many bus stops are little more than a sign placed on a verge; in other cases, there is simply a local understanding that the bus might stop in a certain place. That might be good enough for some, but for those with access needs, it is far from a usable service. People need higher-quality, accessible bus infrastructure to allow them to utilise public transport. With that in mind, I hope that the Government might learn lessons from the “Buses connecting communities” report about new models for rural public. Transport hubs that create quality bus infrastructure that is linked into a strong network across rural areas can benefit all of us in many ways. For disabled people and those with access needs, it can give them the reassurance that they can be picked up and dropped off from an accessible stop.
When it comes to many of the reforms to public transport that we need, a more holistic view, in which we assess the issues that we face in the round, can deliver for groups across society. After all, better transport accessibility does not just benefit the people for whom it is essential; it makes choosing public transport easier and more convenient for everyone. The assessment that needs to be made of the experiences of disabled transport users, for instance, could flush out opportunities to improve the user experience for all current and would-be public transport patrons.
Whether it is clearer signage or better bus shelters, ramps or real-time information, it is in all our interests for the barriers to accessibility in public transport to be reduced and removed. I remain hopeful that the Government will take up what our Committee has found, and I know that Members from across the House look forward to working with them to make the recommendations a reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With a five-minute time limit, I call Elsie Blundell.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this crucial issue, and for securing this debate on the important matter of transport accessibility for disabled people. Since being elected to this place, I have reiterated that transport is one of the most crucial drivers of opportunity. Reliable, suitable and adaptable public transport for all should be a right, not a privilege.
I will begin by touching on the precarious landscape facing disabled users of public transport. In a report published by Transport for All, 56% of disabled people reported being
“unhappy or extremely unhappy making journeys”.
The Transport Committee’s report reinforced this; more than a third of disabled respondents asserted that they avoided making journeys more than once a week because they believed it would be too complicated. When things go wrong on journeys, it can feel as though disabled passengers and transport users stand entirely alone, without recourse or representation, and they are left with the burden of taking action against operators and transport authorities that fail in their duties.
Looking at the rail network, we have all been on a train where it is apparent that there is no available space for wheelchair users in any of the carriages, and some operators are doing absolutely nothing to make the necessary improvements. We have also seen the appalling media reports of disabled passengers being left to alight from carriages with no support whatsoever. We need to seize every legislative opportunity to improve this dire landscape.
Indeed, one of the crucial elements of the Railways Bill is the introduction of a passengers’ council. However, as the Bill stands after Committee, clause 36, on the general duties of the council, stipulates only that the council
“must have particular regard to the interests and needs”
of disabled passengers. The Bill needs to go further by enshrining the voices of disabled passengers on the council, and by giving the council a role as an enforcer, not just an adviser. This passenger watchdog will have a tangible impact on the experiences of disabled passengers only if we codify in legislation what we need to achieve. The Railways Bill represents a significant moment of reform for the rail system, and we must not miss the opportunity to embed strong, enforceable, long-term protections for disabled passengers. To achieve this, duties should be explicit and binding. I hope that the Minister can speak to this issue specifically when concluding the debate.
As the Committee’s report highlights, and as my hon. Friend the Transport Committee Chair mentioned, pavement parking is another widespread problem, especially for people with mobility or visual restrictions. Constituents rightly tell me that this is an issue of safety. When people park their car in a way that leaves no space on the pavement, there is no way that the wellbeing of those who use wheelchairs, walking frames, guide dogs or canes can be assured. This selfish behaviour makes things difficult for disabled individuals and people pushing buggies alike.
I understand that the Government, rather than imposing a blanket ban on pavement parking, as there is in London, first intend to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that local authorities can act against serious cases of obstruction caused by pavement parking. How does the Minister envisage this legislation being meaningfully enforced by local authorities? Will additional funding be provided to enable local authorities to act? I would welcome answers to those points from the Minister.
I reiterate my thanks to the Chair of the Transport Committee, our Clerks and my colleagues for their work in producing this crucial report, and for their advocacy on this important issue. I wholly welcome the steps that are being taken to advance the rights and protections of disabled passengers, which include the Law Commission’s review of transport accessibility law—a direct result of one of our Committee’s recommendations —the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s publication of guiding principles for accessible transport, and an equalities impact assessment for the Railways Bill, which is something else the Committee has called for.
That being said, I conclude by saying that however significant these reviews, principles and assessments are, we must ultimately ensure that they lead to effective enforcement, accountability and the empowerment of regulators to challenge the operational orthodoxy that has left disabled passengers denied the access that they deserve. With landmark changes coming to national and regional transport policy in the coming years, we must finally ensure that everyone is part of the journey, and that, in legislation and in practice, no one is left behind.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate. Many of my constituents have raised the challenges faced by disabled people in accessing tube services. Last May, I conducted a survey on the Metropolitan line, and only 6% of respondents thought that Transport for London was doing enough to improve reliability and accessibility. It is evident that people who rely on that essential service feel let down, which is simply not good enough.
I have written to TfL and the Mayor of London regarding this issue. While I have been informed of the mayor’s target of making 50% of tube stations step-free by 2030, none of the stations for which works are proposed are in my constituency, so understandably residents of South West Hertfordshire feel left behind. TfL has stated that, through the step-free access programme, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network, but that will not happen if the benefits are not extended to all service users. Take the case of one of my constituents in Rickmansworth, who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury that he sustained just over a year ago. Despite having used Rickmansworth station for the last 17 years as a local resident, he is now unable to do so, as stairs offer the only route out of the station. Consequently, he can no longer travel into London as frequently as he did. That places significant limitations on his independence—an issue that could be fixed with the simple installation of an exit ramp.
The 2021 census shows that 30% of Rickmansworth residents are retired, compared to the national average of 21.7%. Areas with an ageing population, like Rickmansworth, would particularly benefit from step-free access. Many other constituencies are also impacted by this especially problematic issue. Over two thirds of the London underground network is still without step-free access, which prevents thousands of disabled people from accessing a vital transport network.
Another hurdle restricting accessibility to transport services in my constituency, which I have repeatedly highlighted in the Chamber, is the lack of concessions available to residents of South West Hertfordshire. TfL also stated that through concessions, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network. Again, that is not possible if concessions are not extended to people who frequently use those services. Those concessions include Oyster cards for students under 18, the 60-plus Oyster card, and discounts available for veterans and disabled users of TfL services. Disabled people who live inside the Greater London boundary are eligible for a freedom pass, which enables use of TfL services free of charge, but that is not extended to my constituents.
An overwhelming 96% of respondents to my Met line survey agreed that residents in my constituency should have the same concession fares as Londoners. That highlights a failure to create an inclusive and accessible transport system for everyone. How is it fair that, despite relying on these essential services to commute every day, my constituents are not eligible for the same concessionary fares as some who live only hundreds of metres away?
Inaccessibility of transport services is not simply about not being able to get to the tube; hon. Members have spoken about the bus system, the state of pavements, pavement parking and street furniture. Inaccessibility of transport services means that disabled people are restricted in their independence and ability to participate in life. That is important. The Department for Transport must equip transport authorities to increase accessibility for everyone.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate. I place on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and the parent of a child who has a Motability vehicle, which I drive on her behalf, with a blue badge. I will refer to those issues.
I welcome the Transport Committee’s report and the Government’s response. There are some access issues that I will talk about from first-hand experience. I was the cabinet member for transport in my borough of Bexley 20 years ago, and was latterly on the board of London Travelwatch, so I have had a long interest in these issues, but it was only when I became the parent of somebody who has a complex set of disabilities—a wheelchair user who needs constant care and support—that I understood some of the complexities of travel.
I turn first to toilets. The Select Committee report and the Government’s response look at changing places. There has been a sea change in the availability of changing places toilets, both in motorway service stations and at railway stations, in the last 10 years or so, which is warmly welcomed. If I am driving on the motorway, we have to plan for that. I also hope to see one more at Charing Cross in the very near future. I accept that this is a cross-departmental responsibility, but there is a great deal more to do. We need to push for more funding for changing places.
We have seen the outcome of the report by the aviation accessibility task and finish group—my private Member’s Bill on this is sitting in a long queue—whose first anniversary will be this summer. On that first anniversary, I would welcome the Government bringing forward findings on how we may move forward, and setting out whether issues remain that will require legislation. At the moment, the Civil Aviation Authority probably does not have enough powers, in particular with regard to the compensation level, which I think is around £1,500. Many people’s wheelchairs are worth far more than that, and if they are damaged, they cannot receive the compensation required to replace them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, I welcome the consideration of the inclusive transport strategy; I would like to see the Government develop that. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said about floating bus stops and experiences on the bus. In my constituency, a passenger banged their shopping trolley against my leg for an entire journey because she was so angry that my daughter’s wheelchair had taken up the space she wanted to use for her shopping trolley. There remains a great deal to do on education.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a great deal of experience. Marilyn is a blind lady in my constituency who has faced the issues of floating bus stops. During the design and implementation processes, her voice really was not listened to, and the views of blind people were not incorporated into the process. What more could be done to educate, and to ensure that those people are at the table when these processes are happening?
Daniel Francis
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, I will continue to press the Government. I could take hon. Members to bus stops close to here that I think are a risk for blind passengers as well as for wheelchair passengers. We need to do more on this.
I will not object to the measures on Motability in the Finance Bill, but there is ignorance in this place from some Members—many are not here today—on Motability, the issues around the scheme and how it continues to need to be supported, particularly for wheelchair users. On regulation and enforcement, there is training and a lot of great practice; I see some great practice of support for disabled people on my own Southeastern passenger service, but that needs to be expanded.
I have two horror stories involving toilets at central London stations, where staff refused access to the changing places toilet, telling me my daughter could not use it—she needs a changing bench—and needed to go into the standard disabled toilet. That is the level of training still required.
I completely support Great British Railways, but there will be issues in areas where it shares services with TfL. For example, Abbey Wood is very close to my constituency—TfL will manage that station even though both services operate from it. Denmark Hill will be a GBR station. We will have to see how those two services integrate.
I welcome the consultation on micromobility. The issue remains whereby, if someone’s wheelchair is over 200 kg, they have to ride it in the road, as they are not allowed on the pavement. That is hugely discriminatory. It means that a child cannot use their wheelchair if it is over 200kg. It means that if someone who has lost their driving licence for medical reasons, such as epilepsy, cannot use their wheelchair. I hope that we can resolve such issues following the consultation. I have also been involved in complaints processes through TravelWatch, and I hope the watchdog has the necessary powers to deal with the problems. We need to look again, as I have said, at the Civil Aviation Authority.
In my mind, TfL leads the way on accessibility information. The TfL Go app shows the availability of level access, station accessibility, and where a lift may be out of order. GBR needs to follow that lead. We need a national transport accessibility app shows that information, as well as showing the locations of disabled toilets and changing places toilets. Of all the places that I have travelled to with my daughter across Europe, TfL leads the way in supplying that information, and I hope that can be considered as we go forward.
My final point is on ticketing. Clearly, more needs to be done in this area. Problems remain with the level of information that is available for blind passengers and wheelchair users. It is a great scheme, but more needs to be done to highlight those issues.
I welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s comments later.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport.
When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way.
Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton.
For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally.
Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station. This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding.
In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said:
“This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.”
This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment.
Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later.
What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks.
Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Preston Park station to meet my dedicated local campaigners, and to see the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well. I invite him to see these problems at first hand.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate and for her fantastic leadership of the Transport Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) is no longer in her seat, but I commend her on her campaign on pavement parking, which is the bane of many of my constituents’ lives. I am pleased that the Government are giving powers to Bradford council and other councils across the country to look at introducing selective pavement parking bans.
I have dedicated much of my career to campaigning to improve things for disabled people and older people in particular. Part of my work at the Centre for Ageing Better was on age-friendly communities, and we saw accessible transport as a key part of an age-friendly community. Transport is an essential part of everyday life; it allows us to get to vital appointments and to work, and to see friends and family. It is a bridge that connects us to different aspects of our lives and keeps us from feeling isolated. Yet as we have heard in this debate, and as we know from our own experiences and those of our constituents, for many with disabilities public transport is not a bridge but a barrier.
In my constituency, the lack of accessibility as Menston station has been a persistent issue. However, thanks to the combined efforts of a very doughty councillor—Chris Steele—West Yorkshire combined authority, Network Rail and funding from the Department for Transport, we have just completed a £7.8 million modernisation programme. I was delighted to cut the ribbon and ride in the new lifts just last month. I pay tribute to Chris Steele in particular for his ongoing campaign, because it is all very well having an accessible station, but at the moment the actual train is not accessible and he is campaigning to get what is called a Harrington hump. If colleagues have not heard of a Harrington hump, I suggest they look it up, but it basically makes a section of the platform raised so that disabled people can access the train without the need for a ramp. The progress at Menston station is just one example. I would be keen to hear from the Minister about plans to ensure that councils and combined authorities have the support they need further to increase accessibility at stations.
It is vital that the Government take steps to ensure that buses, too, are accessible. I am really proud of what the Government are doing to make it easier for local authorities and mayors to bring buses back into public ownership, and I was delighted to hear—as I am sure you were, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Bradford has just been awarded over £14 million to help with the roll-out of electric buses across our district. Special thanks go to council leader Susan Hinchcliffe, who has lobbied hard on this particular issue. These buses must be designed with accessibility in mind. That means visual and audio displays, a step that drops to the kerb and, as we have heard about in the debate, drivers receiving the necessary training and awareness so that they know how to accommodate disabled passengers. I would like reassurance from the Minister that any new transport infrastructure, including buses, will meet high design standards for accessibility.
Finally, I want to touch on affordability. Not only must disabled people be able to physically access transport; they must be able to afford it. Tracy Brabin, our fantastic Mayor of West Yorkshire, only a couple of weeks ago announced that once the Weaver Network—the franchised bus network—rolls out across West Yorkshire, disabled people will be entitled to use their bus pass before 9.30 am. This will help disabled workers get to work. I urge other places to look at what we are doing in West Yorkshire, and I encourage the Minister to work with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to support people who are not in education, employment or training, and others who may face additional barriers to getting into work. We need to make sure that public transport is accessible to all citizens.
The Government are doing lots of really positive things, but I am keen to make sure that they take further action to improve the lives of disabled people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is more to be done if we are to guarantee access to public transport, which most of us take for granted, as a right for all.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am always pleased to speak in debates about transport. I want to paint a picture for the Minister of Leighton Buzzard station—he is, of course, welcome to visit too. There are two lifts, which is fantastic, and I do not knock those lifts at all, because I know that many people want them. At the moment, a person can walk in from the ticket entrance side, get into one of the lifts, go up, go across and go down again, but then they hit a slight problem. They then have to walk all the way along the platform, passed the locked gate, whereupon there are a few steps to go up and a few steps to go down to get out of the station on to the other side, where many people want to go—it is a place called Linslade. As I said, there is a locked gate on that route. Were that gate to be opened, they would have entirely step-free access to get to the outside world.
I know that it is not that simple, because I have had a lot of conversations with people about it—there is some greenery in the way, some cables and there are issues with public rights of way—but it really does not seem impossible. My last discussions were with Network Rail and it said that it was talking to London Northwestern. Given that they are both now in public hands, it does not seem that there are many people to pass the buck between. Will the Minister suggest how we can make best progress on that local issue?
Moving on, I will talk briefly about a couple of points in the Transport Committee’s “Access denied” report. The first is the recommendation in paragraph 105 on a unified complaints system. I am in favour of unification and standardisation, and I think that Great British Railways offers a real chance to do that in many ways, not least on lost property, which I spoke about on Second Reading of the Railways Bill. I also think that as we establish more and more regional transport brands—the example of the Weaver brand has been discussed—that will be what customers think of as the portal gateway to many different types of transport. Indeed, that may well be the place where people ought to be pointed towards if they want to make a complaint—or, actually, if they are going to give somebody a compliment, because it is not always bad news.
I also highlight paragraph 25 of the report, which focuses on neurodiversity. It mentions various issues, including ambiguous signage, which nobody wants. I personally find the Thameslink boards at Blackfriars to be particularly confusing, and I never know which side the train is coming in on. Great British Railways offers us perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create familiarity and consistency right across the network. There are reports from Tokyo that on its metro, the Ginza line, colour-zoned boarding areas have been introduced and that has been cited as an example of neurodiverse-friendly design. It is also a design that has improved passenger circulation overall and meant far fewer last-minute dashes by everybody to the platform. Because this is, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) mentioned, the good thing about accessible design: improved signage can help tourists or commuters rushing to make a connection and banishing steps also helps anybody with a suitcase or a pram.
For society to thrive, we need to make use of the talents of everybody. If we do this right, we do not just remove barriers; we raise the standard of travel for everyone.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her efforts in securing this debate, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
At Long Eaton train station in my constituency, the two platforms are well above ground level. They are both accessed by narrow ramps and on both sides of the train line there is a steep upward incline. The ramps are guarded at each end by rails that prevent people from cycling up and down them, but the sharpness of that gradient means that if a traveller has any kind of mobility issues, their journey up to the platform might be rather difficult. The barriers make it effectively impossible for anybody who requires a wheelchair to make it up, and some old tarmac on the ramp often sees people with no mobility issues at all hit the deck every time there is a freeze. From personal experience on my parliamentary commute, I can confirm: not fun.
Thankfully, two lifts were installed at Long Eaton train station in 2012, as part of Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which was launched by the last Labour Government in 2006 and continues to this day. The installation was great progress towards improving disabled access to the platforms, but the operation of the lifts leaves quite a lot to be desired. Travellers can use the lifts only when somebody is on duty at the ticket office, which is during normal hours of nine-to-five. Thankfully, despite the previous Conservative Government’s best efforts in 2023, the ticket office remains open, but travellers are still severely limited. The office is not staffed all the time, meaning that of an evening or weekend, the lifts cannot be used and disabled members of my community cannot access the platforms.
I pay tribute to my local councillor, Dave Doyle—a very good friend of mine—and to Sawley parish council chair, Alan Chewings. Dave and Alan have done great work for many years in raising the alarm on accessibility failures at Long Eaton train station. Indeed, when Dave, Alan and I campaigned against the proposed ticket office closure a few years ago, disabled people’s access was very much what we focused on. Great thanks are therefore due to Dave and Alan for their efforts over the years.
I have previously met Midlands Connect and Network Rail and spoken about persistent issues at Long Eaton station. Struggles with accessibility result from its relative lack of modernisation, but the problems do not stop there. The platform is also unusually short—there is a special announcement every time I get on my train back home. It means that long inter-city trains cannot open all their doors because they cannot be accessed from the whole platform. It leads to missed connections and confusion for travellers across the board.
Additionally, the railway bridge right next to the station across Tamworth Road is 200 years old. It is so low and narrow that it chokes all traffic going under what is an important thoroughfare between Long Eaton and the M1. The road under the bridge also regularly floods, which means that people have to take a 15-minute diversion. The infrastructure we need is just not there.
In summary, we need proper investment to ensure that the station is accessible every day at all times. Long Eaton is a commuter town, ultimately. It is at the heart of the east midlands, with regular trains running to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and it is less than two hours door to door to the House of Commons—which is convenient. But it needs to be modernised, and any project that does that needs to recognise disabled people’s rights to accessibility, so that everyone can use the station to get where they need to go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is appropriate to take part in this debate on what is National Epilepsy Day. I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing the debate and for her expertise in this area, and I congratulate her on doing so. I thank all colleagues across the House who have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who are admirably increasing the pressure for accessibility improvements in their constituencies.
The debate has shown what disabled people have known for a long time: accessibility is still too often treated as a box to tick late in the process, rather than being built in from the start, with the result that people are left trying to navigate a system that may function on paper but too often breaks down in practice. That is why the issue cannot be approached piecemeal—with one part of the system considered in isolation, each body concerned only with its own narrow responsibilities —because what matters in real life is whether the whole journey works from beginning to end. The proper test for the Government is therefore a practical one: can someone get from home to work, to college, to hospital or to the high street, or to see their friends or family, safely and reliably with the same basic confidence as anyone else? For too many disabled people, the answer is still no.
The wider picture makes that clear. Only 31% of British stations had full step-free access as of November 2025, 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and bus journeys have fallen by more than a billion since 2015. Those are not separate problems; they are a sign of a transport system in which accessibility has not been given the place it should have in decisions about infrastructure, service levels, procurement and oversight.
Access to healthcare is also harder where public transport is lacking. Some 66% of elderly people are unable to reach hospital by public transport within 30 minutes. Waits for driving tests remain stubbornly high, which of course is particularly concerning for people who are disabled and rely on driving as their only means of getting around.
The issue is not simply whether there are accessibility duties in law; it is whether accessibility is shaping decisions early enough to prevent exclusion from being built in from the beginning. Failure to get the design right at the outset puts more costs and inconvenience on people and means they have less independence later down the line.
Constituents of mine have raised the situation at the bus stop by the former Three Cups pub in Wellington, where parked cars prevent buses from pulling in so disabled passengers and others cannot board safely and ramps cannot be put out. Street design, parking enforcement, vehicle operation and passenger assistance all need to work together to solve those problems.
I have also heard from residents of Creech Heathfield, who have spent months trying to get a response from bus companies about wheelchair accessibility, but have received no meaningful reply. That, too, is part of accessibility. A system that does not respond when disabled people raise barriers is a system that is failing them. The same pattern can apply to taxi provision: with a shortage or scarcity of accessible cabs, bookings often fall through or unsuitable vehicles arrive instead. If policymakers treat accessibility as a marginal issue, or something that can be covered by special arrangements later on, what develops instead is a patchwork of uncertainty in which disabled people are expected to plan around failure—that is not good enough.
For disabled people, rail matters, buses matter, taxis matter and driving support matters, as do the links between them all. The Liberal Democrats have played their part. I am pleased to have played my part in the campaign to ensure that ticket offices in my constituency were retained, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) mentioned. We have also proposed amendments to Bills on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, on extending support for disabled people, and on the rail passenger’s charter. How will the Government embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage, and how will they bring rail, buses, taxis and driving support together into a more coherent strategy for disabled people.
If I may, I will end on a positive note, which I know is unusual in this place. In looking back on my experience, I have a confession: I was a pusher from my childhood to later in life, as my mum was a wheelchair user before the days of electric wheelchairs. I identify with the experience of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) of accompanying people on public transport. In those days, we relied on my mum being an indomitable character who would pressgang any available member of the public—family, porters, taxi drivers—to get her across the country. Before public transport accessibility, that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi, or lifting her into the goods van, where she would rattle around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. On some of those journeys, it was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in “Around the World in 80 Days”.
Those days have passed, however. Things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, there have been improvements in public transport accessibility. That accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process; it must be part of the plan from the start.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Over the past few decades there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling and successful lives. However, I recognise that, despite strong standards and the implementation of new measures by Governments of all stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by Governments of both main parties in order to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always met the standards that disabled people understandably expect. Governments should always strive to ensure that our transport system works for disabled people. As the Transport Committee report on accessibility recognised last year, this is not a simple issue. Disabled people use very different methods of transport. The report rightly points out that:
“The support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly”.
It has been great to hear from Members from across the House, particularly those with personal experience. In recent years I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long time, and I remember taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years. Hearing from hon. Members about the variety of challenges is important, because those experiences can inform our debate. It was particularly great to hear from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about changing places facilities. I have been campaigning for some in Basildon, and they have just been put in. They are important because they give people the confidence to get out and about and access our town centres, which benefits high streets as well as disabled people themselves.
It was fantastic to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) about how looking at design issues from the start can make an important difference. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about floating bus stops—an issue that I shall return to.
The variation in types of transport used by disabled people shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring that technical specifications are up to standard and that there are enough staff. Although those things are obviously critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must consider the broader question of how Government policies can impact them as well.
That is why I want to focus on one thing that is critical to travel for disabled people but is often overlooked in discussions on accessibility: the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In 2024, the national travel survey showed that 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people were travelled in private cars, either as a passenger or as the driver. That is higher than the figure for non-disabled people. As the Select Committee noted, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far more often than non-disabled people.
It is also important to recognise that, among disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends. Those journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but integral to people’s lives. Without them, people would be cut off, yes, from work, but importantly also from the essential activities and social engagements that are the indicators of a fulfilling life for anyone.
Anna Dixon
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many disabled people simply do not have a choice, because public transport is either not available, if they live in a rural area, or not accessible? Much of the reason why they have to resort to relying on cars and taxis is the failure to invest in an accessible public transport system.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will add, though, that disabled people often choose to use a car, if one is available, because it is the most convenient means of getting around; it means that they can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I do not want a system that restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by car.
As such, I implore the Minister and his colleagues to speak to the Treasury about the fuel duty issue. With 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people travelled by car, increases in the price at the pump will inevitably deter people from making journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that it is a tax on transport at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. It is a further tax imposed by this Government, who I feel often treat drivers and passengers as a cash cow to fund their other decisions.
I hope that this debate sharpens the Minister’s focus and reminds Treasury Ministers, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely a means to extract money and taxation from the public, but a lifeline for everyone—particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on vehicles than the population as a whole.
Daniel Francis
I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about what I said. However, all the statistics show that the people who need Motability vehicles the most are the poorest and those who live in rural areas. The Conversative party policy on this matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles. Will he commit to go away to his colleagues and look at that policy, which will damage disabled people who live in rural communities more than anybody else?
Mr Holden
I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that he voted last week for a policy that hammers those rural transport users more than anyone else, not at some theoretical time in the future but from September this year, increasing in December and again in March next year. These are not policies that may or may not happen in the future, but policies he has voted for that are hurting disabled people from this year. He should reflect on the impacts that policy will have and speak to Ministers about how those impacts will play out right across the system.
Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is constrained not only by the cost of driving but by prohibitive motoring policies. We acknowledge that the Government have made some progress—for example, by creating a more accessible railway network, including through the railway road map—and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers in recent months, which have rightly focused on policies that Members across the House support. It is also great to see that some Access for All projects are being progressed. However, it is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that some of the projects set out by the last Government have been paused and have a question mark over them, or are not being pursued.
I do not doubt that the Minister believes strongly in improving access for disabled people. My concern is that the Government are comfortable using the language of accessibility but, when faced with decisions that directly impact disabled people—whether that is making stations more accessible or making driving a car more expensive—they are not on the right side.
Time and again, Ministers have been made aware of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, in particular floating bus stops. During the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Government said that they intended that the guidance for floating bus stops
“will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2025; c. 183.]
The acceptance of Lord Blunkett’s amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements to floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of being struck by bikes while crossing bike paths. It has been great to see floating bus stops removed from scheme designs in some parts of the country; I had an exchange recently with my county council in Essex, which is removing floating bus stops from a large new property development.
However, despite the promises to this House and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the Government’s proposals in January were pitiful. You do not need to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute of Blind People said that the new guidance simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the street access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said:
“It does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have and it’s totally insulting to think that we’ll accept this.”
Those concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the RNIB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops, increasing their journey time, or do not make the journey at all. The Mayor of London has supported the floating bus stop policy using all sorts of strange figures, which he has had to row back on. I was recently down on Chiswick High Road in Hounslow with Councillors Joanna Biddolph and Gabriella Giles, looking at some of the most egregious examples of floating bus stops.
The next decade will offer opportunities for advances in accessibility. New technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand-responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available. If the Government use the powers available to them, such as those in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 passed by the last Government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people.
As I noted at the start of my speech, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. This is a multimodal problem crossing both public and private forms of transport, with disabled people facing specific challenges in addition to those faced by everyone else. Where people are unable to travel by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracised from the travelling experience of non-disabled people. This cannot be solved overnight. As Members have suggested, it requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport. To achieve that, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people, and when we do promise change, as the Government have done on floating bus stops, we have to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people’s lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address.
The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister.
Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone.
I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.
Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity.
The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change.
I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements.
However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway.
Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.
The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.
On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core.
I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way.
Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published.
I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities.
I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up very quickly.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, and the Committee team for the contribution they have made to our work in this important area. I welcome the Minister’s commitment and ambition, and his list of Government initiatives in this area, and I am glad that the Law Commission will be involved in giving teeth to the charter. I just hope that in due course, Ministers will clarify whether disabled people will be involved in shaping the integrated national transport strategy, and will address my questions on the enforcement gap. A fully accessible transport system benefits us all, but we have to remember that—as others have said—disabled people often do not have the choice that many of us have about which mode of travel is available and accessible to them, given their specific needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of transport accessibility for disabled people; notes the recommendations of the Transport Committee in its First Report of Session 2024-25, Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport, HC 770, and the Government’s response to that report, HC 931; and agrees with the Committee that there is an urgent need for review of the legislative framework and the enforcement regime to ensure that the gap between rights and obligations and the daily experience of disabled travellers is closed.
Gurkha Veterans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Cameron Thomas, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
I rise to speak on the subject of support for Gurkha veterans and their dependants. As I speak, Ghanendra Limbu is in hospital, where for two weeks, he has helped me put together this story in a manner that I hope will be befitting. I hope the House will join me in wishing him a swift and full recovery.
Nepal is a country smaller than the UK, bordered by global giants China to its north and India to its south. Its highest point is Mount Everest, and it is from Nepal that for over 200 years, the UK has drawn some of its most resilient, courageous and loyal soldiers. Ghanendra was born in the mountainous village of Khamalung, which has a population of 900, on 27 January 1960. Like many across Nepal, he grew up in poverty, despite both parents working long hours as farmers. His ambition was to one day join the Gurkhas and serve alongside the British Army, as some of his uncles and cousins did—it would be a route out of poverty and into a life of expedition—but it was an ambition shared by hundreds of thousands of young Nepalese.
At school, Ghanendra excelled in football and basketball, but his English was also exceptional, which would soon prove pivotal to his future. In 1977, he travelled to the recruiting centre near Kathmandu and applied to join the Gurkhas. The recruitment process was robust and highly contested; there were tens of thousands of applicants to join a brigade only 8,000 strong. Ghanendra was the only person from his village to pass selection. His parents were immensely proud of their son, but his success meant that he would soon leave his family behind to travel to Hong Kong and begin 11 months of training. In Hong Kong, Ghanendra—with his rural background—learned how to survive in conflict and operate various weapon systems; that included learning how to wield the Nepali kukri in hand-to-hand combat. His field engineer training then took him to Kitchener barracks in Kent, where he trained as a driver and a field engineer.
Throughout this period of training, Ghanendra and his fellow Gurkhas were vaguely aware of the increasing tensions between Argentina and the UK over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. On completion of his training, he was assigned to the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, which provided the British Army with builders, plumbers and electricians. Ghanendra was selected to train as an electrician, but before he could begin his specialist training, on 2 April 1982, Argentina seized the Falkland Islands, 10,000 miles from Nepal. As Ghanendra recalls, he could barely identify the islands on a map. Britain declared war, and Ghanendra’s platoon commander immediately reassigned him to pre-deployment training.
On 12 May 1982, eight days after HMS Sheffield was sunk with the loss of 20 personnel, the British ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 embarked for the south Atlantic, carrying Gurkhas, Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Later, at Ascension Island, 21162121 Sapper Limbu and his fellow engineers boarded, and he recalls being ordered to prepare to fight immediately on arrival into theatre. Most of them had never travelled by sea, and were constantly sick over the next 11 days. Until 14 June, over the course of the war, during which Britain lost six ships, Ghanendra and his engineers remained aboard the QE2, knowing day and night that they too could be attacked. They remained aboard long after the war ended, to clear ordnance, which littered battlefields across the islands, but Ghanendra states that he was never trained in minefield clearance.
On 1 December 1982, Ghanendra was attached to 49 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers, and was deployed by helicopter to Two Sisters hill. Members of 49 EOD located an unexploded Russian anti-aircraft rocket and began to initiate a cordon. Ghanendra was closest to that rocket when it detonated. He regained consciousness at Port Stanley hospital, several hours after evacuation, where he was told by a doctor that he would lose his eye, and that his hands and legs were badly injured. He was told, before he passed out, that he would be returned to the UK for treatment.
Ghanendra was first moved to Ascension Island on 4 December, where he received further treatment, and he remembers being unable to pass urine. He remembers being given another injection, before regaining consciousness at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich. He was blind in both eyes for two weeks, during which he was operated on by Colonel Youngson, who told him he was lucky to have survived at all. Following six months of treatment, Ghanendra lost one of his eyes, but retained sight in the other, and he kept limited use of his hands and legs.
Throughout those six months, Ghanendra cried day and night. His hopes of a long Army career as an electrician were over at 22. “The Magician”, as he was described by his team-mates on the battalion basketball team, would never play basketball again, and his days on the right wing of a football pitch were over, too. After his discharge from hospital, Ghanendra returned to Kitchener barracks, wanting to seek legal advice, but he was ordered not to leave camp. In 1983, he was told he was no longer fit for the Army and was flown back to Hong Kong. He was physically and psychologically broken, and would have nothing to offer back in Nepal. He was offered a partial pension by the UK Government, amounting to 40%. It was worth 500 rupees—less than £2.50 in today’s money. The UK sent this man, who travelled 10,000 miles to serve the UK in the Falkland Islands, back to Nepal with one eye, a walking stick and £2.50 a month. Shame on us.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member is making an excellent speech, and the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans must never be understated or sidelined. The treatment of Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans in regard to their pensions has been deplorable. The UK Government have rightly recognised veterans’ bravery and their achievements, but that must be translated into respect for their pensions. Does he agree that the UK Government must work at pace and collaboratively with the new Prime Minister of Nepal to resolve these long-standing issues of long-suffering veterans?
Cameron Thomas
I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed contribution. I fully agree, and I will further state that Gurkha veterans, as well as all veterans and members of our armed forces, are lucky to have him as the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and gallant Member on bringing forward this debate. In the time he has been in this House, he has made a significant contribution on Army, Navy and RAF matters, and we thank him for that.
When I was a wee boy—that was not yesterday—I used to read about the exploits of the Gurkhas in magazines or newspapers. I was always moved by their bravery. I never met a Gurkha until I was on an exercise with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They were not that big, but my goodness, they were strong and courageous. The Gurkhas have given their all for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often at great personal cost, as the hon. and gallant Member has outlined. Does he agree that it is only right that we ensure that every veteran, regardless of when they served, receives the dignity, the pension equality and the welfare support that they earned on the battlefield? Does he not agree that words of thanks are just not enough? What they need is practical support, and the Government must demonstrate that in this debate. Today is the first stage in the battle to make that happen.
Cameron Thomas
As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his meaningful contribution, and I fully agree with him. It gives me an opportunity to recognise that the Gurkhas’ service boosts the morale of all our armed forces. My prevailing memory of serving with the Gurkhas is that they were constantly smiling, which always lifted the morale of everybody they worked with.
In 2004, Ghanendra’s first application to return to the UK was rejected because he had retired prior to 1997, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign continued to fight for equal settlement rights for all Gurkha soldiers. On 29 April 2009, a Liberal Democrat motion to deliver equal rights to settle for all Gurkha veterans delivered Gordon Brown’s Government a shock defeat. Within one month, the then Home Secretary announced that all Gurkhas who had served for at least four years could settle, but it should never have taken such a prolonged and public campaign, with the backing of Opposition MPs and Labour rebels and only one year out from a general election, to deliver this piece of justice for our veterans.
Ghanendra was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2012, and he moved to Aldershot. He is now 66 years old, totally disabled and clearly unable to work. He survives through food bank donations and the support of Farnborough church members. Notwithstanding the fact that but for a parliamentary anomaly, this country would have kept him hidden away in Nepal, this is a shameful injustice. Ghanendra is tired, desperate and ill. He told me that he wishes he could have his time back—that he could be 22 again, with the use of both of his eyes and his body. I cannot give him that, but I am honoured to be able to speak for him today.
This week I met several other Gurkha veterans in Portcullis House, and all feel a continuing sense of injustice, which I share. A retired warrant officer class 2 of the 10th Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21154152 Phurba Sherpa, told me that he served this country for 20 years and 119 days, yet the years that he served in Asia prior to 1997 were not factored into his accrued pension. A retired infantryman in the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, 21167476 Bhimraj Tumbahangphe, told me that 18 years of his national insurance contributions, collected by the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas, are not recognised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His pension does not factor into those contributions, and his fellow veterans report the same anomaly. It was further reported to me that the Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas sidestepped pension contributions by paying Gurkhas through local overseas allowance while they were based in Brunei and Belize.
Since 2006, Gurkha pensions have been aligned with their comparative armed forces pension schemes—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15—as they always should have been, but service prior to 2005 returned a paltry figure. Bhimraj retired after 18 years in 2003, before the alignment, and the lump sum that his pension accrued amounted to only £3,000. He receives less than £400 a month. The lump sum issued to those on armed forces pension scheme 75 for comparative service, which included Bhim’s brother, a retired staff sergeant, was £78,000. He receives £1,200 as a monthly pension payment.
My Gurkha friends recounted this week that, at the conclusion of the Borneo confrontation in 1966, thousands of Gurkhas who had fought for and served the UK’s interests found themselves superfluous and were discharged from the Brigade of Gurkhas. They were left ineligible for a pension. Those who had served over nine years at discharge were issued a single payment of £360, and those who had served for less than nine years were given £250. Today, thousands of the descendants of these warriors live in the rural regions of Nepal, because they cannot afford to live in Nepalese cities—the dependants and descendants of our veterans, who have been left with barely even a historical footnote.
I was told by my Gurkha friends that the Home Office, under this Government, almost exclusively refuses visitor visas for relatives of Gurkha veterans living in the UK. I was told that, since 2019, Department for Work and Pensions rules state that those receiving benefits may leave the UK for a maximum of only 28 days continuously. This timeline is especially prohibitive for Gurkha veterans wanting to visit their families in rural Nepal; it can take over a week to reach these regions as, having transited the airbridge to a major settlement, doing so demands journeys of hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain by road and foot.
I have some questions for the Minister, but I will put them forward at a later point, because I am conscious of time. In closing, I want to recognise the dedication of the Gurkhas, as I have observed, on behalf of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nepal, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). She apologises that she cannot be here this afternoon, otherwise she would, I know, have contributed with a genuine and heartfelt speech.
I thank the hon. Member for organising a marking of remembrance at the memorial to the Brigade of Gurkhas in November 2025. She offered me the honour of laying the wreath at that service, which I proudly accepted. When I placed the wreath, I took a moment to read the inscription beneath the feet of the Gurkha Soldier. It reads:
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
I want to believe that comment is genuine, and that the reasons for the injustices are that they are so numerous, so complex and so historical that they persist not through lack of will, but through lack of understanding. I want to believe that the relationship between the UK and the Gurkhas is one of friendship, not one of exploitation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit to start with, I call Lauren Edwards.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this really important debate.
My constituency of Rochester and Strood has a long and proud history and association with the Gurkha community and Nepal. There are over 100 Gurkhas living in the Medway towns, representing a sizeable community of former military personnel who have served this country, along with a significant wider community of Nepalese heritage. Along with many Members here today, I have written to the Minister for Veterans and People, particularly on behalf of the Gurkha Nepalese community in Medway and Kent, and I thank her for her responses and engagement.
Given the time constraints, I will not repeat the points about the case that Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 have for justice in their pension arrangements, which I think are generally well known in this House. I understand the Government’s position, shared by previous Governments, that they are unable to make retrospective changes to such pension arrangements for this cohort of veterans. While the legal position is clear, the reality is that it was not anticipated that so many who are in receipt of pre-1997 pension arrangements would be living in this country.
It is widely understood that the pensions of those whose service ended before 1 July 1997 are not adequate to sustain a decent standard of living in the UK. Many veterans living in this country receive about one third of the pension paid to a British soldier of equivalent rank. As my constituent Sumendra Rai has told me:
“This division is profoundly unjust. It institutionalises inequality among soldiers who wore the same uniform, followed the same orders, and risked their lives in the same conflicts”.
If it is not possible to provide an uplift for their pensions, I strongly urge the Minister to work with Treasury Ministers to consider the introduction of a fund from which this relatively small cohort of veterans experiencing hardship can access additional financial support. The cost to the Government would likely not be significant, given the numbers, but the impact of such a fund on the quality of life of these veterans would be huge.
This would also be very beneficial to bilateral relations between the UK and Nepal. Although I appreciate the steps being taken to work with the Government of Nepal to increase support for the veterans living there, it is right for the Government to look to alleviate the poverty and hardship of those who have served this country and now live here in the UK. I would of course appreciate an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss this further, as I am sure other Members would.
To conclude, supporting our Gurkha veterans who are currently experiencing hardship is about preserving a partnership that has been built over centuries. It is a relationship founded on trust, mutual respect and shared sacrifice, and it is important that we acknowledge the loyalty that the Gurkhas have shown to this country, and do our best to ensure that they do not experience poverty and hardship in their well-earned retirement.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing forward the debate, and for his wonderful and kind introduction to so many of his Gurkha friends.
It would be easy for my remarks to simply be an ode to the Gurkhas and to shower them with honeyed words, because that is what they deserve, but this debate is really about burning injustices—injustices faced by those who have served our nation with distinction. I have had the privilege to meet Gurkha soldiers on many occasions. They are a wonderful people: tough, brave and humble—qualities, I am sure, shaped by the stunning but harsh Himalayan environment. After all, they do hail from the roof of the world.
For over 200 years, Gurkha soldiers have served this country with honour in conflict theatres in all corners of the globe, through the world wars—perhaps most famously in the campaign against imperial Japan—the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Wherever a British flag has been raised, you will so often find loyal Gurkhas there too. And every time, they have demonstrated themselves to be among the finest soldiers to don a British uniform—indeed, a reputation that truly precedes them.
Yet despite this long and storied connection, we now facing a moment where the Nepalese Government have made overtures suggesting that Gurkha recruitment could be halted if the issue of these injustices is not addressed. I say to the Government and to the Minister—for whom I have a lot of time and respect, because he is a good Minister, if not a Secretary of State—that the noble principle of reciprocity, which has come to characterise this most special relationship over two centuries, must not be allowed to fall into disrepute. It would be a stain on our nation. This is an old and legendary bond, forged in blood and sacrifice, and in the fires of war, and it requires a renewal fit for 21st-century Britain.
The pre-1997 settlement, based on Indian army rates, does not reflect the financial reality of living in Britain in 2026, with much higher associated costs and diminished purchasing power. Frankly, the tripartite agreement of 1947, the year of India’s independence, is now an outmoded covenant. British and Indian regiments are now separate, so for India to remain under this arrangement is otiose. The fact is that we have Gurkha veterans today who are victims of the legacy of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. How can it be that men who served our country in uniform are still not entitled to the same pension settlement because of a technicality rooted in the date—1997—that their service concluded?
Finally, an ode to the Gurkhas is richly desired and deserved, but justice for the Gurkhas is required—now.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber.
For over two centuries, Gurkha soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with British troops in conflicts across the globe. Their bravery, loyalty and sacrifice has been unwavering. They have fought in wars, upheld our values and in many cases laid down their lives in service to this country. I am proud, as the Member for Doncaster Central, to represent a large Gurkha population. I am proud not only because of the service they have given this country, but because of the contribution they make to our city today. They are valued members of the Doncaster community and we are richer for their contribution. That is why I am here today to ensure their voice is heard.
As the Minister will already be aware from speeches by other hon. Members, there are many in the Gurkha community who feel that their pension provision has not been fairly applied. Some are living in real hardship as a result.
This relates particularly to those who enlisted before ’93 and the loss of the pre-1997 service value. Let me illustrate a personal example of this: a Gurkha veteran in my constituency served 28 and a half years, yet for pension purposes only 16 years of that service is recognised. That represents a loss of around £10,000 a year simply due to excluded service. While I understand the position of this Government—and previous Governments—on this, I ask on behalf of my constituent, and many more like him, that there is continued dialogue with Government to try to remedy what feels like an injustice to them.
I therefore ask the Minister to continue working with Gurkhas on the areas they feel are outstanding, not least because my constituents have told me that they feel that the Gurkha offer to transfer failed to clearly explain the loss of the pre-1997 service value and the option to split pre and post-1997 service for pension purposes. Furthermore, will the Minister consider working with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that Gurkhas who served this country—particularly for a long time, like 28 and a half years—are entitled to the full state pension? That only matches the level of service they have given this country.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury once again and look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer. This is an important debate to have in the House today, not just to highlight the issues that Gurkhas are facing across this country, but as a chance to celebrate their contribution, both to my city and to the nation.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) prompted me to start reminiscing about 29 April 2009. I do not want to be patronising, but there is a moral message and lesson here for hon. Members in my party: on that day, there was a majority of 21 in favour of a settlement being given to the Gurkhas, with twenty-seven Labour Members voting in favour of it. We were called rebels for that. Sometimes, though, we have to make a moral judgment and say to the Whips: “I believe this is the right thing to do.”
It was a huge success and a fantastic campaign, with much publicity secured by Joanna Lumley, who ran a terrific campaign. The lawyers behind it were Martin Howe and his team, with Mark Collins and others. Momentum built up behind that campaign because people were outraged about the discrimination that the Gurkhas were suffering—it was as simple as that. I have to say that the points that hon. Members have raised today demonstrate that that discrimination continues today.
On the issue of pensions, the argument always put by Government is that they cannot legislate or operate retrospectively, but they can—successive Governments have done that. We should not allow the discriminatory way that Gurkha pensioners have been treated, with all their service not being taken into account and the mythical date of 1997 being used against them; as a result, there are Gurkhas living in poverty here and Gurkhas living in poverty back in Nepal—despite all their service, which we have congratulated them on today. In addition, there are issues in our own community with Gurkhas suffering homelessness and financial distress.
I would welcome the Government standing back and producing a strategy for the Gurkhas who have served this country, looking comprehensively at their current situation and at the measures that could be used to address that poverty. In my opinion, what that means is a fair pension settlement once and for all, so that we can get this issue resolved.
There are issues with regard to housing, as I have said, but also with regard to health. We have always extolled the Gurkhas for their bravery, and different surveys have demonstrated that they may suffer less post-traumatic stress disorder than other service people, but I think that is a bit of a myth. I think there are issues with regard to their experiences and the impact that has had on them, and that as they get older, because of this myth, they may not be getting the support and treatment that they should rightfully access. So we need a Gurkha strategy—that is what I would like to see coming from this Government.
In my community, 25 or 30 years ago there must have been only about five Gurkha families, but we now have a sizeable community of at least 500 or 600 families. We have set up a local Gurkha association. One thing we have been successful in is that it wanted a part of the local cemetery dedicated to the Gurkhas. It now has part of that cemetery and we have commemoration services there every year. The Gurkhas contribute widely to the community. Just as they served in the military so well, they serve so well within our community. We therefore owe them a debt of honour to resolve some of these issues, particularly on pensions.
As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned, yes, we have established the Gurkhas’ right of settlement, but there are issues with regard to visas and other matters that fly in the face of the practice of their family life and cultural life. Those need resolving. I would welcome the Government standing back, looking at whether we can develop a comprehensive strategy and reporting back to the House so that we can have a checklist of actions that we can all support on a cross-party basis to address the concerns of these people we have all admired so much.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be able to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his excellent work in securing it. Many of my remarks will echo comments made by colleagues across the House. I will pay my own tribute to the Gurkhas and their incredible service to this country, mention some local residents in Reading—I would like to get on the record their contribution to our country—and point out some of the severe issues they face as a result of the cost of living crisis. I hope that the Minister will respond to those in his speech.
To be clear, we as a country owe a debt of honour to our Gurkhas. For 200 years, they have served this country. They have played some part in every war that Britain has been involved in, and they have been involved in some of the most difficult and demanding engagements in British military history, including in particular the defence of India in world war two, when in 1944 Gurkha soldiers were involved in hand-to-hand fighting to stop the Japanese advance on India. They were also involved in the Falklands war and in Afghanistan. I read Kailash Limbu’s book about his service in Afghanistan, which is incredibly powerful and moving; I recommend it to colleagues across the House.
The Gurkhas are the bravest of the brave, as has been said. In my community, they make an enormous contribution. We have several thousand Gurkhas and Nepalese residents living in Reading, which is a common experience for communities across Berkshire and outer London. If I may, I will briefly pay tribute to one or two individuals before touching on the importance of dealing with the cost of living crisis, particularly for pre-1997 pensioners.
Chandra Budhathoki has played an incredible role in developing the Forgotten British Gurkha charity in Reading, which provides support across a whole range of areas to veterans and their families. It is worth considering that often many family members and older Gurkhas—particularly their wives, as well as some other relatives—do not have a very high level of English. When serving in the Army, orders and instructions were often conveyed in Nepali. It is important to remember that there are some practical barriers to life in Britain; Chandra was instrumental in developing that important charity for our community.
I would like to mention briefly some other notable Gurkhas or Nepalese residents I know. Community worker Ram Galami, a former Gurkha, is a notable member of our community. Pratikshya Gurung is a nurse whose father was a Gurkha in the Indian Army, not the British Army. Most of all, Gyanraj Rai, who many hon. Members may have heard of, is a notable campaigner who has raised the issue of Gurkha pensions for many years.
It is worth briefly touching on the significant practical issues that our residents face. My experience of the pre-1997 Gurkhas, who I have campaigned for since 2013, is that many live in poor-quality housing on very small incomes in the south-east of England or outer London—as well as many other high-cost parts of the country—and they are really struggling because of tight finances. To give the House an idea, the pensions we are talking about can be as little as £300 a month, which, when added to pension credit, may bring the income for a couple to £1,600, but to rent a terraced house in Reading would take that entire income.
These are people who are really struggling. They have given us incredible service but are often living in poor-quality accommodation. They are incredibly proud and incredibly hard-working, and they make an enormous contribution to Britain and to local communities across the country. I hope that the Minister, who is a great supporter of our armed forces families and has done a huge amount to support them, will listen to the debate carefully and think about the issues facing this group of veterans and their families.
I will, if I may, add some other practical points and make a request to the Minister to work with the Department for Transport. There are other issues that need to be addressed in relation to benefits and travel back and forth between the UK and Nepal. One that has been mentioned to me today is the lack of a direct flight from Britain to Nepal, which means that elderly veterans and their wives are often in transit in the Gulf—in normal times, I should say. This dramatically extends travel times, which is extremely difficult for residents who do not have any English. I have heard stories of cousins, nephews and other relatives having to accompany elderly pensioners to try to get them through practicalities at airports—things such as customs, finding the right gate and so on.
It would be much appreciated if the Minister had a word with the Transport Department about the need for a direct flight and to pick up on other issues that have been raised by colleagues. I look forward to hearing his response.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am privileged to have seen the service and sacrifice of the Gurkhas to the British Army at first hand during my visit to Brunei last year, where I had the honour of being hosted by the First Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—a scheme that I know the Minister is a firm supporter of.
The Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas is also located at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, which I am proud to represent, though I should clarify that the headquarters itself falls just outside the constituency. Bracknell Forest is also home to a thriving Nepalese community, focused mostly around Sandhurst. In fact, Nepalese is the second most commonly spoken language in our borough after English.
Every time I meet a Gurkha, or visit our armed forces and see how integral the Gurkhas are to our global reputation and our capabilities, I am reminded of the words inscribed on the Gurkha soldier memorial, not 500 yards from this Chamber. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for reminding us of these important words.
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
As today’s debate has already demonstrated, there is rightly deep respect for Gurkhas across this House. Today is an important opportunity to recognise all that Gurkha veterans have done to defend this country’s interests and security, and to pay tribute to them for that. That is why it is only right that we respect their sacrifice and contributions in kind.
I was proud recently to put my name, alongside a number of colleagues, to a letter to the Veterans Minister from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who is an ardent champion for the Gurkhas. Her work on this has already been rightly highlighted today in this debate. The letter welcomed the election of a new Government in Nepal and recognised the importance of continued constructive engagement on Gurkha welfare with Nepal. I know that the Government are committed to putting the delays of previous Governments behind us and making progress where others have failed to do so. I look forward to supporting their work to achieve a fairer deal for Gurkha veterans.
One area that I would particularly like to highlight, as the Government pick up our conversations with the new Government in Nepal, is the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. I know that this is an issue that the Government have raised previously, so can I take this opportunity to ask for the Minister’s assurances that they will continue to pursue this with the new Nepalese Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I emphasise the will that I know exists in this place to work collaboratively with Nepal on this issue? I welcome the opportunity to continue the dialogue with the new Government and reinstate my support for efforts to find a resolution that properly recognises the enormous contribution made by Gurkhas to our country. Only then can we ever hope to begin to repay the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to our Gurkha veterans; and to be as faithful friends to them as they have been, and continue to be, to us.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I would also like to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker). I know that hon. Friend would be here today, were it not for other duties.
As the MP for Nuneaton, I am incredibly fortunate and proud to represent a large Gurkha population. Their contribution to our town is valued and woven into the fabric of Nuneaton, from the Gurkha Corner Bar to the Crossed Khukris and its amazing curries, which I highly recommend to every Member of the House—I am sure that we can arrange a wonderful visit.
Support and advocacy are provided through the British Gurkha Veterans Association, and the Gurkha monument —the first of its kind—is in Riversley Park in the centre of Nuneaton. Nuneaton is deeply proud of its long-standing connections with Gurkha veterans and serving soldiers, with the Queen’s Gurkha Signals based in Gamecock barracks in neighbouring Rugby.
The British Gurkha Veterans Association provides so much support in our community. It offers English language classes and support for families to better engage with their neighbours and community. It arranges for health checks and organises visits around the country—including one to Parliament, where I had the honour of hosting over 50 Gurkha families for a tour. I know that it is excited by the opportunities presented by Op Valour, which is greatly welcomed in our community, to build on that work.
The recent elections in Nepal provide an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between Nepal and the UK. My community recognises the importance of that relationship and has faith that the UK Government will be able to engage in talks to end the historical injustices against the Gurkha population. I thank the Minister for the work he has done in this area to support our Gurkha communities and strengthen that partnership. I urge him to engage positively with the talks as they progress, and with the Nepal APPG, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.
We have heard many accounts of how Gurkha soldiers have served our nation for generations. They have fought alongside British troops with their renowned ferocity and bravery, and they have paid a heavy cost. We owe them, and all our service personnel, a great debt, and yet long-standing concerns about pensions and access to services for veterans, their wives and widows have failed to be resolved for too long. While I understand the challenge of retroactively addressing pension issues, much more needs to be done to ensure that those who have served—especially those who have paid in national insurance contributions and not seen the returns—have access to healthcare and financial support. I also echo what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said about pre-1997 veterans who were injured in service and do not qualify for a medical pension or compensation.
I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew Limbu, and the absolute privilege of hosting him in Nuneaton. Like many of the veterans, he is quite a character. His passion, enthusiasm and dedication to the fight were a pleasure to see. His visit was only made more memorable by his party trick of popping out his eye at inappropriate moments. As is the case for so many, his life has changed irreversibly as a consequence of his bravery and service in the Falklands. Decisions on a resolution have been deferred for too long. This is a debt that needs to be settled with more than just platitudes.
Through my involvement with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have heard about the wider impact of Gurkha soldiers. It is very welcome that, while we struggle to recruit in other areas, Gurkha regiments are already oversubscribed. I wish to pay homage to a few of the veterans in my community, including Om Gurung and Padam Bahadur Gurung, who are freemen of my borough, and our mayor, Bhim Saru, who still serves our community.
It is practically impossible to find a support service in Nuneaton that has not in one way or another been touched by the work and generosity of our Gurkha veterans, who continue to serve after their duties are done. It is more important than ever for the Government to continue to work at pace to show respect for and truly honour the Gurkha veterans who have made such a sacrifice for our country.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is crucial that we continue to recognise the invaluable contributions of the Gurkhas, both militarily and in our communities, and I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and explaining eloquently the issues that the Gurkha community faces. We need to continue the conversation about the important role they play in our society.
The Gurkhas in my constituency of Ashford and Hawkinge have been a model of dedication and contribution to the wider community, and I could not be prouder to have a thriving Gurkha community in my constituency. Many members of that community are veterans and their families, and many own businesses that contribute to local growth on our high streets, enhance our local culture through Nepalese food, festivals and celebrations, and organise charity events such as litter-picks and walks around the parks in my constituency. Often, veterans take the lead to provide help to the rest of their community through organisations that bind us closer together at a time when we risk becoming more fractured than ever before.
Our shared history with the Gurkhas is demonstrated most clearly by their 200 years of distinguished service as part of the British Army, including their bravery and sacrifices in both world wars, most notably during the north African and Burmese campaigns in the second world war, where they earned 12 Victoria Crosses, and their service against the Ottomans in the first world war, among many other campaigns. The Gurkhas have continued to serve in modern peacekeeping operations, such as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and still serve bravely to this day. I saw that at first hand when I participated in various visits as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which my colleagues have mentioned.
I know that the Gurkhas’ dedication to service is recognised by all Members across this House and by this Labour Government. Part of that recognition involves ensuring the dignity of Gurkha veterans. That is why I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People to ask what measures would be taken to explore the welfare needs and long-standing pension issues of Gurkha veterans. I was pleased that, in her response, the Minister outlined the Government’s commitment to explore measures to address the welfare needs of Gurkha veterans, in both the UK and Nepal, and that Ministry of Defence officials have been instructed to continue discussions with the Gurkha veterans’ representatives. I urge the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is on the Front Bench today, to update us on how that is progressing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war.
With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.
Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities.
The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible.
This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved.
There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much.
We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously.
The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given.
Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness.
At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain.
Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As former Officer Cadet Francois 24663730, and latterly Lieutenant Francois, 5th Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment (Volunteers), I am proud to be asked to sum up for His Majesty’s official Opposition in this important debate about Gurkhas and their welfare. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), not just on securing this important debate, but on introducing it so very ably. As some Members of the House may know, I am something of a military history buff, so I have at least some appreciation of the noble and valiant service that the Gurkhas have provided to the British Crown for over 200 years.
We have heard a number of important Back-Bench speeches this afternoon, including from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point that, in an important debate on this subject, 27 Back-Bench rebels made the difference on the day. He cited that as an example of how Back Benchers can affect the future. I remember how 28 Tory MPs changed the future on meaningful vote three in 2019—although, for our trouble, we were nicknamed “the Spartans” by the media, and not “the Gurkhas”.
The Gurkhas celebrated their 200th anniversary in British service in 2015, when a very striking memorial was unveiled on Horse Guards Avenue, just across the road from the Ministry of Defence. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned today, the inscription on that memorial bears repetition in this context:
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
The Gurkhas entered British service in 1815, when a battalion of Gurkha troops was formed under the auspices of the East India Company. They continued in British service, and during the Indian rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and they became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. They remained in the British Indian Army, and fought valiantly in both the first and second world wars.
In his brilliant book “Defeat into Victory”, which was written after the end of the second world war, and is arguably one of the greatest works ever written on the subject of generalship, one of the Gurkhas’ most famous officers, Field Marshal Viscount the Lord Slim, fondly recalled his association with the Gurkhas in the following terms:
“I was able to visit my old Battalion, the 1st/6th Gurkha Rifles, in which I had served for many happy years. It was good to see them again, and to be told by the divisional commander that they had done well in the Bridgehead fighting. I spoke to Gurkha officers who I had first known 20-odd years before, when I was adjutant, and they were chubby recruits straight from the from the Nepal hills. Now they were subadars, commanding companies and platoons on a hard-fought field. Real soldiers and real leaders.”
What a marvellous tribute to the Gurkhas from Bill Slim, an absolutely exceptional leader.
The Gurkhas continued to fight valiantly in British service, including in the Malayan emergency and during the Falklands war, when a battalion of Gurkhas were part of the British taskforce that liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation in 1982. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly paid tribute to Ghanendra Limbu, who was part of that successful campaign. We thank all those who have served proudly in the Gurkhas for their service.
The Gurkhas still form a fundamental part of the British Army today, serving in what is now known as the Brigade of Gurkhas, a collective term that refers to all serving Gurkha units. It includes three infantry battalions, one of which is based in Brunei. The second is in the United Kingdom, and there is now a third, smaller, specialist infantry battalion at Aldershot, as part of what is known as the Specialised Infantry Group. In addition, the Gurkhas have a number of other units, including signals, engineer and logistics regiments, and, interestingly, from 2025 onwards, there has been the new King’s Gurkha Artillery, which was based at Larkhill.
Despite some disputes over welfare issues, which I will come to in a moment, recruitment from the Gurkhas’ ancestral homeland of Nepal is still very healthy. To this day, we recruit several hundred Gurkhas every year, and those places are massively oversubscribed. Many young men from Nepal still strive to emulate their forebears and join one Gurkha regiment or another to serve the Crown, and long may that continue.
However, in the post-war period, the basis of the Gurkhas’ service was the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, the United Kingdom and India, which established terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas in the British armed forces. Under the arrangement, Gurkhas served in the British Army on distinct terms and conditions. They also had access to a Gurkha pension scheme, first introduced in 1948, which, in essence, followed the Indian army model. It provided Gurkha soldiers with an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, but, as has been pointed out, at equivalent Indian army rates.
In 2007, the Labour Government introduced the Gurkha offer to transfer—or GOTT, as it was sometimes referred to—offering Gurkhas who served after July 1997 the option to transfer their eligible service into the United Kingdom’s armed forces pension scheme, or AFPS. I remember much debate about the AFPS when I was a Minister, and about the different benefits provided by the different generations of the scheme, whether it was AFPS 1975, 2005 or 2015—I see the Minister nodding in acknowledgement.
Significantly in this context, following the handing back of Hong Kong in 1997, the Gurkhas transferred their main base from that former colony back to the United Kingdom, where they are mainly deployed today. After 2009 and a sustained campaign led by, among others, Joanna Lumley—the daughter of a former Gurkha officer—the then Government amended the immigration rules, in essence to allow those who had served in the Brigade of Gurkhas for four years or more to settle themselves and their immediate families in the United Kingdom. That effectively remains the position today. As a result, there are now clusters of Gurkhas and their families living in the UK, mainly in current or former garrison areas, but some are dispersed further afield.
For some time, there has been a campaign to amend the pensions of Gurkha veterans who served many years ago and still draw a pension, so that they are at the equivalent AFPS rate, rather than based on the comparable Indian army rate. The traditional argument is that because most Gurkhas returned to Nepal on the conclusion of their service, where costs were lower, it was appropriate to pay them under the old arrangements. However, after the end of their basing in Hong Kong and the switch of the brigade to the United Kingdom—and, indeed, given that many Gurkhas now avail themselves of the option of settling in the UK with their immediate family following their period of service—the question arises of whether the pension arrangements should be altered, including for older Gurkha veterans. I commend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for advancing their arguments in the way he has done this afternoon. He has been a strong advocate of their case. I am afraid that I cannot, standing at the Dispatch Box, make an immediate spending commitment on behalf of my party to satisfy the hon. Member—
Mr Francois
—although I hear calls from senior Members behind me to do so. Nevertheless, I can perhaps provide at least some additional context to this debate. Let me set out what I mean by that. For many years, all western armies—be they American, Canadian, Australian, German or otherwise—have struggled to recruit and retain sufficient regular and reserve personnel. I would argue that there have been particular problems in Britain, because of an extremely poor recruitment contract with Capita, or —forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—Crapita, as it was nicknamed by Private Eye. I proved spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading Conservative Ministers to take away the contract, despite my best efforts.
At a time when all western armies have struggled to recruit and retain, the Gurkhas have provided a constant source of willing soldiers for the British Army—and as I intimated earlier, each year, the recruitments slots are still very healthily oversubscribed. That is no doubt one reason why the new Labour Government decided to form an entirely new artillery regiment, the King’s Gurkha Artillery, last year. In addition, there are still large numbers of Gurkhas who have left regular service but are living in the United Kingdom under the immigration changes I referred to, who might perhaps be persuaded to form reserve battalions of what is now the Army Reserve. I believe that such units would have as strong an ethos as their regular counterparts, and there should hopefully be a ready pool of already trained ex-regular troops to sign up, if this idea were pursued.
I mention all this because of the Conservative party’s recent announcement that, due to the worsening international situation, an incoming Conservative Government would add back to the Army; we would create a Regular Army of a minimum of 80,000 troops, and the Army Reserve would be expanded from some 26,000 soldiers at present to at least 40,000, making for an Army on mobilisation of 120,000—and there would be potential further augmentation from the strategic reserve by another nearly 100,000. That is excepting a situation in which there was full conscription. We hope to debate this matter in more detail in the Armed Forces Bill Committee after the Easter recess.
If we were to expand the British Army, both regular and reserve, there might well be merit in seeking to use that willing pool of additional Gurkha recruits to achieve at least part, if not all, of the desired expansion. If we were to ask the Gurkhas to form a proportionally slightly larger element of the British Army in the future, that might make for a stronger case for improving their terms of service, including the terms of service of those who served many years ago. I hope the House can follow my argument. I table that suggestion for discussion, and I hope that it is a positive contribution to the debate.
To finish, I pay tribute to the extremely loyal and valiant service to the Crown that the Gurkhas have provided for over two centuries, during which 26 Victoria Crosses and many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other gallantry medals have been awarded to those serving in Gurkha regiments. The Gurkhas have been great friends to Britain over many decades—indeed, centuries—and we thank them most heartily for that record. As they have a fearsome reputation on the battlefield, we should be wary of upsetting them, and avoid doing so if at all possible. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and to hearing whether he can provide any comfort to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, or to the House more broadly, on this admittedly rather complicated subject, which affects some of the bravest and most dedicated soldiers the British Army has ever seen.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for the way he introduced this debate. In particular, I think the whole House is grateful for the detailed description he gave of the very gallant service of Ghanendra Limbu and his experiences serving in the Falklands. The contribution of the Gurkhas to the Falklands is a story not told as frequently or as loudly as it should be, and I am grateful to him for putting that on the record.
I am standing in today for my colleagues the Minister for Veterans and People, who leads on Gurkha issues in the Ministry of Defence, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, who looks after the composition of the United Kingdom’s armed forces. I will pass on a number of the requests for meetings made by my hon. Friends to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is very happy to continue her discussions with Members of Parliament and, indeed, representatives of the Gurkha community. I know the hon. Member for Tewkesbury did not have time to ask his questions—luckily, his office sent me a copy of his questions in advance—so I am pleased to confirm that the Minister for Veterans and People would be happy to meet him to talk in detail through the issues he wanted to raise.
I join Members across the House in honouring the extraordinary service of Gurkhas and their families, who, for more than 200 years, have stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain, serving the Crown with unwavering dedication and courage. The Gurkhas’ legacy is woven into the very fabric of our armed forces, and successive Governments have recognised not only their unique history and contribution, but the responsibilities that the UK Government share as a result.
In that spirit, we have in place a range of measures to support Gurkha veterans and families, implemented by this Government and previous ones. As we would expect, eligible Gurkha veterans in the UK are entitled to the same welfare support as all UK veterans, in terms of access to Ministry of Defence-funded services and to the vital work of third sector organisations. We have collaborated closely with Gurkha veteran representatives, and continue to listen to their priorities and concerns. The Minister for Veterans and People met the Gurkha G10 representatives last week, and will do so again shortly.
As a result of this engagement, a range of cross-Government opportunities have been identified, and work is being done between a number of Departments to take those opportunities forwards, shaped by what Gurkha veteran representatives have told us matters most to them. This includes clearer immigration guidance, targeted outreach to improve access to benefits, and stronger support for health and social care, which was raised by a number of colleagues.
For those who have returned home to Nepal, our commitment does not end at the border. Welfare provision in Nepal is shaped to local needs, with the Gurkha Welfare Trust providing tailored support and delivering essential welfare and medical care with community programmes in Nepal, as it has in the United Kingdom. UK Government funding of nearly £10 million a year helps to sustain that work, recognising that many Gurkha veterans choose to return to Nepal and continue their lives there. In addition to the £40 million committed by the previous Government in 2019, we have provided a £24 million uplift to the medical and healthcare grant in aid already in place. The UK Government have agreed in principle to extend that support beyond 2029, and in addition we have committed to uplift support for the Gurkha welfare advice centres.
Gurkha veterans also benefit equally from the provisions of the armed forces covenant, which we are seeking to extend into law in the Armed Forces Bill, as mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I would like to recognise the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in leading the charge through our new veterans’ support service, Valour, which brings Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector together, so that every veteran, including those who have served in the Gurkhas, can access the healthcare, employment, housing and mental health support that they deserve. It is about ensuring that no one falls through the cracks, and that the support is joined up across government.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have Gurkha communities in their constituencies, and I join the praise for those communities. Although the Gurkha community in my Plymouth constituency is much smaller than those of some of my colleagues, it is none the less strongly supported across Plymouth.
Before I turn to pensions, I want to respond to two points that were raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) mentioned direct flights; I recommend that he speaks to the Aviation Minister about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked about the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. He will know that that decision sits with the Government of Nepal rather than with the Government of the United Kingdom.
I cannot let the opportunity go by without echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) that Gurkha curries are absolutely delicious. The kindness and generosity that I have received from serving Gurkhas when visiting our deployed troops underlines what an important contribution they make to our military service and, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, to morale as well.
Peter Swallow
I thank the Minister for all that he has said so far. We have had an incredibly harmonious debate, with views shared by Members from across the House on this important issue. I note that a Member of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has now entered the Chamber, but does the Minister share my concern that Reform Members did not contribute to the debate? This is not the first time that we have had an important debate on defence from which Reform Members have been absent. Does he agree that if that party wants to present itself as being serious about defence, perhaps it should involve itself when we are debating important issues such as this?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a strong point and has placed it on the record.
The matter of pensions was raised by a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. As has been discussed, this is a challenging area. We have honoured the historical terms under which each Gurkha served. At the time of the 1948 GPS, Gurkhas were eligible for an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, typically at a much younger age than their British counterparts. Indeed, they were eligible from the age of 33. That resulted in pensions being paid for a significantly longer period than would have been available to UK service personnel at the time. I entirely understand the calls for parity, but it is important to compare like with like at the time, and I will come to what that would mean in due course.
Although the monthly pension payments under the Gurkha pension scheme may be smaller than those of their British counterparts, the Gurkha pension scheme was paid for a significantly longer period. Indeed, based on the Government Actuary’s Department report, this longer payment period means that the vast majority of Gurkha pension scheme recipients receive pensions at least as good as—and, in many cases, better than—the comparable pension for a British soldier.
It is worth noting that until 1975, British personnel who left at the point of 15 years’ service had no right to a pension at all, not even a deferred one. After the introduction of preserved pensions, soldiers who left before 22 years of service and officers who left before 16 years of service were entitled to receive their pension only from the age of 60. The Gurkha pension scheme also makes generous provision for dependants, reflecting the fact that members were expected at that time to retire to Nepal after service. Over time, that changed, and since 2006 all new Gurkha recruits have joined the armed forces pension scheme alongside their British colleagues.
Gurkhas serving between July 1997 and 2007 were given an opportunity to transfer to the AFPS. Those Gurkhas who left before 1997 receive the GPS pension. These arrangements have been tested and upheld through two judicial reviews and a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights. The courts have confirmed that the existence of different pension arrangements was not unlawful discrimination, but justified and reasonable at the time.
We have taken important steps to address immigration and settlement issues. Back in 2009, the Labour Government supported Gurkha veterans to settle in the UK alongside their families—that has been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House—and introduced reforms that ensured Gurkha veterans settled here and had the same access to public services as any other resident. Some 15 years later, in our manifesto, the Labour party promised to scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years and their dependants, and that includes many Gurkhas. We are working closely with the Home Office to deliver on that commitment.
Ministers and officials maintain an ongoing dialogue with Gurkha representatives, the Government of Nepal and other partners. Last year, the then Minister for Veterans and People met the ambassador for Nepal, and his successor has met a number of the G10 Gurkha veteran groups, underscoring the determination to find solutions together. A number of points were raised in the debate, and I will ask the Minister for Veterans and People to respond in detail; I recognise the very serious, heartfelt and important contributions from colleagues across the House, and I know that she will be happy to meet them to discuss this issue further.
It is important that we have clarity on these issues and understand what is possible. Governments of all flavours—the Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats when they were in government, and the Labour Government—have maintained similar positions or the same position on pensions. However, there is still more support that can be provided to Gurkha veterans and we are happy to explore that with anyone who has an interest in these brilliant people, who have served our nation very well.
Cameron Thomas
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have seen very well-mannered contributions from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and DUP Members, including the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), with her ode to the Gurkhas. We heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—history will remember him as a man who stood on his principles—and from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph).
We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who is also a fan of Gurkha cuisine. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), is a student of military history, and he always expresses himself with such character. I always enjoy my conversations with the Minister, and I am thankful to him for turning up today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was perfectly short and sweet.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
Points of Order
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the disclosure of the Mandelson files is of national importance and in the public interest, so can you please confirm that all the Mandelson files—including those restricted by the police—will be released to the Intelligence and Security Committee by 29 April, the date that I believe will be the Prorogation of Parliament? If not, can you confirm that the Humble Address will be rolled over into the next Session, or that a new motion will be tabled to ensure that those important documents are released?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As you know, Mr Rosindell, I was not given any prior notice of your point of order. As you may or may not be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, you have most definitely got your point on the record, and those on the Treasury Bench are no doubt busy scribbling away and will make sure that the appropriate Ministers have heard your remarks.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank you for your indulgence this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to start the Easter recess. Traditionally in this House, we have always had an Easter Adjournment debate. Last year, the Easter Adjournment debate was renamed to “Adjournment of general debate of the House”. Can I ask you why there has been no Easter Adjournment debate this year? We are still a Christian country, and Easter is an important festival that we have always recognised by having that Adjournment debate at the end of the Session.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, Mr Rosindell, that is not a matter for the Chair. Today’s debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee; the hon. Member may wish to make an application to the Committee, or ask the Leader of the House at the next business questions. I do wish him a very happy Easter.
Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we come to the Adjournment debate, I should inform the House that there are live inquests into the deaths of six babies, so those cases are technically sub judice under the rules of the House. However, Mr Speaker has issued a waiver for today’s debate to allow the cases to be referred to, given that the inquests have been adjourned for a number of months.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In 1998, Cheshire police arrested Sally Clark and charged her with the murder of her two baby sons. In 1999, she was convicted of their murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. That conviction and sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2003 and recognised as a gross miscarriage of justice, and Sally Clark was set free, albeit after three years in prison. However, her life had been destroyed, and just four years later she died from alcohol poisoning—the grief had driven her to drink, and it killed her. The destruction of an innocent person’s life was caused by the police, the prosecution and the court swallowing bogus statistical assertions by an alleged expert in her trial. That expert eventually resigned in disgrace, although that did not save Sally Clark.
One would think that after that case, Cheshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service would have been very careful to avoid this happening again, and to abide by all the rules and guidelines designed precisely to prevent further terrible miscarriages of justice. Let us test exactly that premise. We are uniquely assisted in the process by the fact that the behaviour of the police and prosecution has been reviewed by two separate police officers, both extremely experienced in precisely this sort of case. The first is Dr Steve Watts, a former assistant chief constable who wrote the national police guidelines on the investigation of deaths in healthcare settings, and the second is former detective superintendent Stuart Clifton—the officer in charge of the investigation that led to the conviction of Beverley Allitt, one of the most prolific child murderers in healthcare history—who was actually commissioned by The Sun newspaper to confirm Letby’s guilt. Indeed, both policemen believed that Letby was guilty—that is, until they examined the hard facts, and both now believe that the Letby case is a serious miscarriage of justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman beforehand. He has a forensic, investigative mind for these subjects, on behalf of the House, and—with your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker—we should put on record our thanks to him for that. We in the House and this nation owe him a debt when it comes to justice.
David Davis
You rescued me from embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us forensically analyse the prosecution of this case, using as a reference proper police procedure, prosecutorial standards, medical murder investigation guidelines, CPS guidance, the evidence from the Thirlwall inquiry and the considered critiques from these two experienced police officers.
The neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital was failing. Its medical management was at best inadequate and at worst appalling. Indeed, a week after Letby was suspended, the unit was downgraded and prevented from taking any more very seriously ill babies. Before the police investigation, numerous reviews looked at the Countess of Chester and found no evidence of criminal activity. The most salient was by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which found no criminal events, but did identify numerous shortcomings in medical care at the hospital. Cheshire police ignored that, and the jury was never informed of it. Dr Watts notes, as did the assistant chief constable, that the royal college report
“raised significant concerns about systemic failings…Its exclusion from court…meant alternative explanations were suppressed.”
Let us also remember that this was a neonatal unit with no neonatal specialist consultants, only general paediatricians. Furthermore, the trust had dismissed all the experienced advanced neonatal nurse practitioners to save money. There was a 20% staffing shortfall. Doctors did ward rounds twice a week, rather than twice a day. We can think of the fragility of these children, yet they only got seen twice a week. There were outbreaks of multiple antibiotic-resistant infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MRSA and C. difficile bacteria were all detected in the hospital. Sewage was dripping from the ceilings. Doctors followed poor counter-infection processes. The mother of triplets who moved to Liverpool women’s hospital
“noticed a different level of cleanliness compared to the Countess of Chester…There were clear hygiene protocols…we were told to wash our hands before entering the Unit and then again before entering the room”,
which was not the case at the Countess of Chester. It is also notable that there were 12 stillbirths in hospital at the same time as the spike in neonatal deaths—stillbirths that Lucy Letby was nowhere near. That was also ignored by Cheshire police.
Why did Cheshire police decide Letby was responsible? Initially, there was no intention to launch any criminal investigation, but on 15 May 2017, that all changed. After a single meeting with two consultants—Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram—from the Countess of Chester, Letby was explicitly identified as the focus of suspicion. Dr Watts states that
“in this meeting, the language of this very experienced, very senior detective”
from the Cheshire police force
“moved from a measured, rational professional tone to…inappropriately emotional.”
He cites the senior Cheshire police detective as saying:
“I can’t describe how powerful it was…I just felt for those professionals there….I think we all owe them.”
Dr Watts observes that “within 24 hours” of that meeting, Operation Hummingbird—the name of the Letby operation—was “up and running”. Within three days, news of the investigation into a potential murder at the Countess of Chester was in the national press. This investigation was initiated by a single meeting with consultants who had themselves been involved in seriously inadequate care of babies.
The consultants who pointed the finger at Letby were Dr Stephen Brearey, Dr John Gibbs, Dr Ravi Jayaram and another doctor, who was anonymised for the court’s own reasons. They had all demonstrated poor care. One had wrongly punctured a baby’s liver. That baby later died. One was found by a coroner to be responsible for the death of a child after a breathing tube was inserted into the oesophagus, rather than the trachea—in other words, into the gullet, rather than the windpipe. One pushed an endotracheal tube into a baby’s lung, leaving the other collapsed. That baby later died. One clearly misled the jury by claiming that he had “virtually caught” Letby doing nothing as a baby collapsed in front of her—evidence that his own emails disproved. Those doctors could very well have contributed to the spikes in deaths attributed to Letby.
Dr Watts poses an important question:
“Where was the decision not to treat the doctors as suspects, or the other nurses, or the cleaners?”
Justice demands that the police look at everyone. It does not permit them to fixate on one individual and build a case solely around them. Dr Watts makes it plain that that is not just a moral requirement; it is the law. Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires
“that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued”.
Paragraph 3.5 of the code of practice under that Act states:
“In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect.”
The Cheshire police did not follow the letter of the law or best professional practice.
Dr Watts states that CPS guidelines and police guidance on the investigation of death in healthcare settings
“require that decisions in ‘Sensitive, Serious and Complex’ cases are referred to the CPS Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division.”
Remember that Dr Watts is the country’s expert in this area. He says:
“It appears self-evident that this case falls into all the relevant categories of Sensitivity, Seriousness and Complexity”,
but the regional CPS unit, Merseyside and Cheshire,
“made the charging decisions in this case.”
The requirement is made plain in the current version of the CPS referrals, approvals and notifications guidance, which states in terms that
“homicide allegations involving…four or more victims and…medical authorities”
should be passed on to the special crime and counter-terrorism division, which is a unit in London that specialises in complicated cases.
Plainly, the Cheshire police believed that there were a lot more than four victims, so this case should have automatically gone to the special crime and counter-terrorism division. The failure to refer the case meant that proper safeguards and specialist scrutiny by independent lawyers, who had not been closely associated with the investigating team, were never implemented. That is very important. It is notable that when officers in the special crime and counter-terrorism division were involved earlier this year after the Cheshire police had put 11 additional charges to them, they turned them down flat. The special crime and counter-terrorism division stated that
“the evidential test was not met in any of those cases.”
After failing to refer the case to the correct CPS unit, Cheshire police then failed to listen to explicit guidance from the National Crime Agency. Again, Dr Watts points out:
“On 26 May 2017, an email record indicates that the NCA…advised”
Cheshire police
“to appoint a panel of relevant experts; they clearly defined the disciplines and provided a comprehensive list. They were: Forensic & Neonatal Pathologists, Forensic Toxicologist and/or Clinical Pharmacologist, a Nurse with experience of special baby units, a medical expert with experience of the working practices on a special unit for neonates, an Obstetrician, and experts to review the medical statistics.”
The advice was national best practice, but Cheshire police ignored it. On 28 June 2017, the NCA advisers followed up with a list of potential experts who could fill those posts. Cheshire police blatantly ignored that, too. Instead of drawing up a multidisciplinary panel, Dr Watts states,
“Operation Hummingbird…built its entire medical case around one expert.”
That so-called expert was Dr Dewi Evans.
The warning signs were there before the trial started. Dr Watts believes that
“Cheshire police were clutching at straws to find an expert, then very quickly and uncritically took a lifeline offered by Evans”.
Evans ran a business providing “expert medical advice” in court cases for a high fee. We can identify at least £80,000 paid to him for the Letby case, but the rest is concealed, and the true total is likely many times higher. Evans stated:
“This was my extra money, which helped keep my daughter in horses and my son in cars.”
That was his motivation. He approached the NCA after reading about the case and called it “my kind of case”. Dr Watts points out that the
“‘back door’ approach by an alleged expert who is clearly looking for work…should have sounded warning bells for the”
senior investigating officer
“and the investigating team”.
Having practised as an expert witness for decades, Evans boasted he had “never lost” a case. That is not the mindset of a neutral expert; it is the language of someone who tailors his evidence to suit the prosecution’s case. This was clearly demonstrated when another very senior judge took the extraordinary step of writing to the presiding judge in the Letby case, alerting him to Evans’s failings in a previous case. I think the House should understand quite how unusual it is for a judge to take that step. Lord Justice Jackson described Evans’s evidence as “worthless”, stating that he
“makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”,
and his
“approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct”.
I think that, later on, he also called it tendentious—terrifying when a single opinion will condemn a young woman to life in prison. When Cheshire police asked Evans if it should follow NCA guidance and seek other expert witnesses, he said:
“I do not think it’s necessary to consider additional expert opinion at this stage.”
He wouldn’t, of course.
Evans was appointed as both the police adviser and the expert witness in the trial. Stuart Clifton states:
“It was illogical to allow Evans to both advise and be the principal prosecution witness as there is a clear conflict of interest.”
If this was not warning enough to Cheshire police, it should have set alarm bells ringing when Evans declared, after just 10 minutes of reviewing the case notes, that he suspected there was “foul play”. Dr Watts states:
“Evans was not independently selected but came forward himself”
and
“validators used to assess his opinions were themselves selected without adequate independence…by Evans himself”.
What is more, Stuart Clifton said that it was
“completely illogical to allow other experts…to view the findings of Evans, since experts are expected to give evidence of their”
findings
“and not be corrupted by others”.
Another prosecution expert, Professor Hindmarsh, was dismissed from his post as an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street hospital before—just before—he gave evidence at the trial. During the trial, while he was giving evidence, he faced a General Medical Council investigation for failures of expertise and posing a risk to his patients: an expert witness chastised for a failure of expertise. The jury knew nothing of that.
Another prosecution expert, Dr Bohin, reviewed Evans’s work. She faced numerous complaints from her patients’ families and was later criticised for ignoring a key symptom in one of her patients. These are the supposed experts that Cheshire police and the CPS chose, rather than a panel of independent experts from all relevant disciplines, as the NCA had advised. Three times Cheshire police’s due diligence failed—if, indeed, they attempted it at all.
Crucial to the case against Letby was the infamous shift table presented as evidence that she was on duty for all the incidents when babies collapsed or died. Over a period of 13 months, there were 17 deaths—far more than the “normal” expected three or four deaths. Stuart Clifton states:
“Missing from the chart used at trial are deaths which occurred whilst Letby was not on duty or those where adverse events took place whilst off duty”.
Cheshire police, which compiled the table, chose to highlight only the shifts during which Letby was present, disregarding similar events when she was not. The seven deaths charged as murders were, in effect, selected because she happened to be on duty. As Stuart Clifton bluntly puts it:
“Evans cherry picked the cases to match Letby’s shifts and Police used this in their chart to reflect her presence at those events highlighted by Evans. One has to wonder just how he settled on those children where Letby was present.”
Any qualified statistician could have pointed that out to Cheshire police. In fact, one did. In April 2018, a police officer approached one of the country’s leading statisticians, Professor Jane Hutton, asking her to put a figure on the likelihood of a nurse being on duty during “all the deaths/collapses” in the unit. It is almost a rerun of the Sally Clark argument. Cheshire police had signed a consultancy agreement with Professor Hutton. Professor Hutton warned them that its whole approach was wrong. The police then told her:
“The prosecutor...has instructed us not to pursue this avenue any further.”
She challenges them and the prosecutor tells them to sack it. That falls in direct contravention of part 3.3 of the “Code for Crown Prosecutors”, which states:
“Prosecutors cannot direct the police or other investigators.”
Dr Watts added:
“This occurrence is particularly egregious...it is...not appropriate for the CPS to deter the police from acquiring evidence that may be relevant and available.”
Dr Watts goes on to say that the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
“is binding upon the CPS to the same extent as the police, for the CPS to Instruct the police to ignore potentially relevant evidence would clearly be a breach of the CPIA”.
But neither the defence nor the jury were told of Professor Hutton’s explicit warnings to the police. That is unsurprising really, because it obliterated the prosecution’s statistical argument—the foundation of their entire case. Professor Hutton believes the statistical errors are
“similar to those in the Sally Clark case but worse.”
I wrote to the chief constable about how those bogus statistics had been compiled. He refused to answer any of the questions I had raised and said he would
“not be providing any further detail or engaging in ongoing correspondence”.
So much for transparency and welcoming challenge. That refusal to answer questions from a Member of Parliament sits uneasily alongside his department’s extraordinary public relations campaign, which at the very least invaded the privacy rights of Letby’s parents.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Notwithstanding the points that my right hon. Friend is making, would he accept that the investigation included a range of independent, nationally recognised medical experts, including consultants and senior academics across a whole host of disciplines; and, knowing as I do that he is an enthusiastic advocate of our judicial system, that the Lucy Letby case was the longest-running murder trial in British criminal history, with a jury that considered the evidence for more than 100 hours? Lucy Letby appealed to the Court of Appeal but was refused. There was a retrial and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was refused. Would he not accept the robustness of that process?
David Davis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. However, in many ways the reason the Lucy Letby case is so important—over and above the fact that it is a miscarriage of justice—is that it highlights weaknesses in the appeal procedure and the procedure for selecting and managing experts. I am afraid that it also demonstrates that the regulations put in place by the CPIA and other Acts of Parliament were not followed in this case, and that is one of the fundamental problems today. I will come back to some of the solutions in a moment, but that is the central difficulty.
Finally, there is the question of how a police force should properly handle such complex cases, which comes back to the issue of checking that my right hon. Friend quite rightly raises. Dr Watts is clear:
“Significant investigations such as Op Hummingbird should be subject to rigorous review by independent detectives, typically from an independent police force, and best practice indicates that the officers conducting the review should be unknown to members of the investigation team.”
If such a review had been in place, it is unlikely that any of the breaches I have talked about so far would actually have happened.
I do not have time in this debate—I have had 20 minutes already—to list every egregious failure by Cheshire police, but given the Netflix documentary broadcast a little while ago, I want to pick up on the way the police treated Letby herself. They arrested Lucy Letby three times, claiming it was necessary for questioning, despite her freely volunteering to come in for questioning. Dr Watts—an assistant chief constable, let us remember—said: “That is completely wrong”. It is extraordinary that this unthreatening young girl was marched in in handcuffs, mirroring the way American authorities try to influence public opinion against suspects when they are perp walked to court. As Dr Watts said:
“The intelligence they had about Lucy was that she was nonviolent. There was absolutely no justification…for her to be handcuffed”
on those occasions.
Letby was also accused in court of lying about being arrested in her pyjamas, but the recent Netflix documentary proves that she was telling the truth. It is astonishing that the police officers in the court, who knew how she was dressed when she was arrested, did not intervene with the prosecutors to tell them that they had got it wrong, and instead left the jury to believe that Lucy was lying about something when she was plainly telling the truth. Frankly, it is astounding the lengths that Cheshire police was willing to go to in order to manage its own public relations—sometimes, I think, at the cost of achieving justice.
So there we have it. Despite the warning signs of the Sally Clark case, we see that Cheshire police has either ignored or broken the rules, disregarding relevant safeguards time and again. It failed to pursue alternative lines of inquiry; failed to refer the case to the appropriate specialist authorities; failed to conduct proper due diligence on the appointment of key expert witnesses; failed to engage with real experts about complex statistical evidence, and failed to correctly inform the jury of that fact; and failed on several occasions to disclose critical material to the defence.
On the evidence before us, there have been clear and serious departures from statutory guidance and multiple deviations from best professional practice. Because of the way the case was handled, I recommend that the police should provide Letby’s defence team with a whole series of documentation. Because of time, I will publish the full list online, but it should include: the senior investigating officer’s policy books and decision books; the records of identified lines of inquiry; logs kept by functional managers; and minutes of all meetings held, from the team meetings right up to the gold co-ordination meetings. That would at least start to demonstrate what went wrong here.
I should tell the Minister that irrespective of how Cheshire police responds, I shall be writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions about these issues and asking him to review the behaviour of both the CPS and the police.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this debate and on being a formidable campaigner for the causes that he cherishes in this place. Given the time available, I do not have long to cover the range of issues.
These are serious criminal cases. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is currently undertaking a review. In that context, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of those processes; we must let them take their course.
A meticulous and lengthy investigation led to Lucy Letby being identified as a suspect and arrested in July 2018 in respect of the significant rise of neonatal deaths and acute, life-threatening collapses of newborn infants. I am sure we all think of the parents of those children. As I have had children in neonatal units and born into special care baby units, I can only imagine their suffering in what they have been through.
In November 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised multiple charges of murder and attempted murder against Letby. The CPS deemed that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest for the cases to proceed to trial. Lucy Letby stood trial from October 2022 to August 2023. She faced 22 charges related to 17 babies, and she was convicted of seven counts of murder and seven of attempted murder. Letby was also found not guilty of two counts of attempted murder, and the jury was unable to reach verdicts on two other counts of attempted murder.
In September 2023, Letby submitted an application to the Court of Appeal against her convictions. The application was heard by three senior justices in April 2024. The justices refused the appeal. From June to July 2024, Letby was retried in respect of one of the previous attempted murder charges. Letby was found guilty, for which she received an additional whole-life order. Following that conviction, Letby submitted an application to appeal to the Court of Appeal. During October 2024, a new bench of three senior justices heard the appeal, which was again refused.
I set that out to make clear that there has been a proper process, involving independent assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service, trial by a jury and two appeal processes, which has resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of Lucy Letby.
David Davis
I am conscious that I have denied the Minister much time to respond—that was because I do not think she has much scope for a response—but I want to place one thought with her. One reason why we are having the debate is because Members of Parliament cannot make applications to the IOPC; only victims can do so. I think that is a flaw in the law. My argument today is that we have not followed the guidelines, and the best way to deal with that is through an expert mechanism such as the IOPC. When she goes away today, will she take with her the thought that we might fine-tune the law on that point?
Sarah Jones
I will of course take that away. We are always looking at ways to improve the IOPC system. I was with the IOPC earlier today talking about its transformation programme and the work we are trying to do.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of remarks about Cheshire constabulary—he can have his view. His Majesty’s inspector, through his Peel inspections, has in fact given it some of the highest ratings in the country, with two “outstanding” ratings and four “good” ratings, as well as two graded “adequate”. I put that on the record in the context of this conversation. In that context, it is important that we as Members of Parliament should not undermine public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We need to be careful to avoid implying impropriety where none has been established.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he will write to the DPP. He will take that through its course. I end by reminding the House that this country uses due process, and due process has been followed in the convictions of Lucy Letby, with a trial by jury, upheld on appeal. I remain confident of that and of the effectiveness of Cheshire constabulary. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone else here a happy Easter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I, too, wish everybody, and especially my constituents in Sussex Weald, a very happy Easter.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch off or silence electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted during the sitting, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
I remind Members to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room and on the Parliament website, shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
I also remind Members that amendments may be tabled during the recess. Amendments for consideration on 14 April, our first sitting after the recess, must be tabled no later than 4.30 pm on Thursday 9 April. Amendments for consideration at the sitting on 16 April must be tabled no later than the rise of the House on Monday 13 April.
Clause 3
Defence housing and other property
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.
Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point.
We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts.
We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit.
Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons.
Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us.
There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time.
The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill.
Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury.
As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published.
That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way.
In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased.
Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I wish to add some points to bolster the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.
We were promised the DIP before Christmas, but right hon. and hon. Members do not need me to tell them that it is now the end of March and we still do not have it. It is all well and good talking about a 25% reduction in delivery costs and about improved military housing, but until those promises are reflected in a clear, costed defence investment plan, they will remain words, not guarantees.
That is precisely why my right hon. Friend’s amendment 17 is so important. It states that if the Government are serious about defence housing, the Defence Housing Service’s budget must be set out in the DIP. It would tie the rhetoric on forces housing, new helicopters and new military hardware to an actual budget line. If Ministers truly intend to deliver what they have promised, they should have no difficulty in writing it into a plan.
Let us be clear with our service personnel and their families. We welcome investment when it is real, but we will not pretend that an uncosted statement is the same as a funded commitment. Until the Government publish the defence investment plan and the DHS budget is there in black and white, this House is being asked to take it on trust. That is not good enough.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I put on record my thanks to the DIO team, Natalie Elphicke Ross and the collective armed forces for helping us to design this well-thought-through and very effective defence housing strategy. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his amendment concerning the Defence Housing Service budget, and for his interest, as always, in the defence investment plan.
The defence housing strategy will be backed by £9 billion of funding to deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding that did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer or the improvements that service families deserve. I have lived in service family accommodation, as I am sure other hon. Members have. We have seen the oscillating budgets. We have seen, in some cases, the lack of value for money.
When this Government came in, one thing we said we would absolutely do was ensure that people can have safe, secure, dry homes to live in if their loved ones go overseas to protect the freedoms we enjoy. That is why we set out the defence housing strategy. We liaised with a plethora of individuals, from the families federations to housing associations, to ensure that we came up with a well-thought-through plan that is funded and looks at the medium and long term as well as the short term.
The Defence Housing Service budget will be clearly set out. It will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report, so there will be accountability. As the Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that is stopping the Department getting work under way now. The Defence Housing Service can be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.
David Reed
We have heard these arguments in Committee, we have had experts come in and we have visited defence housing. We need to get to the nub of this. The wording being used today is that there will be £9 billion in the budget and that we know it will be in the defence investment plan. As it is reported that the defence investment plan is sat on the Prime Minister’s desk at the moment, and I am sure the Minister will have seen the defence investment plan, can he confirm today that he has seen that £9 billion in the defence investment plan, and that it will be signed off with that £9 billion for housing?
Al Carns
I can confirm that £9 billion will be secured to ensure that we get the defence housing strategy and the Defence Housing Service up and running. We have said that in Parliament previously, and I reiterate it here.
It is worth noting the need for a Defence Housing Service and the professionalisation of our service as a whole, because some of the stats and facts from the time we came into Government were, I can only say, nothing short of shocking. In November 2023, there was a high of 4,200 complaints. Where is it in 2026? It is 400. We have already made improvements, we are heading in the right direction and we will continue to deliver in due course. We are getting on with the job of making improvements now for service families and preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service so that we can go even further and faster to fix defence homes.
Setting a requirement in legislation, in the way that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford suggests, is not only unnecessary but risks frustrating the vital work of the Defence Housing Service. His amendment 17, which specifies that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP, risks constraining the service in the scenario in which investment is set in the defence investment plan but then has to rise thereafter. That could happen, for example, in the case of additional increases in personnel, or a change in the international situation that could require additional housing. Any additional spending would risk being in breach of the requirement unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. That would undoubtedly constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I understand what the Minister says—that there may be extenuating circumstances where there may need to be flex within the budget—but the most important thing that we are trying to establish is that this money is absolutely guaranteed.
At the Defence statement the other day, I asked what “flat out” meant when the Secretary of State was talking about finalising the defence investment plan. I was told it meant that they were “working flat out”, so the Minister will forgive me for seeking further reassurances. I would also be very interested to know whether he has indeed seen the defence investment plan, with this budget line item in it.
Al Carns
I can say that we are working flat out on the absolute shambles we were left by the Conservative party. I can also say, as the Defence Secretary said in the House, that £9 billion will be allocated to the Defence Housing Service. The study has been completed. It is a very effective strategy. It has taken into account a lot of the other details that were excluded in the past. It has pulled them all together and has put in place a comprehensive strategy that will be funded.
Mr Francois
I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad.
I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?
Al Carns
My role, when it comes to defence investment, is primarily linked to uncrewed systems. I have been pushing as hard as I can to ensure that there is significant resource and consideration of not just the delivery of capability, but training, tactics and procedures, and the inculcation of drones and autonomous systems into our armed forces.
Mr Francois
We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”
This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
“‘2006 decent homes standard’ means the document called ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006.”
This amendment defines the 2006 decent homes standard and is consequential on Amendment 3.
Mr Francois
The purpose of amendment 14 is to make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. I will attempt to give credit where it is due. For context, the quality of service quarters, and in particular the maintenance of those quarters—especially maintenance of boilers and heating, dealing with mould, and suchlike—has been a constant bugbear for many service personnel and their families for decades. It is something that I went into considerable detail about in the “Stick or Twist?” report in 2020, to which I shall refer in more detail later this morning.
The previous Conservative Government entered into a new housing management contract—the future defence infrastructure services programme, or FDIS—prior to the last general election. It is probably fair to say that there were quite a number of teething problems when that contract went live. Indeed, I expressed a number of reservations about FDIS in the “Stick or Twist?” report before it came in.
However, the information I have is that after persistent pressure from Ministers—initially Conservative Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and now Labour Ministers, including the Minister on the Committee, to give credit where it is due—the performance of contractors under the FDIS contract has improved. We heard as much from the families federations—from the customer side of the equation, as it were.
It can also be seen in the ratings, which are recorded annually in the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which allows us to track customer satisfaction with the quality of maintenance of SFA. There is a specific question on that every year. Again I give credit where it is due for the introduction of a charter for the homes of service personnel and their families. Of course, it is the families who have to put up with the frustration of any failures, particularly if their loved ones are deployed away from base for any operational reason for any period of time. The families back home have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis, so if it is getting better, that is clearly to be welcomed.
Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the Defence Housing Service and its functions, including
“(a) improving the supply and quality of defence housing,
(b) managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes,
(c) securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and
(d) supporting in other ways—
(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and
(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”
I am sure that no one on the Committee will object to any of those objectives. But given the history I just outlined, the essence of amendment 14 is to introduce a fifth objective:
“improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”
Although I have no doubt that those who came up with the proposed Defence Housing Service fully intended to do this, the aim of the amendment is to place that objective firmly on the face of the Bill and, in so doing, establish it as an additional, clearly defined objective of the Defence Housing Service. Then, with the customer charter and assuming that we continue to ask similar questions in the armed forces continuous attitude survey every year, it should be possible to use that objective as an accurate metric to establish whether or not the Defence Housing Service is actually meeting one of its declared functions.
If we amend the Bill as I am suggesting, we could use it to hold the management of the Defence Housing Service and, I dare say, Ministers to account for the performance of the new service. It seems to us that this is quite a common-sense way to proceed. Therefore, I rather hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment without my having to divide the Committee.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have tabled. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3, so I will speak about them together.
What we are talking about here is a sensible proposal. Indeed, the Government and the Lib Dems have already had many discussions on this proposal, and the Government have already accepted it in a related area of law. I therefore hope the Minister will treat it as a tidying-up exercise on which we can all agree.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to enshrine the decent homes standard as the minimum standard for the Defence Housing Service. The decent homes standard has been in law for about two decades, and the Government recently incorporated it into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Of course, that takes us to the whole point of the armed forces covenant, which is to make sure that service personnel are not prejudiced in any way by their service. If the decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it follows, if we are to apply the covenant as intended, that service personnel should also be afforded the same standard.
What is the decent homes standard? Anyone who has served, as I have, has at some point in time been housed in accommodation that is just beyond belief. I spent some time in accommodation that was actually condemned, which meant that no money was being spent on it because it was going to be demolished at some unspecified point in the future, but I lived in it for the entire time I was there.
At that time, I was single, but of course it is not just those who serve who expect to live in decent homes; their families expect to, as well. In a minute, I will refer to the continuous attitude surveys and what service personnel feel about their service accommodation. However, it is often the pressure on their family—their wife or husband, and the children—that make service personnel think, “I can deal with this, but I do not want my family to have to deal with it.”
What is the decent homes standard? As originally defined, it refers to a home being in
“a reasonable state of repair”.
Obviously, if that standard were applied, it would immediately outlaw things like damp. It also says that a property should have modern “facilities and services” and provide a reasonable degree of “thermal comfort”, so we would probably expect double glazing, rather than the single glazing that I had, although it was 20 years ago.
A more recent document published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January sets out the new decent homes standard. Amendment 3 seeks to enforce the original 2006 standard, because the document published in January is a White Paper and is not yet Government policy. The new decent homes standard seeks to reflect things like modern energy efficiency standards, as we would expect.
This does not seem much to ask, and the Lib Dems pushed for it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act. The Government originally voted against it on Report, but then they made the amendment to the legislation. I am not presenting that to the Committee in a partisan way; I merely want to say that we have already had this discussion, and the Government have accepted that it is the appropriate standard for civilian renters. Service personnel are also renting—they pay money for their accommodation, so they are renting—so the standard should be reflected in their housing.
What do service personnel say about their accommodation? I accept that it has improved, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, but there are still problems. Let me give the Committee a few statistics. One in five personnel plans to leave the armed forces, and 25% of those cited the standard of accommodation as a reason for leaving. At a time when we have a retention crisis, it seems that we should be focusing on that. I know the Government are focusing on it, and in tabling this amendment we are trying to help them to fix the problem. Of the 78% of service personnel who live in service accommodation, only half—51%—remain satisfied with the state of their housing. So there are problems, although improvements have been made.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, which was amended to include the decent homes standard, the MOD was mandated to report to Parliament on the state of service housing. The idea was that it would gradually move defence housing stock up to the decent homes standard. Of course, the problem with how it was laid out in the Act is that no targets or timelines were set, so although the MOD reports to Parliament, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on the attainment of that standard for service personnel.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to put that accountability in place and ensure that the MOD has to achieve the standard. When it reports to Parliament, the amendments would ensure there is a mechanism by which Parliament can hold the MOD accountable for attaining the standard for service personnel.
Mr Francois
I declare an interest: in the 1990s, I was the acting chairman of housing on what was then Basildon district council—so I was a housing specialist, but admittedly back in the last century. Incidentally, Basildon was once described as the only local authority in Britain where, at council meetings, councillors actively heckled the public gallery. From serving on the council, I can say that it is half true.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of features of the decent homes standard. What in his opinion are the critical two or three parts that, if we were to support his amendment, he would have the Government and the Defence Housing Service ensure above any others? What are the key two or three bits that he would like to press the Government on this morning?
Mike Martin
The decent homes standard, as set out in legislation, is a set of principles that can be enforced by the courts, and the courts will make the judgment. When we talk about modern facilities and services, for example, we are talking about what the courts would view as being modern and reasonable. I come back to the fact that we would probably expect double glazing, not single glazing. We would expect central heating, not individual electric fires. We would expect no damp. We would expect a carpet that does not have holes in it. Those are things that the courts would accept as reasonably approaching a decent homes standard, and as reflecting a reasonable state of repair and thermal comfort.
I will conclude now, Mr Efford. Thank you for your patience. What we are seeking to do here is a tidying-up exercise to support the Government in their aim to set service personnel and civilians on an equal level and make sure that service personnel and particularly their families are not prejudiced as a result of their service. If a decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it is good enough for service renters.
Al Carns
I believe that amendment 14, moved by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, is unnecessary. It is clear that the Defence Housing Service will have a service ethos at its heart, and we are already way ahead on that. The Committee heard from representatives of the families federations during the evidence sessions, in which Cat Calder from the Army Families Federation said that during the course of the defence housing strategy review, it was
“very much engaged with, listened to and questioned”,
and its views “taken into consideration.” That will continue as the defence housing strategy turns to the Defence Housing Service and the implementation of changes across the entire estate.
I welcome the right hon. Member’s comments about the FDIS statistical change. When I first took over this job, I visited multiple defence housing providers and, indeed, the houses themselves. I line-by-lined the cost of everything from a plunger to the taps to make sure we were extracting the best value for money from those contractual services. The trend was already moving, and I believe it has moved in the right direction. There is always work to do, but we have our foot on that pressure point and will ensure we extract best value for money and best time when it comes to the delivery of services for our families in service housing.
Importantly, throughout the development of the defence housing strategy, families have been at the very heart of the discussion to ensure that their views are considered, along with the differences between the way of life and operational priorities of the Army, RAF and Navy. That is why we have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The Defence Housing Service will have a service family representative on its independent board.
We are already making rapid improvements after many years of ebbing and flowing standards and service in military accommodation, and we have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences. That includes transforming 1,000 of the worst homes by Christmas with new kitchens, bathrooms and floors, which the Committee will know from its visits were previously in a shoddy state. Some are still in that space, but we are moving rapidly to change it.
We are modernising outdated policies, giving families greater freedom to improve their homes, and streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home or simply have a pet. We are also delivering named housing officers, as it is critical to have a central point of contact to make complaints to, or to demand better services, as well as delivering photos, floor plans and a new online repair service.
Mr Francois
This might seem like a point of detail, but it is important. I will come on to “Stick or Twist?” later, but one thing that came out very clearly is that many families wanted what used to be known in old money as “patch managers”, often a retired senior NCO who lived nearby, who knew the patch and all the quarters intimately. He knew that No. 23 had always had a slightly wonky boiler or whatever. He was someone that all the families knew, and who the wives could get hold of if their spouse was away on deployment. We have named housing officers, but at what level do they operate? Do we have one per patch, per garrison or per region? How close to ground level are these named housing officers?
Al Carns
I will get back to the right hon. Member with the exact numbers of housing officers and how much patch they will oversee and manage, depending on the different service contracts. As he will be aware, the Army, Navy and Air Force approach it in different ways. Some have retired officers in a Reserve billet, looking after everything from welfare to housing. Others have specific housing officers, and some have none at all. There is a requirement to standardise that, hence the reason for housing officers coming in. I believe that housing officers work most effectively when they have either served or have an understanding of service. We are seeking to replace the single point of contact for families to go to should they have a problem with their housing or the facilities provided by the contractual arrangements.
On the promises that were made to families, it is worth noting that work is fully under way to deliver them under the consumer charter. We are also seeing results. Satisfaction in defence homes is rising: rates are now at 51%, their highest level since 2021. I would argue that that has resulted in an increase in both retention and recruitment, pulling more people into the military. We have seen a 13% increase in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow.
I have always been really honest that, in the short term, we are getting after this with 1,000 homes and the consumer charter, but that we will really see the benefits over the medium to longer term, with a complete rejuvenation of the estate. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily, from a low of 23% in January 2023 to 66% in 2025. In February 2026, we received 400 complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 complaints in November 2023, so we are making progress. We want to get that 400 figure down even further and will continue to endeavour to do so.
Amendments 3 and 4 propose to specify further in legislation the standards that accommodation should meet. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for his service and for his attention to ensuring that service family accommodation meets the standards that families rightly expect. The conduct and the candour of this debate have shown that we all want the same thing.
As part of the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy, we are already making rapid improvements, including through the new consumer charter for service family accommodation, which the Secretary of State announced last year, with the first set of those commitments delivered way ahead of Christmas. Through the wider plan set out under the defence housing strategy, we will be delivering improvements to nine in 10 defence family homes over a decade of renewal, delivering on the opportunity presented by the buy-back of the estate in January 2025.
In relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, the MOD is already committed to meeting and publishing compliance with the standard. The defence housing strategy specifically addresses the issue and sets out that the housing standard should keep pace not only with the decent homes standard, but with wider housing safety requirements such as Awaab’s law.
Al Carns
If the hon. Member will let me, I will come back to him with a specific timeline for the process.
In reply to an earlier question, there are 122 housing officers in total, and the figure will increase over time. Each housing officer is responsible for 300 to 400 homes. Although the housing officer will be a specific individual in place, a lot of armed forces also have other welfare officers and facilities. However, this is a step in the right direction to providing a single point of contact.
Mr Francois
I am grateful for that detail. I agree that it is a step in the right direction, so it would be churlish not to welcome it. To give credit where it is due, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was a Minister in the Department, he invested several hundred million pounds in what was known as the mould action plan. Its aim was to get after the problem not just with temporary fixes, but with long-term work on properties with a persistent mould problem. As I have tried to be fair to the Government this morning, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that my hon. Friend put quite a lot of effort into that issue in defence housing. There has subsequently been some success, has there not?
Al Carns
I agree. The mould action plan got after a large chunk of the problem. I know there was work that went on previously, including “Stick or Twist?” and other reviews, but now that we have got rid of the Annington deal and got control of our estate, we can take a far more strategic outlook. That is what the defence housing strategy is all about, so that we ensure that we get best value for money over a longer period and do not have to spend huge amounts in a short time, which unfortunately can result in poor contractual agreements and not the best value for money.
The mechanism for embedding the standards, as well as Awaab’s law, including any changes over time, has already been included in the Bill. It has been deliberately drafted in that way to provide a mechanism for capturing future changes to policy without requiring legislative change. As a case in point, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells specified the 2006 decent homes standard in amendment 3, but he will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is already in the process of introducing a revised decent homes standard. The amendment, although absolutely well intentioned, is too specific. It would set in stone a policy position that would rapidly become redundant. Further mechanisms will ensure that we keep in line with the decent homes standard, such as providing a report into the system on, I think, a yearly basis—I will clarify that point in due course.
I reassure the hon. Member that in practice the Ministry of Defence already uses the 2006 decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation and will work to meet the new decent homes standard as it is introduced. The same applies to Awaab’s law, which is being taken forward through the consumer charter. As the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy progresses, we will aim not just to meet minimum standards, but to provide homes that any of us would be proud to live in.
The scale of the problem should not be underestimated. The defence housing estate was built at any time from the 1960s all the way up to the early 2000s, with single-skin walls and a plethora of issues. It will take a medium to long-term strategy to deliver real, meaningful change over time. The messaging to the armed forces and their families is that we are on this: we have assured the money and we will head in the right direction to improve defence housing over the medium to longer term.
I hope that the points that I have set out provide the necessary reassurance as to why amendments 14, 3 and 4 are not necessary and can be withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. None the less, we feel strongly about amendment 14, so we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I should point out that the amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they would amend the Bill, so we will not take a vote on amendments 3 and 4 right now. We will come to that point in due course.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”
This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access.
My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit.
This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.
David Reed
I am sure that many Members will recognise the unique situation that many armed forces personnel and their families face. Family life in service is often marked by prolonged periods of separation, frequent relocations and the operational demands that come with serving one’s country—I know many members of the Committee have experienced that life. Those pressures can place significant strain on relationships, particularly where families are no longer living together.
In those circumstances, maintaining meaningful contact between parents and their children can be especially challenging. I think we can all agree that, where it is safe and appropriate, children benefit greatly from having a consistent and positive relationship with both parents, regardless of whether one or both are serving. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has laid out expertly how his amendment would not cut across what the courts have said. It seeks only to bolster the relationship between parents and children.
Amendment 15 would address a practical but important barrier to contact. By requiring service accommodation policies to make explicit provision for contact visits, it would recognise that the current system does not always adequately support separated families. Too often, there is no suitable space or arrangement in which a serving parent can spend proper quality time with their child, particularly where accommodation is limited, shared or not designed with family visits in mind, as we saw on our recent visit to Portsmouth.
Earmarking accommodation for this purpose would provide a clear and structured way to support those relationships. It would ensure that when a serviceperson seeks to maintain contact with their child, they are not prevented from doing so by logistical constraints or by a lack of appropriate facilities. It is a modest and proportionate step, but one that could make a meaningful difference to the wellbeing of service families.
Importantly, this is not about creating new entitlements without limits. It is about recognising a specific and foreseeable need, and ensuring that the system is equipped to meet it in a fair and practical way. It reflects our broader duty to support those who serve, not only in their professional capacity but in their family life.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Having had years of personal experience, I think it is a shame that the modernised accommodation offer did not go through, because that would have dealt with these situations. We are back to square one. The Minister will be aware that specific contact orders will have to be maintained, but we will have to build from a standing start after the disaster of the modernised accommodation offer.
David Reed
I recognise the hon. Member’s point. The service that she explains is not equitable across the whole system. I know that she speaks with experience. Having served myself, I have had friends in similar situations who have not received the type of support that she would have expected. I hope that progress can be made under the Bill. The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford would push that agenda and make life, and having a relationship with their children, a lot easier for those who serve.
Mike Martin
I would like to make some brief comments in support of amendment 15. We should reflect on how the divorce rate is much higher for service personnel because of the vagaries of service life and the stress under which it can put relationships. A measure like this is the least we can do to mitigate the worst excesses that result from service life. As hon. Members will know, court orders often come with specifications that appropriate surroundings be available for contact visits. By agreeing to this amendment, we would ensure that provision is available to facilitate such orders.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment. I absolutely recognise the importance of facilitating contact visits between service personnel and their families; there are people here with experience of that.
The reality is that as we have come into government, we have the wrong houses in the wrong place in the wrong amount. That requires a whole restructuring of our defence housing estate to ensure that it matches and moulds itself to varying requirements across the population.
I was a base commander, and we had several welfare houses. There is a joint service publication in MOD policy, JSP 770, that designates service family accommodation as welfare support accommodation. This is a joint process with local military commands and welfare services to provide housing for welfare requirements. It cannot simply be met with the responsibilities that the amendment seeks to set for the Defence Housing Service.
Moreover, there has to be flexibility in the use of welfare support accommodation to ensure that it can respond to local needs and local requirements, including other important welfare uses such as those relating to domestic abuse and safeguarding. It would be far too inflexible for it to be earmarked as accommodation solely for contact visits, as the amendment sets out. That would limit our ability to respond to urgent needs of other kinds.
More generally, the issue that hon. Members have highlighted is only one part of a much bigger issue that the Defence Housing Service is being set up to address, which is that the defence estate is wrongly configured as a result of the legacy of Annington and years of under-investment, with not enough homes in the right places to meet the requirements of service personnel.
The focus of the Defence Housing Service is to improve existing homes and create thousands more, including by delivering widened access to accommodation for modern families. Its progress against that will be set out for Parliament to scrutinise through the annual reporting process. The defence housing strategy team looked at the issue as part of its review. An important conclusion of the review was a recognition of the important role that local welfare-based discretion plays in managing service personnel’s housing needs, which cannot always be planned from the centre.
The reality is that welfare houses provide a capability for a plethora of needs, from supporting individuals who have been subject to abuse all the way through to providing a comforting environment for families who have broken up or separated and need a place to live and thrive with their children. To narrow them down to one use may not meet the local requirement, but I absolutely support the premise and the positivity behind the amendment. Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements that are already in place, I see the amendment as unnecessary.
Mr Francois
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is replying. I have learned to take his word. Just so he does not think that we have a blanket policy of voting on everything this morning, if he gives me his word that he will take the issue back to the Department and the people setting up the DHS and look very seriously at how we might do a bit better, in return I shall not press the amendment. Can he give me that comfort now?
Al Carns
It is absolutely right and proper that we do that. I would like to go a step further: we could probably organise a sit-down with Natalie Elphicke Ross and the team at the Defence Housing Service. It has already been thought through, but they can explain it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any insight into how he would improve it, or indeed any reflections from his own experience of the defence estate, we will take that forward. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Francois
I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mike Martin
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “service family accommodation” and insert “defence housing”.
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service pertains to all defence housing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Single living accommodation standards—
“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.
(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“single living accommodation” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;’.”
This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.
Mike Martin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendment and the new clause are designed to do the same thing in two separate pieces of legislation. Essentially, this is about making sure that defence home standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. That is important because, as well as approximately 47,500 service family accommodation properties in the UK, there are 100,000 single living accommodation spaces. In terms of numbers of properties, if not people, there are twice as many SLAs as there are service family accommodation properties.
I will give the Committee a bit of detail, because the detail is quite important. There may be a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill, so perhaps we can accept the amendment as a tidying-up measure. If there is no gap in the drafting of the Bill, perhaps the Minister could speak to why there is a difference between different provisions.
Proposed new section 343E(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 specifies that the Defence Housing Service will have the general functions of
“improving the supply and quality of defence housing”.
Subsection (8) defines “defence housing” as both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. So far, so good. However, subsection (6) refers only to service family accommodation and not to single living accommodation. The requirements in subsection (6) are therefore not the same as in subsection (8). I am pretty sure that the Ministry of Defence and the Government want defence housing standards to apply across all accommodation, rather than just to service family accommodation. Taken together, that means there may be a gap in how the provisions are interpreted. I am sure we all agree that the standards should apply to service family accommodation and single living accommodation.
New clause 1 would apply the same concept—broadening the scope of defence housing standards to cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation—to the Renters’ Rights Act, which contains a number of provisions that pertain to service accommodation. Wherever “service family accommodation” appears in the Act, the new clause would simply add “and single living accommodation”, thereby broadening the scope of the Act. I do not know whether that omission was an oversight or deliberate. If it was deliberate, will the Minister explain why? Why are we setting single living accommodation apart from service family accommodation? It is very important that service families are protected, but there are twice as many SLA properties as SFA properties.
Al Carns
I shall speak first to amendment 2. I thank the hon. Member for his engagement.
The measures in the Bill build on 18 months of work to stop the rot in defence housing and build for the future. We are buying back 36,000 military family houses from Annington and delivering a new consumer charter. We have already got after the first 1,000 homes, published the defence housing strategy and, importantly, we have launched the new single living accommodation review. That is important because there is a separation.
What the hon. Member is getting at is where, in some cases, we have Defence Housing Service family accommodation that is repurposed for single living accommodation because we have excess housing or a lack of single living accommodation on the base. Therefore, we must include both elements in bits of the Bill, but not all of the Bill, because SLA is subject to a completely separate review.
Mike Martin
I know of what the Minister speaks. A four-bedroom house may have four servicepeople living in it as single living accommodation—the defence equivalent of a house in multiple occupation—but does that not speak to the point that SLA and SFA should be treated under the same standards?
Al Carns
I fundamentally disagree. The review of single living accommodation will describe the complexity of the problems we have across the entire estate with both the shape and size of our single living accommodation, the requirements of a changing population, and how best to manage them. To combine the two would detract in particular from the defence housing strategy because of the funding mechanisms, ownership and oversight of single living accommodation.
Amendment 2 would have the effect of broadening the Defence Housing Service’s responsibility for the standard of housing to include single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation, which the Government do not believe is appropriate in any shape or form. Single living accommodation operates in a fundamentally different way from service family accommodation, and the two must therefore be separated. SLA is housing provided for individual service personnel living without families, typically on military bases behind the wire, with the primary responsibility sitting with frontline commands and the demand signal set by their operational requirements. Recognising the difference, the defence housing strategy, which sets out the basis for the Defence Housing Service, did not recommend that the Defence Housing Service is responsible for all single living accommodation, but recognised the need for dedicated, focused attention on service families that the new organisation will provide.
We are committed to driving up standards in single living accommodation, just as we are with service family accommodation. A separate, dedicated review of single living accommodation is already under way and should be complete in the summer. The Minister for Veterans and People is leading that, and pushing forward on it hard and fast.
Mike Martin
The Minister is being very generous with his time. Could he state precisely the difference between SLA and SFA that means we cannot bring them together?
Al Carns
Single living accommodation is often hundreds of rooms—think student accommodation—in barrack blocks behind the wire. Service family accommodation is often on the other side of the wire, out in the local population. Single living accommodation houses individuals rather than families. The whole set-up is completely different—some have cooking facilities and some do not. To balance the two on the same standards would completely skew the system.
I assure the hon. Member that the single living accommodation review is fully under way. It will look into this separately and deliver a strategy that is similar to the defence housing strategy, but it will look specifically at the nuances of single living accommodation. I think that many of the points the hon. Member is getting at will be included in that review and be open to scrutiny.
Mike Martin
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that we are going to take different routes but get to the same place. If he could give me assurances that we are going to see the same standards reflected in SFA as SLA, but they are going to be managed through separate processes, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Al Carns
The requirements are different for SLA and family accommodation, but we both want the same thing: the best accommodation, whether for a family or a single person living on base, either separated from their family or single. What I can offer the hon. Member is to engage and talk him through the single living accommodation strategy as it builds, so he can ensure his points are included and we either fill the knowledge gap or make the strategy reflect the intent of providing the best accommodation for single individuals outside the family setting.
Mr Francois
It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.
Al Carns
I completely accept that. There are just nuances and differences in the requirements, and that will be reflected in the outcomes of both reviews. Again, I offer that engagement—if the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells would like to get involved and ensure that his points are made as the strategy is built, he can affect the output as required.
The Government believe that a dedicated focus on the Defence Housing Service and family accommodation is the best way to achieve the step change needed for defence, specifically on family homes. We will continue simultaneously to drive up the standard of single living accommodation, and further detail will be set out in the next steps following the ongoing SLA review. If it is any consolation, I lived in single living accommodation for a large chunk of my life and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly, so I will personally be behind that work to ensure we get the best standards.
New clause 1 is designed to include single living accommodation within section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act. It would require the Ministry of Defence to report annually to Parliament on the extent to which such accommodation meets the decent homes standard. As someone who has lived in single living accommodation for a huge chunk of my life, I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, but the Government do not believe it is the right way to drive up standards in single living accommodation.
As Members may recall, this matter was debated during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government set out why the decent homes standard cannot sensibly be applied to single living accommodation. Such accommodation exists to support operational readiness and cannot be treated in the same way as social housing or other forms of civilian housing.
Single living accommodation spans a huge range of types, many with shared facilities, and therefore, by definition, some parts of the decent homes standard would be difficult to meet. For example, the standard requires each unit to have adequate kitchen facilities, but single living accommodation units do not necessarily all have their own kitchens, because full professional subsidised catering is provided on defence bases or sites. For that very reason, civilian housing with shared facilities, such as purpose-built student accommodation, is typically not covered by the 2006 decent homes standard.
Mike Martin
That is not what new clause 1 seeks to do. It is about amending the Renters’ Rights Act so that defence housing standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation, rather than applying the decent homes standard, as in the previous amendments we discussed.
Al Carns
I make it clear that we are not talking about amending the Renters’ Rights Act; we are talking about the Armed Forces Bill, but I am happy to take this offline and talk about the nuance between the two if required. We need to be clear that this does not mean we are complacent about the condition of single living accommodation—far from it. We are committed to driving up the quality of single living accommodation across the entire estate and ensuring that people get the experience they deserve if they are to serve on the frontline.
The Minister for Veterans and People has commissioned an independent review and is working on it now, and the single living accommodation piece should be complete by the summer. I will strongly recommend that she engage with the hon. Gentleman to talk through how we can work collaboratively towards the best solution for defence personnel. The review is the right vehicle for this work; it is targeted, expert-led and focused on the specific needs of those who serve.
Our commitment is simple: we will deliver safe, comfortable and well-maintained accommodation for our service personnel, taking into account the unique nature of service as a whole. I hope that reassures the Committee. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 2 or new clause 1.
Mike Martin
In the light of the Minister’s words— I know him well from before we came into politics—I am happy to take him up on his offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”—(Mike Martin.)
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 3, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”
This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.
The amendment relates to the reporting chain of the proposed new Defence Housing Service. In essence, it means that once the Defence Housing Service is established, it should report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of that service.
The genesis of the amendment is that when we were taking further evidence on the proposals for the DHS a little over a week ago, there appeared to be some ambiguity about how exactly it will report to Ministers. As I recall, we were told that it will have a partial reporting line, or the equivalent, into DIO headquarters—to keep it in the loop, I think—but that it will also report to Ministers via the National Armaments Director. At first hearing, that is somewhat surprising.
As a person who is primarily appointed to sort out the procurement challenges facing the Ministry of Defence, of which we all know there are many and about which I have railed for years, not least on the Defence Committee—it is all on the record—the NAD is not the most obvious choice to oversee an organisation designed to provide high-quality housing for service personnel and their families. It seems odd. In short, the NAD will have enough problems sorting out issues like Ajax— I refer the Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago about Ajax—and the propulsion systems of the Type 45 destroyer and so on, without having to worry about the challenges of defence housing as well.
The new system in the MOD is part of what one might call the quadripartite arrangement in the post-Levene model of defence reform, and by that I mean the process not the party—in passing, of course, Reform Members are not on this Committee, but they hardly ever turn up during defence debates in the Commons anyway, so it is not much of a loss. We now have effectively four main pillars within the Ministry below ministerial level. We have the permanent secretary, with responsibility for MOD centre and administrative matters; the Chief of the Defence Staff, unsurprisingly responsible for specifically military matters; the National Armaments Director for matters relating to procurement and—dare I mention it—the defence equipment plan, which is part of the defence investment plan; and, lastly, the Chief of Defence Nuclear, for all aspects of the nuclear deterrent and the associated shore-based infrastructure, which is now, as the Minister will know, a very challenging area for the Department.
Mike Martin
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he think that the metrics by which that bonus is judged should be made public?
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment—every dog has its day. Yes, I think it should, and that is partly the purpose for tabling the amendment.
For the avoidance of doubt, I accept in principle that, given the very large amounts of money we spend on equipment procurement—potentially more than £0.25 trillion over the next decade—paying someone quite a lot of money to get it to work is inherently not an unreasonable thing to do. Nevertheless, the appointment did raise eyebrows across the civil service.
To be fair, as I understand it, the chief executive of BAE Systems earns about £10 million a year—although if we look at what he has done to its share price, a shareholder might argue that it is a pretty good investment. Charles Woodburn is widely regarded in the industry as knowing what he is about, and is a highly professional leader of that company.
None the less, I have sympathy with the question posed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. If this is part of the bonus arrangements, what are the metrics? If he were to get a bonus for the performance of Defence Housing Service, how do we know how much he will get? And how would we judge whether it is value for money, not just for the taxpayer but for the rent payers—the customers—of the Defence Housing Service? I hope the Committee will understand there is a genuine point at issue here.
We would be very interested to know what element, if any, of the NAD’s salary, and specifically the bonus payment, is related to the performance of the Defence Housing Service. By the same token—I hope the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is with me here—if the Defence Housing Service were to underperform, what would happen to the NAD’s base salary? Would it be docked? It is a really serious question.
To summarise, could the Minister explain why the Department decided to manage it in this way? There must be a rationale, and the Committee would like to know what it is. Could he also explain how these bonus arrangements will work and how transparent all of it will be?
David Reed
My right hon. Friend has just laid out a very strong case for why amendment 16 needs to be incorporated into the Bill, and I hope the Minister has taken those points on board—I look forward to hearing his wind-up. This is a straightforward but important amendment that seeks to bring clarity, accountability and proper ministerial oversight to the way in which the Defence Housing Service reports on its performance.
At present, the reporting structure is, frankly, overly complex. Responsibility is diffused across multiple layers, making it difficult to establish who is ultimately answerable when and if standards fall short. That lack of clarity does not serve service personnel or their families, who depend on the system working effectively. We know from our visits and from Members’ own experience that there is an overly complex and convoluted reporting chain where nothing really gets sorted and things are passed up but never actually worked on. We now have the opportunity to improve that structure.
I do not think the current structure assists the House in carrying out its proper scrutiny of how public money is spent and how vital services are delivered. The amendment would put that right by establishing a clear and direct line of accountability, and it would require the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Going back to the point that my right hon. Friend just raised, incorporating the National Armaments Director and having that person accountable in this long chain does not breed the view that Parliament needs to be able to scrutinise what is going on. Given how much the Minister cares about this, and the fact that he is an elected representative, I know he would want to have that view unfiltered from the Defence Housing Service itself.
This is a sensible and proportionate step that ensures that responsibility sits at the appropriate level and that there is a named Minister who can be held to account by this House. More importantly, the public will ultimately hold the Minister to account anyway. If I were in his shoes, I would want that unfiltered view coming straight up to me. If we are talking about performance bonuses—and I have no reason to believe that that is the case with the National Armaments Director, but if it were to be the case—I would not want anything to be tarnished or moved around that was linked to performance bonuses. I would not want there to be any incentives like that.
There is also a practical benefit. A direct reporting relationship will help to ensure that the issues are escalated more quickly, decisions are taken more efficiently and there is greater transparency around performance, which is something we all want to see. It should also lead to better oversight, sharper focus on delivery and, ultimately, improved outcomes for those living in service accommodation.
Al Carns
Amendment 16 would require that the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service reports directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces, which is my current role. In the way it is written, it would confuse accountability in the Defence Housing Service, undermine the role of the board in particular, including the role of the family representatives, and risk duplicating lines of ministerial accountability that are already set out in the Bill.
From my perspective, when we have an issue, in defence or in any organisation, it is down to either a lack of understanding, command or control or a lack of accountability. I want to ensure, and reassure, that when the board reports on the Defence Housing Service and its deliverables, it is unfiltered and untainted as it hits ministerial offices. The governance of the Defence Housing Service has been carefully set out to provide the right balance between independence, accountability and ministerial oversight.
For the organisation to deliver its objectives, it must operate alongside strategic oversight by the Department, including accountability to Ministers and Parliament as a whole. Under established arrangements for arm’s length bodies, arrangements that operate across Government, responsibility for overseeing performance sits with the body’s board, with the chair acting as the principal interface with Ministers. It is critical that the chair is the principal interface with Ministers, reducing the ability of anyone to filter or taint any reports as they come up and through.
The Defence Housing Service will remain accountable to Ministers through that board and via departmental sponsorship and arrangements, alongside increased reporting to Parliament on its performance, as set out in the Bill. The DHS will continue to work closely with departmental teams, which will be covered in the MOD framework document in the usual way. It will be operationally independent, within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers in the Bill.
Critically, for its day-to-day activities, the organisation will be accountable to an expert, independent board, which will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The board will include a family representative, alongside the service family involvement in the wider governance, to ensure that the Defence Housing Service is held to account by not only those with appropriate expertise but the families that it has been set up to serve. Given its importance, it is right that ministerial reporting be held at Secretary of State level, rather than with the Minister for the Armed Forces. I was responsible for the delivery of the strategy, but housing is not necessarily within my portfolio.
Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary and I urge the right hon. Member to withdraw it.
Mr Francois
I am so sorry; I have done it again. Mr Efford, I was not planning to press the amendment to a Division, but now I will—before I “retire”.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1 stand part.
New clause 7—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish a detailed feasibility study into the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).
(2) The Study must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report ‘Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it’.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the study before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a feasibility study into the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service.
Al Carns
Clause 3, together with schedule 1, creates the Defence Housing Service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our Defence Housing Service sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes, 90% of which will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt through a record £9 billion investment over a decade. The Defence Housing Service is the vehicle to drive that transformation.
The clause confers on the Defence Housing Service the functions of
“improving the supply and quality of defence housing,”
the management, regeneration or development of land used for defence purposes and
“supporting in other ways—
(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and
(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”
To fulfil those functions, the Defence Housing Service will be empowered to generate income from property and to manage land on behalf of the Secretary of State and others. It may enter into contracts, buy and sell property, borrow money with Treasury approval, provide financial assistance and form partnerships or joint ventures. It will also have compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for any purpose connected with its functions. The Defence Housing Service will be accountable to Ministers. It must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and comply with the terms of the framework agreement entered into with the Secretary of State.
Forces families have previously been let down by homes that are not fit for purpose; we are determined and focused on delivering that. A new set of military housing standards that are fit for service family life will be established, including the decent homes standard, which the Defence Housing Service will be required to meet, under the terms of the framework agreement. The Defence Housing Service will lead the renewal and development of military homes across the United Kingdom, while unlocking the potential to deliver 100,000 homes of all types on developed MOD land.
Mr Francois
I note that the Minister never answered my previous inquiry about the bonus arrangements for the NAD. He is speaking to the clause standing part of the Bill, so perhaps he can tell me now—though he may need to seek inspiration. What are the bonus arrangements for the NAD relating to the DHS? What metrics will be applied?
Al Carns
The board of the Defence Housing Service will be accountable to the Secretary of State. I will not go into the detail of the NAD’s bonuses and how they are credited in the Bill, because they are not related.
That renewal will not only benefit the country as a whole in delivering against wider Government housing and economic growth targets but follow a “forces first” principle, prioritising current and former military personnel wherever possible. The Defence Housing Service will transform military housing, improve quality of life for service families and ensure that Defence housing is finally properly managed in a professional and efficient manner.
David Reed
Referring back to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, the bonuses are an important part of the Bill. If accountability for housing is now going through the National Armaments Director, and we are seeking to increase visibility so that we can scrutinise what is happening in the Defence Housing Service, that bonus part is important. Maybe this is an area for the Committee of the whole House, but we have to dig into it.
Al Carns
On the question of accountability, the board will report directly to the Secretary of State. There will be no filtering and no taint on any information coming up. Therefore, I do not necessarily agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
I will address new clause 7 in my closing remarks.
Mr Francois
The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him.
I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others.
For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all.
Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem.
I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else?
We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently.
One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal:
“We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?”
We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives.
One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth.
Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end.
When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO.
In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say.
We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback.
Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways.
The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.
Mr Francois
I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like.
The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves.
There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.
Mr Foster
The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that
“transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.”
Was the right hon. Member aware of that?
Mr Francois
Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that.
The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal.
When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.”
I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7.
On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.
Al Carns
New clause 7 would require there to be a feasibility study when establishing a forces housing association, but before I go into the detail, I will reflect on some of the comments made by the right hon. Member.
Recruitment and retention are intrinsically linked, as both the Government and the Opposition acknowledge. We have introduced lots of changes in recruitment and retention over the last year and a half, but there is much more to do. While it differs across the services, overall we are seeing a 13% uptick in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow, which is the first time we have seen a change in direction for 14 years. There is much more to do, but we are heading in the right direction.
One of the reasons we are heading in the right direction is because I genuinely believe that our armed forces personnel can see that we are doing the right thing, particularly with accommodation. The right to a family life is one of the critical components of anyone serving, and that looks like safe, secure, warm and dry accommodation, whether single living or family accommodation. To give a small example, I went through marine training in 1999, and the accommodation in which I was housed was still in place in 2024, when I came back to be the unit’s commanding officer. In 1999 it was terrible, and in 2024 it was unworkable. We need to get after those accommodation issues and put them right. I am absolutely confident in the Defence Housing Service, and the strategy review comprehensively looked at single living accommodation and family accommodation, and we are putting them on the right track to deliver significant change.
It is not lost on me that the drafting system in the military can put an undue amount of pressure on individuals; I have been on a satellite phone to my children on their birthdays in the middle of all sorts of carnage, with helicopters burning and turning in the background, or with incoming rounds in Afghanistan. It puts exceptional pressure on families, so the ability to return to a safe and secure place is the least that we can provide.
The independent strategy produced prior to the establishment of the Defence Housing Service was exactly that: it was independent, and it took a huge amount of advice from a variety of people. Most importantly, the families federations fed into that process and ensured that their voices were heard. The quote highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble was only reinforced by the oral evidence given by Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE, when discussing the strategy review in response to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. The view was firmly held throughout the entire review that the housing association model was not the right approach, and it was not included in its recommendations.
It is worth noting that, while there were a plethora of strategic issues during covid, the previous Conservative Government did not adopt the totality of the “Stick or Twist?” report produced by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, although it contained valuable points. A housing association model would jeopardise the close working with the military that is essential to ensuring appropriate operational capability. It would also put at risk the Crown basis on which personnel occupy their homes. Crown immunities allow the Ministry of Defence to move personnel at pace, without some of the regulatory constraint that we would have otherwise, which is vital for operational effectiveness. We must also bear in mind that we have more throughput in the armed forces than probably any other organisation or housing association in the country.
Mr Francois
For the record, that was the one recommendation in the “Stick or Twist?” report that was not adopted. All the other recommendations were adopted, including spending a lot of money on wraparound childcare because, again, childcare was a very important point for retention. Ben Wallace told me that he used the report to get quite a bit of cash out of the Treasury, so that recommendation about childcare was one that we did manage to get through. For the record, this was the one recommendation that was too much for the system to bear.
Al Carns
Perhaps that is why we are not taking it forward now.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence heavily subsidises rents. There have been suggestions that the Defence Housing Service could borrow private finance off the balance sheet if it was a housing association rather than a public body. However, expert advice from the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others confirms that is not the case. The exclusivity of the defence housing purpose and the scale of MOD payments mean that such financial arrangements are not feasible.
Equally important, and close to my heart, is the welfare of service personnel and their families. Evidence presented to the defence housing strategy review team revealed that local commands exercised significant discretion to support personnel in a plethora of difficult circumstances, such as bereavement. That welfare-based discretion is a cornerstone of armed forces culture, and moving housing management to a third-party provider could put it at risk, undermining this vital welfare function. Finally, the planned housing renewal programme demands very close working relationships with military commands to ensure that it supports operational effectiveness rather than undermining it. Such close collaboration is not realistically achievable through a private or third sector body.
David Reed
I refer the Minister back to amendment 16 on the line of accountability. He makes the point about adding an extra layer and removing accountability from the Minister for the Armed Forces. Does he not see that that is the point that we are trying to make? Making the CEO for DHS report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces would give him an unfiltered view, so that he can do this work on bereavement or the state of housing. This direct line of accountability would give him that power.
Al Carns
There is some confusion here. The Minister for the Armed Forces does not deal with the housing, the people or the welfare; he deals with the operation and policy output. There is a clear understanding of that. Amendment 16 refers to
“ the Minister of State for the Armed Forces”.
That is the wrong role, so the amendment is wrong.
Let us just stick to the point. The board itself will be accountable to the Secretary of State. That is the cleanest way to provide a sharp and crisp command and control model, and to allow the Secretary of State to make sure that the board, which has family members on it, provides the best service. Let us not misunderstand some of the ranks, roles and responsibilities within defence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth 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 Chair
Good morning. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the Parliament website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped 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 that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a vote.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful. I may ask for it to be recited back to me.
Clause 30
Local connection and service declarations ceasing to have effect
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 30, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), omit from “and except” to the end;”.
This amendment and Amendment 9 correct amendments of section 201(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 so as not to introduce a requirement for regulations made by the Electoral Commission to be made by statutory instrument. Such regulations are subject instead to procedural requirements under Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause 30 stand part.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Samantha Dixon
I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.
Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.
The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.
Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—
“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Seniority of electoral registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.
By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Anonymous registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.
As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.
Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Pre-election applications for registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 33 sets out in law a clear and unambiguous deadline to register to vote in advance of a poll. Subsections (2) and (3) set the deadline at 5 pm, 12 working days before a poll. That brings the deadline forward by seven hours from the existing deadline of 12 working days before a poll. We believe that is the right thing to do for electors and administrators. It creates consistency by aligning the 5 pm deadline with other citizen-facing deadlines, including absent vote and voter authority certificate application deadlines. It will also allow any queries or issues with a registration application to be effectively addressed within the working day by electoral administrators.
Subsections (4) and (5) introduce a power for the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make regulations to change the deadline for elections that they have a responsibility for. In doing so, they might consult the Electoral Commission. Regulations must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 34 repeals unique requirements for additional documentary evidence to always be provided by anyone trying to register to vote just before an election, even if the chief electoral officer is confident of their eligibility based on the data held. The current late-registration requirements in Northern Ireland require that additional documentary evidence to support an application to register must always be provided by anyone trying to register just before an election, even if the routine data checks carried out by the chief electoral officer provide a clear address and identity match.
The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him. That allows him to be confident in the identity of the vast majority of people making applications to register to vote. Therefore, it is necessary to request supporting evidence from applicants only where the data check is not clear. The repeal of these requirements will make voter registration easier for many people. In particular, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for many younger electors who may have fewer forms of documentary evidence than those over 18.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Electoral identity card issued in Northern Ireland: month and year of birth
Samantha Dixon
Clause 35 allows for a change to the electoral ID cards that are produced by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will enable the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to produce a card that is sufficient to meet a narrower electoral requirement and will prevent misuse.
By moving to a system where cards display only the month and year of birth, we maintain the electoral requirement of the card, while also relieving pressure on the resources of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will ensure that electoral ID cards are used for their intended purpose of facilitating participation in our democracy. It will allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to focus its limited budget on delivering effective and secure elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Regulations as to registration etc: information to assist registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The clause will support EROs with their duties to maintain complete and accurate registers, and facilitate the implementation of other clauses in the Bill related to direct registration, such as clauses 17 and 18. Clause 36 has two main effects. First, it will clarify the level of access that EROs should have to local authority datasets, and secondly, it will build the legislative framework to allow data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs.
On the first point, EROs currently have powers to access data from local authorities, or anyone providing services to that authority, to enable them to discharge their duty to maintain a complete and accurate register. However, in some cases, they face barriers to accessing the data they need. Local authorities interpret the extent of access they can provide in different ways, which creates an inconsistent picture of data access for EROs across the country. To address that, subsection (2) amends an existing power to clarify the rights of EROs to access local authority data to support electoral registration processes.
I now turn to the second impact of the clause. We know that there are opportunities to make better use of citizen data from across the public sector, including in the electoral registration space. The clause also includes a new power to enable better data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs. Subsection (3) introduces that power, which provides the legal basis for regulations setting out specific data-sharing arrangements and further data-sharing agreements. Given the importance of the clause to implementing clauses 17 and 18, I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Edited register: electors to opt in
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.
The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.
An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.
Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.
This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.
Samantha Dixon
As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 38 and 39 deal with returning officers. As Members will know, returning officers play a central role in delivering elections and maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Their decisions carry significant legal and operational responsibility. Returning officers rely on the support of local authority officers to support the effective and efficient running of elections. That is particularly important where constituencies cross local authority boundaries.
Clause 38 ensures that all local authorities in England and Wales are required to make their officers available to support the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections that fall wholly or partly within their area. That removes any ambiguity about local authority support responsibilities to returning officers, and helps to ensure that elections are administered smoothly and consistently. It aligns the position in England and Wales with the existing statutory arrangements in Scotland, promoting a coherent approach across Great Britain. The clause provides clarity and certainty, ensuring that returning officers have access to the local authority officer support they need in order to deliver well-run and trusted elections.
Clause 39 ensures that those appointed as returning officers are senior officers within their authority, with the experience, authority and accountability needed to manage complex electoral activity. In Scotland, the clause requires a senior officer to be appointed as returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, with provision for a designation where a constituency spans more than one council area.
In England, equivalent seniority requirements apply for returning officers at local elections, including those administered by London borough councils and the Greater London Authority. By ensuring that returning officers hold appropriately senior positions, the clause strengthens accountability and supports the effective administration of elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to start of the Bill.
Clause 40
Timing of proceedings for nominations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 40 makes changes to the deadlines for submitting nomination papers to returning officers at elections. Currently, nomination papers may be delivered between 10 am and 4 pm on any day in the period for submitting nominations, including the final day. Under the proposals in the clause, at a UK parliamentary election and at Northern Ireland local elections, nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer between 9 am and 5 pm on any day of the nomination period except the last day, and between 9 am and 12 noon on the last day for submitting nomination papers. The change will therefore provide greater flexibility for political parties and prospective candidates when submitting their nominations.
As indicated, the clause will also move the deadline to submit nomination papers on the final day earlier, to midday. The deadline for making objections to nominations at UK parliamentary elections is set at 12 noon, except in relation to nominations delivered on the last day, for which the deadline will be 1 pm. That will allow returning officers to begin printing ballot papers earlier, and so reduce pressure on printing and delivery of postal ballot papers.
Alongside the planned forthcoming change to the postal vote application deadline—to be made by secondary legislation, and detailed in the Government’s strategy for elections, published last July—the adjustments will provide additional time for electoral administrators to process postal vote applications and to prepare and issue postal ballot packs, while still ensuring adequate time for candidates to submit their nominations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.
Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.
We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.
Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In one of our evidence sessions, we heard clearly from a KC who said there were almost no examples of personation prior to the introduction of mandatory ID. We also heard, quite alarmingly, that about 1.7% of people—potentially enough to swing an election—were turned away at polling stations under the current system. Clearly, this is about getting the balance right. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly feel that the balance is currently right, given the evidence we heard in that session?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman’s figures are slightly wrong. It was 0.8% of people who were not able to vote at the last general election due to being turned away without identification.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the official figures, but we heard from election volunteers that they believe that the official figures are not accurate, because that is only the people who made it to the clerk’s desk. They saw lots of evidence of people being turned away at the door because they were arriving without identification.
Paul Holmes
With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.
Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.
Paul Holmes
I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.
The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.
Samantha Dixon
To respond to the question’s from the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, we are currently finalising the details of the proposals, to make sure we strike the right balance between security and accessibility, and we will set more details out soon.
We anticipate that the candidate ID check will be different from the voter ID check. Voters show ID once, at the ballot box; candidates are in the public eye for weeks. If somebody attempts to mislead the public, there should be multiple opportunities for scrutiny, but the new checks will add an early safeguard that does not currently exist.
Later today, we will discuss our views around identification for those coming to the ballot box, but this important step forward for the nomination process will prevent people from disrupting our democratic process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.
Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.
Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.
Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.
We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.
Paul Holmes
We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.
Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Police contact form
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—
New Clause 56
“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance
(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.
The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.
New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.
The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.
Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.
The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.
The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.
However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.
In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.
Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.
Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.
We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.
Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.
Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.
Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?
I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.
If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.
I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it.
New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are. Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning.
New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance. The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.
Samantha Dixon
I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.
Paul Holmes
I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:
“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”
We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.
I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 46 removes the unnecessary and outdated requirement for polling station staff to call out the name and elector number of a voter when delivering a ballot paper. This change will bring Northern Ireland in line with practice in Great Britain. This practice can be intimidatory and unwelcome for voters, and its removal is in line with the Government’s wider commitments to tackle harassment and intimidation in the democratic process.
Calling out is also unnecessary given the requirement to produce photo ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland. This change will apply to all elections in Northern Ireland. The clause will also make some technical amendments to ensure that legislative references to the corresponding number list are correct. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Voter identification requirements
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“, and
(iii) shows when the card expires (see also paragraph (1NA)).”
This amendment and Amendment 11 provide that a payment or cash withdrawal card can only be used as voter identification if the card shows when it expires and has not expired.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“(iii) is issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in connection the issuance of the bank card, which is recorded on the individual’s credit file, and visible to other lenders.”
This amendment would ensure that only bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment would be able to be used as voter ID.
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Clause stand part.
New clause 19—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 22.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak to clause 47 before turning to Government amendments 10 to 13. I will then respond to amendment 30, tabled by the Opposition, and new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. We believe it is unacceptable for legitimate voters to be prevented or discouraged from voting, and any barriers to voting must be addressed. While we believe it is appropriate to retain the requirement to show ID to protect electors from the risk of personation, the current voter ID rules are too restrictive. Research has consistently shown that between 2% and 4% of electors report not owning a currently accepted form of ID, and thousands of electors have been recorded being turned away from polling stations due the policy.
Clause 47 will amend the voter ID rules to allow the use of UK-authorised bank cards at the polling station. These are widely held and our research estimates that allowing their use will bring the number of electors reporting not owning an accepted ID to under 1%. This significant step will greatly improve the accessibility of this policy and support democratic participation.
The clause will also make changes to modernise the legislation with regards to digital forms of ID. The measure will require that any digital ID must be verifiable by a visual inspection feature in order to be accepted at the polling station—for example using a digital hologram. All currently accepted digital IDs have such security features. This change will ensure that any new digital ID without such a feature will not be accepted and so not create a new route for electoral fraud. Finally, this clause amends existing and creates new powers to make regulations relating to voter ID.
Together, the measures will ensure that our elections continue to maintain a proportionate voter ID check to prevent the risk of personation, while allowing a greater proportion of legitimate electors to more easily meet the voter identification requirements and engage in our democratic system.
Government amendments 10 to 13 ensure that only in-date bank cards are accepted as Voter ID at the polling station. Allowing UK-authorised bank cards to be used as voter ID will allow a greater proportion of legitimate electors in Great Britain to more easily meet the voter identification requirements, particularly newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds. However, improving accessibility and participation in our elections must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain their security and integrity.
An in-date bank card is likely to be kept carefully by its owner and unlikely to be discarded or given to others. However, unlike an expired photographic document, which is unlikely to be usable by anyone other than the legitimate owner due to the photograph, there is a risk that an expired bank card might be discarded, given away, or not noticed missing by the owner, as it no longer poses a financial risk. It therefore makes sense for photographic ID on the accepted list to continue to be able to be used as voter ID after it expires, so long as the photo remains a good likeness to the individual, but for a bank card to need to be in date in order to maintain the security of the policy. The amendments will make that change.
The amendments will also allow that if further types of non-photographic documents are added to the list of permissible forms of ID in the future, the same requirement that they be in date can be imposed. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld.
I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Clause 47(3), which refers to the treatment of digital forms of bank cards, says that, in digital form, they are a specified document and valid for ID purposes
“only if a person can form a reasonable view about whether it is a specified document by means of visual inspection alone.”
That is a significant burden to place on a polling clerk, the returning officer or another election official—the paragraph does not specify who that person is—to determine whether, when an individual shows them an image that may or may not be that person’s bank card, which is not required to contain a photograph or anything like that, it is the genuine article. Particularly given the significant growth of online banking, does my hon. Friend agree that that opens to door to this supporting impersonation in a way that would constitute electoral fraud?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.
I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?
Paul Holmes
Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.
The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
While the majority of young people already possess a bank card, they may not have other forms of ID like a driving licence or a passport. Does the hon. Member think that allowing a bank card will encourage more 16 and 17-year olds to participate in the electoral process?
Paul Holmes
I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024.
In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.
Sam Rushworth
I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation.
I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.
I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Let me indulge in an example. The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive man; he has knocked on a door in Hamble Valley on 2 May ahead of the local authority elections on 7 May, which he has talked about. At that point, the deadline for registering for the free ID has passed. The person who he has visited might have been busy—they might be in their early 20s working shifts—so they were not aware of the option to get free ID and that window has passed. In that circumstance, the bank card might be the only ID they have. If the hon. Gentleman does not allow that to be presented, they may not have the option to vote for his party’s candidate on 7 May. Does he accept that that is a problem?
Paul Holmes
No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.
Andrew Lewin
The hon. Member is right to call us friends, but let us be honest: we are unusual people who were involved in politics at a young age. That perhaps reflects many of us on the Committee. I ask the hon. Member again to reflect on the example of a busy shift worker. Their door was knocked a few days before the election. They cannot get the ID. They were not aware. Does the hon. Member accept that he has not quite addressed that challenge?
Paul Holmes
No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated.
Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. He has probably seen, like I have, leaflets from all the political parties represented on this Committee that tell people what form of ID is acceptable way before we even get into the election period or the election date is just around the corner. Does he agree that there are multiple touchpoints for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for when they cast their vote?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.
Paul Holmes
I will give way briefly; then I want to finish my remarks. This will be the last intervention.
Warinder Juss
I have a quick question. We have a crisis in democracy at the moment in that there are not as many people going out to vote as there should be. Should we not be making it easier for people to vote, rather than more difficult?
Paul Holmes
Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause.
As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country. Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud.
We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged. They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of his constituency, but I have looked at the data, and there have been only three convictions in a six-year period in all elections. Now, that is three convictions too many, and I agree that we need to increase security, but can he not see that going from a system in which literally nothing is needed to vote to a person needing to acquire their neighbour’s bank card to vote in their name is a significant added measure of security, and that it might bring three down to zero?
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote.
Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt. On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate.
I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it. I urge the Minister to change her mind before we get to the final stages of the Bill.
Lewis Cocking
I rise in support of Opposition amendment 30, and I will make some comments new clause 19 as tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The biggest thing that puts votes at risk is to keep changing the eligible ID on the list. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley about the different names that can appear on a bank card. We are yet to hear from the Government what name would need to be on a bank card—would it need to be the person’s initials, their surname, their first name, or their middle initial and surname? That will make it very difficult for clerks and polling station staff to adjudicate in busy polling stations.
If guidance comes out and says, “You need your first initial and your surname. We won’t accept anything else,” that will be confusing for people. People will turn up with bank cards that are not eligible under this system. The Government are trying to make it easier for people to cast their vote by not safeguarding democracy and not requiring ID. That will create confusion.
I do not see how we have come to the conclusion that we should put bank cards on the list. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other forms of ID were considered when she sat down with her officials and said, “I know what we are going to do. We are going to add bank cards to this list.” What other forms of ID were considered, and what was considered not appropriate? I think that is a fair question to the Minister.
We also heard from the shadow Minister about electronic bank cards, which will be a particular issue when people turn up to the polling station and polling clerks need to check them. When I did telling at polling stations before people needed photographic ID to vote, most people turned up with ID anyway, and most people I spoke to were shocked when I told them that they did not need ID. The fact that voter ID has added integrity to the process, and that most people now think voting is more secure, is a good thing. I do not support new clause 19, which would be a step backwards in that regard.
We can all play our part in enabling people to access free voter ID. The hon. Member for Ashford suggested earlier that 16 and 17-year-olds might be put off voting if they did not have ID, so why have the Government not come forward with a programme to give out free voter ID at secondary schools when people are registering to vote? That would be a way to solve some of the problems that he thinks may come out of the Bill. The Government could be doing that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about younger people, but what about the older end of the spectrum? My mother decided that she would give up driving at the age of 84, last February. No longer being behind the wheel of a car was a sound decision for her and probably for most of the people in the local area, but it means that she has given up her form of photo identification.
My mother has voted in every election in which she has been able to; it is something that she finds particularly important. She is not particularly up on online banking or digital banking, but she has a physical bank card and is happy to use it. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give my mother, who is very wary about spending lots of time applying for passes and does not have photographic identification?
Lewis Cocking
We will not stray into the issue of online banking, banking hubs and high street banks, but I have some sympathy: I have family members who do not want to do online banking. The hon. Lady’s mother can get a free voter authority certificate from the council, or she could choose to vote by post, and then her signature would be checked and verified by the council. There are two options for her to pick from. I do not understand why we think this is so difficult.
As I said when intervening on my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I have seen political leaflets from every party represented on this Committee showing what forms of identification people need. That is before we even get to the election day, and way before the deadline that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned regarding the voter authority certificate. Voter ID has been in place now for a number of elections. I have been turning up at polling stations since the legislation came into place, and in all those hours I think one person did not have ID—and they came back with it later in the day.
As I said in the evidence session, I question the data that is being collected. It is not clear that we are capturing the data on whether people come back later in the day with their identification. It was also mentioned that people get turned away at the door and might not even make it to the clerk’s desk. How many of those people come back? They will not be captured in that data. Voter identification is a good thing, and I am extremely concerned that we are watering it down. As I said, the Government are putting people who work at polling stations in a very difficult position, because it is not clear what type of name—first name, initials or surnames—needs to be on the bank card. We will have more disputes under the new system that the Government are trying to introduce than we have under the system that we have now.
Lisa Smart
It will not surprise anybody that I am not in favour of amendment 30 and will speak in favour of new clause 19. Before I get into that, I will speak briefly in favour of clause 47 and Government amendments 10 and 11. If we have voter ID, it should be as wide and as accessible as possible, so I will not speak against those provisions.
Lewis Cocking
What the hon. Lady has just outlined has no effect when it comes to a provisional licence, which is photographic ID.
Lisa Smart
The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.
Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.
New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society.
This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better. Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that.
We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed.
I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right.
I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.
We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.
I want to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.
We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.
There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.
Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is
“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.
That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.
For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.
During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are
“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”
The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that
“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”
She was also right when she said:
“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]
We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.
I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.
Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.
Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.
I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that
“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”
That is the point.
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
Backbench Business
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
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability
(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
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furness. Before I start my speech, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time for this debate. I also thank Members from across the House who supported our application, and the clinicians, the charities and, most importantly, the patients who have shared their experiences in order to inform the debate.
Let me also take this opportunity to warmly welcome the Minister to what is still her fairly new role. I know that throughout her time in Parliament she has been a staunch advocate for people with conditions such as less survivable cancers and other rare conditions, and for people who have suffered from medical failings, such as those with pelvic mesh. Throughout those campaigns, she has above all given voice to people who feel let down and forgotten by our healthcare system, so I know that she will empathise with much of what will be said in today’s debate.
In April last year, I had an email from my constituent Connor Edwards. Connor opened his email by telling me that he was in “sheer desperation.” He explained that he was living with two conditions, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability—having pronounced them correctly, I will now refer to them as EDS and CCI.
I will be honest with the House: until that point, I had never heard of these conditions. I did not know how profoundly they affect people such as Connor, or the extent to which they are unseen in our NHS. Six years ago, Connor was 25 and living a very active life. He was a keen fisherman and mountain biker and, like many people in my constituency of Cannock Chase, he loved to spend his time outdoors, surrounded by the natural beauty that we are so fortunate to have on our doorstep.
Connor’s story with EDS and CCI began when he was bitten by a tick while he was out on the Chase and subsequently developed Lyme disease. However, it turned out that that was only the start. In seeking explanations for his worsening health, Connor had to do so much research himself. Then, after finally seeing many specialists, he was diagnosed with EDS, a connective tissue disorder that affects the collagen responsible for supporting the skin, joints, blood vessels and internal organs.
Some people living with EDS experience chronic joint dislocations, severe and persistent pain, and significant neurological complications. One of those complications in cases like Connor’s is CCI, whereby the skull no longer sits safely on the spine, placing pressure on the brain stem and spinal cord.
I am conscious that I can get quite technical when I discuss Connor’s case, so I will put it in his words. He says that his head is quite literally falling off his body. Chillingly, that is not something that is picked up on a scan but not felt; rather, Connor feels his head shifting around dangerously every day, with all the pain that goes with that. He is also acutely aware that his symptoms continue to worsen.
It is the intersection between EDS and CCI that I will focus on today, and I know that many other hon. Members will make important contributions about the broader challenges faced by people living with EDS.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a topic that, like him, I must confess I had not heard much about until I spoke to two of my constituents about it. Having heard from Sarah and Mark, who both suffer from craniocervical instability, I know that it is impossible for those suffering from it not to be left devastated by its impact. It not only limits and narrows their lives and what they can do, but crushes their family finances, as they are forced to seek expensive private treatment due to inadequate access to treatment via the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important to put that right and that we should start to consider what a better clinical pathway for this condition might look like, so that everyone suffering from it can access the treatment they deserve in their community?
Josh Newbury
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In this country, we are incredibly proud of our NHS and the care that it can give people who have very common or very rare conditions. However, as I will set out further, and as he has just said, so many people with these two conditions feel very unseen, and we absolutely need to correct that. People should not have to fundraise to seek private treatment to be seen by doctors.
I will ensure in my speech that the experiences of patients who develop these two conditions and serious neurological complications are heard. When I speak to Connor now, the reality of what he is living with is incredibly difficult to hear. He has told me how much he is struggling, not just with the physical symptoms of his conditions but with his battle to be recognised in our health system. He feels that his conditions are not seen, not properly assessed and too often misunderstood. Like many other people, he has been left feeling that he is not even believed.
Connor told me that at one point he was barely eating, in order to try to save enough money to see a specialist neurosurgeon abroad. He does not come from a privileged background, so he has had to set up a crowdfunding page in the hope of raising enough money to get the specialist surgery and treatment that he needs. However, like so many patients in a similar situation, he is falling short. Even if he is able to reach his target and go abroad, he will be left asking the very simple question: “What happens when I come home?” He has described feeling as though he has been “gaslit” by the system, with his symptoms attributed elsewhere and his concerns not taken seriously.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Like others, I was not aware of this condition until I was contacted by my constituent Jo, who has bravely shared her story widely. I am grateful that she has done that. However, one of the things that Jo wanted to have raised today is that a recent report by Edinburgh University indicated that patients in Scotland can wait up to 20 years for diagnosis, and that when they are diagnosed—if they are diagnosed—they then, as my hon. Friend has said, face a very difficult journey in trying to find care, help and medical treatment. They often have to come south of the border for that treatment and pay for it privately. I echo my hon. Friend’s point about finding a pathway for people with these conditions, and I hope that today’s debate leads to one.
Douglas McAllister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In Scotland, one third of those living with EDS or hypermobility spectrum disorder are living with at least one long-term, serious condition. A number of my constituents contacted me in the lead-up to this debate to share their stories. They all repeated the same experience of delayed or overlooked diagnosis, which led to unnecessary pain and distress. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a UK-wide issue that requires earlier diagnosis, better awareness and integrated care to improve people’s outcomes and their lives?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with both my hon. Friends. They echo what I have heard from many of my constituents. This issue is often overlooked, and we need to do so much better for many thousands of people across the country, so I thank them for sharing their constituents’ experiences.
So many people are in a similar situation to Connor’s, which is not unusual. Many people have told me that they have been diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome, so they are not just dismissed but told that their condition is fictitious.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The point about being dismissed is one I have heard time and time again from my constituents. They are being passed from pillar to post, repeating the same stories again and again, and not being believed or heard. When someone is living with a chronic and lifelong condition, that further adds to their distress. The rare diseases action plan, published earlier this month, sets out the importance of increasing awareness of rare diseases among professionals. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only shift health services towards prevention through early diagnosis if healthcare teams are equipped with that knowledge from the beginning, and that underdiagnosed diseases like Ehlers-Danlos should be at the heart of that?
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The exhaustion and exasperation that she refers to occurs, as we have heard from other hon. Members, time and time again. I agree that the work being done on rare diseases is incredibly important, and at the end of my speech I will come to how I hope that we can build on that work for people who suffer from these conditions.
The impact on Connor’s mental health has been immense. He told me that he feels as though he is “rotting in bed”, watching his condition deteriorate without any clear route to help. He has spoken openly about how low he has felt and the thoughts that he has had because of that, including considering whether he has any options left at all. While all that is happening, his condition continues to worsen. In recent days, he has experienced seizures and episodes affecting his swallowing and breathing. These symptoms are deeply concerning and underline the urgency of his situation. In response to inquiries about what support might be available, I have been told that there is currently no established or commissioned NHS service for investigation, multidisciplinary discussion or surgery for CCI in patients with hypermobile EDS. Connor is seriously unwell and is getting worse, and he knows that there is no clear pathway for him to access the care he needs anywhere in this country.
Late last year, Connor and I had the opportunity to meet with the then Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). We discussed the challenges faced by people living with these complex conditions, including the lack of support in the NHS, the shortage of trained specialists and the fact that there is no way for anybody to get an upright MRI scan in the UK, which is crucial for diagnosing CCI. I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for her time and her compassion, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish her all the best with her treatment.
We were joined at that meeting by representatives from the brilliant charity Ehlers-Danlos Support UK, as well as Connor’s advocate, Natasha, all of whom are in the Public Gallery with us today and have worked closely with my team to help us to better understand the link between EDS and CCI and what that means for people with those conditions. I sincerely thank them for that.
What I have heard from Natasha, and from people across the UK who have contacted me, is that Connor’s is not an isolated case. I will share a few more experiences with the House to reveal the true scale and seriousness of the issue. I have heard from patients who, in 2017, were assessed for surgery here in the UK as part of a planned programme involving international specialist experience. At that point, there was not only recognition of this condition but a clear intention to treat it in the NHS. Yet those procedures were cancelled shortly before they were due to take place, leaving those people without care and without a pathway forward. What is most concerning is that, in the years since, we have not moved forward; in many ways, we have moved backwards.
I have heard from people who were told that their condition was life-threatening, yet were left to face that reality alone, without support and without options. From there, the trajectory becomes all too familiar: people return again and again to NHS services, searching for answers, only to be told that nothing more can be done. I have heard from people who have had to raise extraordinary sums of money in a matter of weeks—while seriously unwell—and from families who have had to leave the UK altogether to access care, only to find themselves stranded overseas as conditions worsen and costs escalate.
Even when people do receive treatment—often at enormous cost—they return home to a system that is still unable to support them, with no clear route for aftercare, rehab or specialist oversight. What is striking is not just the severity of these stories but their consistency —different people, in different parts of the country, seeing the same gaps, barriers and outcomes.
Natasha has also shared her own experience with me. Like many, she spent years seeking answers within the NHS as her condition deteriorated, only to have her symptoms dismissed. At her most unwell, she lost the ability to stand, walk and even swallow properly. When she was upright, sitting or standing, even briefly, her arms became paralysed, she lost her speech and the ability to swallow, and was also losing her vision. These are absolutely horrific symptoms.
Natasha was eventually forced to seek specialist care abroad, having travelled by air ambulance to get there, where she underwent lifesaving surgery at significant personal cost. Since returning to the UK, she has continued to face challenges in accessing the specialist follow-up and rehab that she needs. Despite everything she has been through, Natasha has worked tirelessly to support patients like her and to bring this issue to light. I place on record my thanks to her, not only for sharing her experience but for the work she is doing as an advocate for other people, such as Connor, in the same position.
One reason why patients are passed between multiple specialists, and why diagnosis is so challenging, is the lack of access to appropriate diagnostics. Current NHS pathways are designed for CCI caused by trauma, such as road-traffic collisions, but not for EDS. In cases of traumatic instability, the problem is usually visible on standard scans performed lying down, and can be assessed through established neurological pathways—including the very fusion surgery that Connor is seeking. But in EDS, the instability comes from ligament laxity and is often positional, so that when someone is upright, the head is not adequately supported by the neck. That is often not visible when patients are lying flat in a standard MRI scanner, so their scans might appear normal despite ongoing neurological symptoms. One can see how, in cases like that, diagnoses such as Munchausen can come up. That means that many patients find themselves going back and forth within the system, often ending up in A&E with chronic symptoms and then being discharged because clinicians just do not know what to do.
Symptoms can overlap with other recognised conditions, resulting in delays due to misdiagnoses and therefore missed opportunities to prevent further deterioration. There are also risks in how patients are managed during the period of instability. If instability is not recognised as a possibility, patients might be directed towards physiotherapy or exercise-based rehab, which, although well intentioned, can in some cases make things worse.
At the same time, we know that CCI surgery is already performed in the NHS, yet there is no equivalent for patients with EDS. Imagine someone with a broken arm going to A&E, but being told, “I’m sorry, we only X-ray legs.” They point to their arm, the doctor can see it is broken and they can feel it is broken, but they cannot scan it, so they have to go home—over and over. Even worse, imagine if, instead of being provided with a plaster cast, they were referred to counselling. That might seem far-fetched, but that is what patients with EDS and CCI are facing.
In the absence of an NHS route, patients are forced to take matters into their own hands, as I have said. In some cases, they might even require specialist medical transport to get abroad. Devastatingly, some find that their condition is too advanced for them to even make the journey. As I have said, there is then no aftercare, no consistent access to specialist imaging reviews and no co-ordinated rehab; many people are refused any of the care that would normally follow complex neurosurgery.
Before I conclude, I would like to reflect on what has struck me since I began working on this issue on behalf of Connor. I have lost count of the number of people who have been in touch with me from across the country, and of the conversations with hon. Members who hear similar stories from their own constituents. I have just been told that an appeal from EDS Support UK has reached almost all MPs—over 98%. That is how many of our constituents are getting in touch with us about this issue.
The conditions are often described as rare, but the truth is that for many patients they are simply rarely diagnosed. Without a pathway to diagnosis or treatment, patients with EDS and CCI are effectively invisible in NHS data. Behind every email, message and conversation is somebody trying to be heard—trying to access the care they need and live a life that many of us take for granted. I should stress that it is not easy for people living with these conditions to even do that. Many people are forced to become campaigners and lobbyists, but their energy should not be spent fighting to prove that their illness is real or to get access to basic care. They should be able to focus, as anybody should, on being believed, supported and treated.
The last time EDS was debated in this Chamber was May 2024. With the general election called within days of that debate, the follow-ups on the issues raised by Members then were not possible. My ask of the Government is simple, and it comes not from me alone, but from patients, clinicians and organisations such as EDS Support UK, and from Connor. Patients are not asking for predetermined clinical outcomes or for routine surgical intervention; they are asking for recognition that suspected CCI in EDS requires a clear, defined process for assessment in the health service.
In the short term, that means taking proportionate, practical steps to reduce avoidable harm, and making sure that access is appropriate, that diagnostic assessment happens and that a specialist opinion is given. It means being honest about where no pathway exists and providing clear guidance to avoid potentially harmful management when instability has not been ruled out. Finally, it means creating defined escalation routes with funding mechanisms where clinically necessary.
In the longer term, we clearly need an NHS diagnostic and care pathway with proper clinical governance, referral routes, specialist input and continuity of care so that access to diagnosis and treatment is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise; this is one of those days when multiple debates are going on, on each of which I have received representations from constituents, so I will have to speak and leave. The point my constituents have made to me is exactly as my hon. Friend sets out, which is that we want a comprehensive strategy. We know wonders cannot be worked overnight, but we want a timed and programmed strategy that addresses the agenda of issues that he has raised, and to give hope to people as well. Where the Government develop strategies—for example, on cancer—we are having breakthroughs and success in terms of diagnosis and treatment. I hope that this debate will confirm that the Government are willing to develop a strategy, and of course resource it.
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. He mentioned a key word in this debate—“hope”, which is something that so many people with the conditions do not have at the moment. That is what we absolutely need to give them. I share his hope that there is a way forward, but we need to make sure that this group of patients is included in that.
I am told that the rare diseases pathway could be one route forward. I would love to have the chance to explore that further with the Department alongside the people who clearly have an interest in this. The Government have rightly placed health at the centre of their agenda, and through the NHS 10-year plan we have an opportunity to build a system that is more joined up, fairer and more responsive to complex conditions like the ones I have mentioned. But patients like Connor cannot wait for long-term reform. Without action now, many will continue to face avoidable harm, worsening disability and, in some cases, irreversible deterioration. Let this be the Parliament where we turn the tide, recognise the people who are being let down, and act to ensure that no patient is left without a pathway to care simply because their condition does not yet fit the system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. We are hoping to give everyone five minutes, but we will see how we go.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this debate, which I have been asked by a number of constituents to attend. I would like to talk specifically about what it is like to live with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome in Cornwall, a rural and coastal area with the sea on three sides and only one acute hospital, which is in my constituency.
One constituent described moving from Kent to Cornwall a few years ago and finding that the services for patients with EDS in Cornwall were “virtually non-existent”. They were initially able to access care at the dysautonomia clinic in Derriford in Devon, but that has since closed with no successor. That has meant that my constituent has spent nearly £1,000 since December on appointments and travel to see private consultants. Many constituents told me that physiotherapy has helped them, but they have experienced long waits and found that there is a shortage of professionals experienced in the condition in the duchy. One told me that because of the lack of occupational therapists in Cornwall, he can have an OT appointment only every six months. Another said that they simply could not get treatment by a physio equipped to deal with EDS.
That lack of service leads patients in Cornwall to rely on their GPs, who may have patchy knowledge of the condition and are not necessarily equipped to deal with such complex issues. The lack of provision for EDS patients in Cornwall has even led some to move or consider moving up-country.
Our peripherality does not help with diagnosis times either, which is the second thing I want to touch on. Many constituents have written to me describing years of misdiagnosis and missed opportunities. One woman waited 10 years from the start of her symptoms and was finally diagnosed in London. A constituent with CCI was diagnosed by surgeons as far away as Spain and New York. A third constituent was diagnosed at 48 after many years of unexplained symptoms. Echoing what we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, she said:
“Over the years it took to get my diagnosis I felt that I was viewed as a hypochondriac or overanxious patient. The combination of multiple GP visits and not being believed had a…detrimental effect on my wellbeing and mental health. Even after diagnosis I continue to be frustrated by trying to engage with a…system that doesn’t work for people with this condition”.
A key issue highlighted was disjointed care. As EDS is a multi-system condition, every time a new body system develops an issue, the patient needs a new referral. As there is no care pathway for EDS and patients generally do not have access to a specialist, who could consider their symptoms as a whole and provide a joined-up treatment plan, that means multiple referrals, extra appointments, more travelling and more time off work—and therefore, more patients seeking private care.
My constituent Carley, who has EDS and CCI, had to fundraise and take out loans for her private surgery to relieve the pressure in her brain that was forcing the back of her cerebellum to herniate down into her spinal canal. She had been experiencing severe and progressive neurological symptoms, but was unable to access appropriate assessment and treatment through current NHS pathways. In her words:
“I developed intense pain in my head and neck that would make me physically sick, trouble standing, walking, swallowing, breathing, I was losing my vision. I was choking on food…as it was getting stuck in my throat due to my swallow reflex being affected. When I tried to lay down my skull would slide backward, and I would stop breathing. It was terrifying. I was getting intermittent body paralysis and many more equally terrifying symptoms. My bladder and bowels were not working properly & in most cases this condition then leads on to seizures. Nobody knew what it was or how to help me.”
I want to show a picture of the operation Carley had to secure her spine, because it is so shocking.
It would help all of my constituents considerably if the Department looked at developing a clear, accessible and appropriate pathway for patients. Does the Minister accept that patients with EDS and suspected CCI are in reality unable to access appropriate assessment or treatment through current NHS pathways? Will the Department commit to developing a clear, accessible and clinically appropriate pathway for those patients?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading the debate. In the short time that he has been in Parliament, he has made a name for himself as an assiduous MP who works hard on behalf of his constituents. They should all be very proud of what he does for them. We welcome his speech today, and I wish him well in what he does.
I am also keen to speak in this debate due to my role as the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson. Through that role, I always fight for more funding for the study and research of rare diseases. I have always had an interest in rare diseases, going back to my time in the Assembly—I was an Assembly Member for 12 years—and during all my years here as a Member of Parliament since 2010. There are some ladies in my constituency who have a deep interest in rare diseases. I had discussions with one family in particular just last week.
In Northern Ireland, conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and related issues, such as craniocervical instability, sit within a wider set of challenges around rare diseases, diagnosis and access to specialist care. The figures for Northern Ireland are limited and, unfortunately, Northern Ireland does not publish detailed prevalence data for EDS or CCI. Those conditions are often underdiagnosed and not consistently coded in health data systems. We have a lot to do in relation to data. Data is one of the things that always comes up when we talk about diseases, especially rare ones, because we need the data to know what the problems are and how to deal with them.
The Minister is certainly earning her money this week—I think this is her third or fourth debate in Westminster Hall. We are privileged to see her in her place, and I look forward to her contribution. She has a good heart, which she expresses through her responses to our questions.
It is estimated that one in 5,000 people have EDS. That suggests that 10,000 to 15,000 people are officially diagnosed, but that is an underestimate. My first question to the Minister is: do we have a better idea of the numbers in relation to EDS, and, if we do not, how can we get them? Furthermore, some 80% to 90% of diagnosed patients are female, as women are more likely to be diagnosed and more likely to present with chronic pain and joint issues. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) illustrated that with examples from their own constituencies.
One of the most prevalent issues is diagnostic times, because it takes five to 10 years to be diagnosed. Many people will see multiple specialists and they can also initially be misdiagnosed. For example, they might be told that they have fibromyalgia, anxiety or joint hypermobility. Specialist care is important for conditions such as EDS, especially regarding rheumatology, neurology and pain management, for which waiting lists are already extensive. Delayed recognition and treatment of physical symptoms can significantly affect mental wellbeing—the impact on people’s mental wellbeing as their bodies deteriorate cannot be ignored.
Prolonged uncertainty, unmanaged pain and reduced quality of life often contribute to anxiety, depression and wider psychological distress. More must be done to ensure that we do not allow it to get to that stage, and investigations should be carried out in a timely fashion. I ask the Minister, in relation to doctors and their diagnoses, does something need to be done with our GPs, our A&Es, our surgeons and those people who patients interact with first?
This debate highlights the urgent need to do more for those living with complex and often overlooked conditions. Too many patients face long delays, inconsistent pathways and a lack of specialist support. We owe it to patients to ensure that their symptoms are taken seriously, their diagnoses are not delayed and their care is not determined by their postcode. By investing in better data, stronger specialist services and greater awareness, we can move towards a system that delivers timely, fair and effective healthcare for all.
I have one more question for the Minister: she knows that research is incredibly important—it seems to have popped up in every debate that there has been this week. What is being done, through universities and partnerships with medical companies, to ensure that we chase up that cure for EDS and ensure that any patient, wherever they are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have the care and treatment they want, and have it now?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for setting out so powerfully why this debate is needed. I pay particular tribute to his point that the last time we had this debate, an early election was called soon afterwards. I also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place. It is fitting that she is in the role, and I know she will bring her unparalleled empathy and care to it.
I am here on behalf of my constituent Rebekah and all those residents of Stratford and Bow who wrote to me to show their support for those affected by Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, EDSs are complex genetic tissue disorders that are lifelong, incurable and chronically under-recognised. So-called rare diseases such as EDSs are in fact common in the UK: one in 17 of us will be affected by a rare condition at some point in our lifetimes. I would like to pay tribute to my mother’s sister, Chandra Ratharanjithan, who passed away last night due to a rare cancer. She fought it with grace and dignity.
Even when people access diagnosis, they do not always get the right care. For those with EDSs, these lifelong conditions will have a different impact over time. Symptoms change and develop, and we need to do more to ensure that those with chronic complex conditions are able to get the right care—responsive, joined-up care that is accessible to them and near their homes.
I am pleased to say that such work is already happening in Stratford and Bow. North-east London has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. Although funding is not keeping pace with that change, east London is still taking innovative approaches to ensure that we can support patients with the complexities of lifelong conditions. Hospitals and research institutions in our part of the world are developing neighbourhood-based multidisciplinary teams that can be more proactive and that are more integrated in primary care. That is alongside local hospitals focusing on proactive community outreach for those with complex conditions. I extend an invitation to the Minister to come and see that fantastic work in person.
There is so much more to do to ensure that such care reaches every person in the United Kingdom who needs it, with a shift to a system of prevention, early diagnosis and swifter treatment. Those are all essential to make sure our health system finally delivers for not only those living with EDSs but everyone living with chronic or lifelong conditions.
I hope the Minister will set out how the Government’s 10-year health plan will support improved access to the kind of joined-up multidisciplinary care that is so beneficial to those with multi-system conditions and symptoms. For Rebekah and everyone else affected by EDSs, these powerful conditions can impact every single aspect of their lives. They also impact not only the person living with the condition but their families and all those who love them. We owe it to them to deliver change in this Parliament.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We are doing quite well for time, but we need to finish Back-Bench speeches by 2.28 pm so that we can—as I am sure we want to—get the winding-up speeches and the Minister in.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Huge thanks go to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this debate about Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a condition I had never heard about until this Session of Parliament.
Just a few months ago, a young lady came to see me in Ashfield. Hannah is 17 years old and has the condition. She asked me to take part in this debate, so I am here to speak up on behalf of Hannah in Ashfield—she is, by the way, not the only person in Ashfield who has contacted me about this condition.
I asked Hannah to make a diary of her typical day, to see how her condition affects her. I know she will be watching this debate. These are her words, and I will read them out exactly as she has printed them:
“Every day I live with pain and joint instability in most areas of my body, especially my back, neck and legs. Painkillers don’t work for me, and I can’t get a physio referral as my whole body is affected and there isn’t a service for what I need as I am still classed as a child. Therefore, I get no support.
I am fully dependent on others to get around as I can’t self-propel my wheelchair due to frequent shoulder dislocations and lack of grip. I am still waiting to be seen by wheelchair services and have been on the waiting list for 18 months. My chair was brought by my parents but is no longer fit for purpose. I am not eligible for an electric wheelchair as I am classed as an ambulatory user. So, at 17 years old I am reliant on others completely to get around.
Due to my chronic fatigue and POTS I have to pace myself. I cannot go to college as it is too much for me and therefore have to be home educated. Even with pacing I spend a lot of time in bed due to pain and exhaustion. I am probably up and about a few hours a day every other day.
I can’t do much for myself as I have tremors and spasms in my hands, face and legs. I can’t cook safely, I have been refused my provisional driving licence due to my double vision, and I can’t go out independently because I can’t walk far.
Health services don’t understand EDS and I get dismissed a lot. I fall between the gap of children’s and adult services so get no support. This has an impact on my mental health and wellbeing as I feel overlooked and undervalued. Social care gives me 110 hours per year (2 hours per week) to spend on a support worker to go out, but the payment for this is £84 per month. So, the reality is that this gives me just over 1 hour a week if I was to pay someone the NMW. I am awaiting a review but there is a waiting list which I have been on for 6 months.
I just want to be more independent, in less pain and be able to socialise with my friends but this is impossible. I have a couple of very good friends, but they are busy with their lives doing things that I can’t do. I am very isolated with nothing to help me. My health is deteriorating all the time, and I worry for my future.”
Those are the words of Hannah from Ashfield. As we can see, her main concerns are a lack of wheelchair access, a lack of services and a lack of understanding. She is now on a waiting list for social care support, and she has been told that she will not be contacted until June 2026 to even start the process.
Unfortunately, over the past week, I have heard from a few other constituents; they also asked me to attend this debate, but I am here on behalf of Hannah. She has been let down by a system that we in this room control. We are responsible for that system; we are lawmakers and legislators. If we cannot alter the system to help people like Hannah, we should not be here. My one ask of the Minister today is to give hope to Hannah and the rest of the families in this country who suffer from this awful condition.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this important debate.
Over recent years, I have been contacted by a number of constituents with EDS, many of whom have severe health issues because of the condition. Indeed, many constituents have asked me to speak in this debate. A member of my staff team suffers with EDS, and with her permission, I can say that I have seen over recent years just how it has affected her, and how it has progressed.
Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, also known as EDS, have a profound impact on people’s lives, from chronic musculoskeletal pain and exhausting chronic fatigue to severe gut issues, allergic responses and immune system dysfunction. As we have heard, EDS has for a long time been considered a rare disease, which means that fewer than one in 2,000 people are either diagnosed or very likely to be diagnosed with it. As a recent former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on genetic, rare and undiagnosed conditions, I have had the opportunity to meet and speak to support groups for people with this condition about their experiences. However, a 2024 study of 300,000 GP patients in Northumberland found that as many as one in 250 people might have some form of hypermobility stress disorder—that is just those with a diagnosis. The true prevalence has been estimated at between 1% and 4% of the population.
Getting a diagnosis is a massive challenge for those with EDS. For some patients, it can take between 10 and 23 years after the onset of symptoms to get a diagnosis—that is up to 23 years of pain and fatigue before they can even start to manage the condition.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing the debate. I have several constituents with EDS, one of whom is a young lady who has suffered from malnutrition, regular hospital visits and frequent misdiagnoses. She now lives in a hospital bed in her parents’ living room, fed through a tube. She cannot get the care she needs, because it is not available on the NHS, which means her parents have to raise money to take her overseas for treatment. Will the hon. Lady join me, as so many other Members have, in calling for a clear treatment pathway for people with EDS?
Liz Twist
I will of course join the hon. Member in that, as he will hear at the conclusion of my speech.
Because of those delays in diagnosis and the lack of early management, patients are deteriorating more quickly and ending up on neurosurgery waiting lists, when much more could have been done at an early stage. Patients are losing their ability to exercise, play with their kids, go out on a weekend or, in some cases, work altogether. There is a huge cost for those with EDS in not just physical terms but social and life terms, and there is a huge cost to our NHS and the local economy.
I know from the experience of one of my members of staff the very real impact these conditions have on people’s everyday life. I now know that what once seemed to be idiosyncratic physical movements are part of their long-term impact, affecting everything—even her eyes, ears and nose. In the past two years, EDS UK petitions have gathered more than 33,000 signatures. In Wales, that has led directly to the co-creation of a primary care pathway, and we are now asking that England follows that lead.
EDS and HSD do not exist in a vacuum. Many patients find that the condition overlaps with other conditions, such as postural tachycardia syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome and gut issues. Those overlapping conditions have an exponential impact on patients who are just trying to manage their everyday life. Under the current system, patients are bounced between different and disjointed secondary care specialties that do not communicate or understand the full breadth of the issue, having been forced to leave primary care practitioners who do not have the support they need to manage these complex patients. EDS UK has called repeatedly for a co-ordinated and multidisciplinary approach to this issue that is integrated across primary and secondary care to support both NHS staff and patients to manage the overlapping comorbidities safely and efficiently.
I want to ask the Minister the following questions. First, will she commit to commissioning National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, and will the Department look to the primary care pathway recently co-created in NHS Wales as a blueprint for England? Secondly, what steps is the Department taking to establish co-ordinated cross-speciality multidisciplinary teams in secondary care so that patients with complex overlapping conditions such as EDS, PoTS and ME-CFS are no longer left in limbo? Thirdly, what steps is the Department taking to reduce the waiting times for patients with suspected EDS and to get them support and mitigation while symptoms are still in the early stages, which would lead to a faster diagnosis? Finally, given the extreme complexity of the conditions and the risk of spinal fusion for EDS patients, will the Minister back the creation of a national multidisciplinary neurosurgery team for CCI to ensure rigorous peer review and safe patient care?
We are talking about patients who have been suffering for up to 23 years before even getting a diagnosis. They have been repeatedly failed by a system that is not designed for them and does not understand them. It is time that this issue was treated with the seriousness it deserves.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who I would also be proud to call my hon. Friend, for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I do not think there is a single elected person sitting in this Chamber who does not realise what a wonderful privilege it is to represent all our constituents. But a day like today, when we have an opportunity to change the lives of people who suffer from EDS, is a particularly privileged day. I hold that thought at the front of my mind, and thank all Members for coming.
A few weeks ago I met one of the most brave, beautiful young women I have met in a long time. Her name is Stevie, and she lives in Willand, which is in the Devon part of my constituency. She came to see me, but she was quite worried about it because she had never been to see an MP before—there was a degree of trepidation. But she was so eloquent, passionate and determined to tell me about the impact that this dreadful disease had had on her life, I had no option but to come here today to repeat her words.
Like many of the constituents who have been mentioned, Stevie had to raise her own funds to get diagnosed and have the treatment. She was housebound and bedbound, and had to give up work. She has a wonderfully supportive husband who goes out to work six days a week to support her and their two young children, who happen to be autistic. What a beacon of honour and bravery—I just cannot imagine how she lives on a day-to-day basis.
Those with EDS have been left to suffer without the structures needed to make timely, evidence-informed decisions. Patients are not asking for predetermined outcomes or routine surgery; they are asking for recognition that suspected craniocervical instability in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome requires a defined process for assessment and management within the NHS.
Of Ehlers-Danlos Support UK members, 92% are not able to work because they are so affected by the condition. Almost half of those people were working, but had to give up entirely because of the syndrome’s debilitating impact. This is not just about people’s lives and their mental health; it is actually about supporting our country and enabling people with this syndrome who do want to work to make a contribution.
Rather than leaving patients to deteriorate to the point of having to consider neurosurgical options, there should be an early diagnosis. As many colleagues have said, establishing a specified EDS care pathway makes the case for itself. Earlier intervention would improve quality of life and strengthen the economic health of the country by enabling people with EDS to remain in work—like the member of staff of the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist).
It is true that the Department of Health and Social Care’s recognition of the complexity of EDS and the low awareness surrounding it is a step in the right direction. But I believe the central ask of this Government and the Minister is to heed the collective call from across the parties for a defined diagnostic and care pathway.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I was not going to talk in this debate until last week, when a lady came to my surgery at Bury St Edmunds. I used to hold surgeries all the time for patients with ear, nose and throat disorders; now I hold surgeries for constituents who come with political difficulties. This young lady was in a wheelchair, and told me she had Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and that she had been to Germany to get a diagnosis, after many years of failing to get one in this country.
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a disorder of the protein that is involved in the making of the connective tissue—which is the tissue that joins us all together—particularly the elastic bits. When I was a medical student there were four types of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and it was quite a favourite topic for examine questions. But now I see from the Ehlers-Danlos Society that there are 13 recognised types of the syndrome. We always thought of it as the double-jointed disease, and one would loosely test it by seeing whether someone could take their thumb and put it against the side of their arm—I increasingly cannot even get mine to a right-angle now.
It is a rare disorder. To give hon. Members a flavour of the different sorts of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, there is a hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos, which is the double-jointed person. That is about one in 5,000 people. The classical Ehlers-Danlos, which is where people get this very stretchy skin that kind of falls away, is about one in 20,000 people. The really frightening Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is the one that affects the lining of the blood vessels. The blood vessels have an elastic lining, and if the elastic lining fails, they begin to expand, causing aneurysms. The most frightening aneurysms are those of the main aorta, which in some patients can rupture, leading to sudden death. They can occur all over the body, however, and therefore cause all sorts of curious neurological or gastrointestinal symptoms depending on where the aneurysms are happening. That is about one in 100,000 people. There is even a dental Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which causes the teeth to loosen and fall out. That is about one in a million people.
Given that there are many different types of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, it is not surprising that it can be difficult to diagnose. To diagnose something, one has first to think of it. In my long career as an ENT surgeon, I saw very few cases, but I am certain that I missed many cases. I did some brief research into ear, nose and throat surgery and Ehlers-Danlos, and there is a particularly frightening situation that occurs in patients who need to have their tonsils out. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is associated with this instability of the neck vertebrae—the cervical vertebrae; the axis and the atlas bones. When one does a tonsillectomy, one anaesthetises a patient and tips their head right back to open the mouth as wide as one possibly can. I saw a report from 2013 by Agarwal of a child who developed quadriplegia after a tonsillectomy. The tonsils were taken out, and when the child woke up, the arms and legs would not move, because the spinal cord had been compressed by the subluxation of the vertebrae.
Diagnosis is difficult, and we must first think of it. We should do what we can to educate people, particularly clinicians in medical schools and nursing schools, and even the general population. A debate such as this is certainly helpful in that respect. Research is essential. Specific genetic mutations are associated with many of the varieties of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome—sadly not the most common sort, but certainly many of the other sorts. The Minister may know that there is a proposal for universal genome sequencing of newborns and young people in this country. I do not think that future generations will have this problem of odd clinical symptoms accumulating over decades before somebody works out what has happened, because in future, people will be able to access their genomes. We will be able to predict what will happen.
However, just because we can predict it and identify the genes that are causing it, that does not mean that we will come up with magic treatments. We will certainly need to provide services for all the people with this condition into the future. Diagnostic pathways and well-organised arrangements for the clinical care of people with this presently completely incurable condition are essential.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this important debate. Many people have to come watch in the Public Gallery, and I do not underestimate how much effort that will have taken some of them. We really do appreciate them being here today. We have heard from everyone the frustration of having a relatively rare disease with non-specific clinical signs, meaning that so many patients have been waiting years and years, in awful situations, even to get a diagnosis. What we are equally upset about is that once they have a diagnosis, the support is not available to ensure that they live the most fulfilled life possible or even, in many cases, get the most basic care that they require. On that note, I commend the hard work of EDS UK in supporting and providing training for clinicians and healthcare professionals and campaigning for standardised guidance, improved NHS services and clinical pathways to meet the needs of EDS patients.
The lack of national policy has left a postcode lottery for EDS patients across the country. This is another NHS area suffering the frustratingly long diagnostic delays and lack of joined-up, multidisciplinary care that we see for certain conditions. That means that people are battling with the unexplained symptoms and pain of EDS all through childhood, and that those patients have often been told repeatedly that their tests are normal and their symptoms must be psychosomatic. It means waiting decades for an overarching diagnosis for multiple complaints and being stuck in a system that incorrectly believes that EDS is a very rare condition rather than a realistic possibility. I was interested to hear my friend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) acknowledge that he probably has treated patients with this disease, having not recognised it, which is something that we are all guilty of sometimes with rarer diseases.
Diagnosis is only the first step. Care is too often fragmented or non-existent, and patients struggle to get a GP appointment in the usual 8 am scramble. As a result of fragmented care, those with EDS are left to manage their own symptoms, unable to access a holistic and collaborative point of care. For many, a huge part of the burden of living with EDS comes from the lack of awareness of the condition. Unlike the situation for more visible disabilities, employers, schools and even friends and family are too often unaware of the debilitating and changing nature of this condition. Negotiating accommodations or seeking disability benefits for a condition that is little understood and largely invisible presents a huge challenge.
People with EDS and those around them need clear guidance on the nature of the condition. A constituent of mine in Winchester, Dr Emma Reinhold, worked as a GP in the local community, where she became increasingly aware of EDS, with its commonly associated conditions, and how they were overlooked. That led to her development of the EDS toolkit, written in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners and funded by EDS UK. That toolkit is incredible and has been shared all over the world. I first heard about it when I was knocking on doors and she popped her head out of her upstairs window to say hello. We spoke about the toolkit for about 20 minutes—me on the street and her up in her bedroom. She had been a GP in Winchester for many years and then she became seriously unwell with EDS, which was why she was at home. That was at the age of just 42. Like so many others, she had to stop working; eventually, she had no option but to take ill health retirement, so the NHS lost another GP far too soon.
One patient who Dr Reinhold told me about—I think it was through that window conversation—was a woman who was in her 70s when she finally got the diagnosis that she had been looking for over many years to explain her symptoms. This is a genetic condition that she had had since birth, but it took 70 years to ensure that she got the answers that she deserved and appropriate support for her many symptoms.
Emma’s open access toolkit on EDS—for anyone who is interested, it is worth googling—ought to be promoted enthusiastically by the Government as a means of promoting greater awareness on the part of all medical professionals, as well as better understanding and sensitivity on the part of everyone, so that we can ensure that all those with EDS and other hidden disabilities remain welcomed and cared for in education, the workplace and their day-to-day lives. Dr Reinhold explains that we need a co-ordinated, holistic approach to multisystem conditions such as EDS, rather than the current disjointed care that facilitates diagnosis falling into gaps between specialists, who do not always have the collective training to spot connections between apparently unrelated symptoms.
Patients need national leadership, so we urge the Government to address the policy gap by working towards joined-up, multidisciplinary care across primary and secondary services, as well as supporting and promoting the existing training for staff, to ensure that those with EDS can access the care that they deserve. EDS and HSD must be integrated into NHS service specifications and long-term condition strategies as a matter of urgency.
The Liberal Democrats want everyone with a chronic illness, including EDS, to have a named GP. That would improve their quality of care and allow better join-up between the range of services that they can access. We must champion the work of the Overlapping Illness Alliance and EDS UK to raise awareness of these often hidden conditions so that those in need of support are able to access it.
Before the last general election, Ministers from the former Government offered to meet EDS UK, and then the election was called so the meeting never happened. Will the Minister commit to meeting EDS UK and patients, including Dr Reinhold, to better understand what would be helpful to improve their outcomes?
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Given that this is a debate about a health condition that has a crippling impact on people’s lives, I beg the indulgence of the House to be allowed a moment for a personal diversion. Today is also International Epilepsy Day, and epilepsy is a condition that also impacts many of our constituents. My sister, Kimberley, grew up coping with it as a young girl in primary and then secondary school. The condition causes uncontrolled fits and seizures. Sufferers cannot go about their daily life the same way, and there are many other unpleasant and personal side effects that I will not disclose because I do not want to embarrass Kimberley.
I saw at first hand the impact of living with that condition on my sister and the family. I distinctly remember the day that I was stood outside as she was effectively having her skull removed to have the cavernous angiomas that caused the epilepsy removed from her brain. The family went on a difficult enough journey with a well-known and well-established condition with pathways in place, so I can only imagine what it is like to go through something equally painful and life changing without clear pathways, a clear understanding and a clear recognition of what the condition is when talking to other people. My wife suffers with Crohn’s and colitis, which is an often misunderstood condition. People do not understand the daily pain and suffering.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this important debate and for the way he has brought the experiences of people living with EDS and CCI to Westminster Hall. We have heard the personal stories of Connor, of Hannah from Ashfield, and of other constituents who have contacted their Members. We also had an excellent explanation of the condition from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). It felt like listening to a mini-podcast. In politics, we go to many events and debates without learning anything, but everyone in the Chamber can say that we learned something today.
This debate matters, because it speaks to the experience of people who too often feel unseen by the system. For too many people living with EDS, the challenge is not only the condition itself but the exhausting struggle to be recognised, to be diagnosed and to get the care and support that they need. Too many patients face long delays before diagnosis, too many encounter limited clinical awareness, and too many are left navigating fragmented care across multiple services. They are passed from one part of the system to another without anyone taking real ownership of their care.
Complexity in a patient should not mean confusion in the system, yet for many people with EDS, that is still the reality. For those living with CCI, the picture can be even more difficult. Patients and families describe serious problems not only in getting the condition recognised but in accessing the specialist assessments, imaging and care needed to understand what is happening to them. That can leave people facing delay, uncertainty and, in some cases, the sense that there is simply no clear pathway available to them in the NHS.
The consequences are serious. Delays in diagnosis can mean worsening symptoms, loss of mobility, deteriorating mental health and patients being left to navigate a system that is not designed with them in mind. The previous Conservative Government recognised the wider challenge facing people with rare diseases through the rare diseases framework and subsequent action plans. Those rightly focused on earlier diagnosis, improving awareness among clinicians and delivering more co-ordinated care. That was the right direction of travel, but it is clear from what we know, from what we have heard today, and from experiences raised repeatedly by patients and campaigners, that too many people still do not feel that the system is working for them.
The Government will point to neighbourhood health centres, multidisciplinary teams and personalised care plans. Those ambitions may sound encouraging, but for people with EDS and CCI, the key question is whether those commitments will translate into practical change: earlier diagnosis, clearer pathways and access to co-ordinated specialist care, including for those with the most complex presentations.
I hope that the Minister can address a number of important points. First, what steps are being taken to improve awareness and understanding of EDS among frontline clinicians, particularly in primary care? Secondly, if integrated care boards remain responsible for commissioning services, how will the Government ensure that patients do not face a postcode lottery in access to diagnosis, specialist input and ongoing care? Thirdly, on CCI, can the Minister set out what work is being done to improve clinical understanding, diagnostic pathways and access to appropriate imaging for those with more complex presentations? Finally, given that the Department has acknowledged significant delays to diagnosis, what assessment has been made of the gap between the Government’s ambitions and the lived reality of patients today?
People with rare and complex conditions should not have to become their own care co-ordinators just to be heard. People living with EDS and CCI deserve earlier recognition, better co-ordinated care and the confidence that the NHS will respond to complexity with competence and compassion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this very important debate and for his excellent opening speech, in which he took great care to set the scene for us. I appreciate that.
My hon. Friend has been instrumental in bringing national attention to the challenges faced by people living with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability. Last year my predecessor in my role, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), met him and his constituent, Connor Edwards, who has suffered greatly, as we have heard, from the impact of these devastating conditions. Connor has faced immense physical and emotional hardship as he has tried to navigate symptoms linked to EDS and CCI, enduring pain, uncertainty and long waits for answers, as we have heard. His experience reflects what too many patients and families have told us: that the system can feel fragmented, that they are often left to join up their own care, and that the lack of clear pathways can add to an already overwhelming burden. I want to assure Connor and others in his position that their voices have been heard.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this important debate. I apologise, Ms Furniss, that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of it; my shadow ministerial role in relation to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meant that I had to be in the main Chamber at the start of this debate.
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability—including my constituent in Epping Forest, Natasha Little—for their bravery and their advocacy in calling for the Government and the NHS to recognise the needs of people with these conditions, in terms of diagnosis, treatment and long-term support? Hopefully, this debate can be a catalyst for change.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent, Natasha, and I will make sure that I include her name later when I come on to name everyone referred to during the debate. I also thank him for managing to juggle and spin all the plates that we have to deal with as Members by making time to come along to this debate.
I also thank all the other hon. Members who managed to make it to this very important debate. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham); from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson); from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist); from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour); from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley); from the hon. Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson); and from the spokesperson for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden).
I also thank the hon. Member for Fylde for sharing his learnings from the experience of his sister, Kimberley, on her journey in treatment for epilepsy. As he explained, epilepsy is a well-known condition, especially in comparison with the conditions that we are discussing today. That was a very strong point, which I thank him for making.
I will not repeat the detailed clinical descriptions of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability that other hon. Members have already set out very clearly, but I do want to recognise the real and often profound challenges that people living with these conditions, and their families, face every day. I want those individuals to know that I hear them, and that I recognise the challenges they face and the uncertainty and distress that many describe. Their experiences will shape the Department’s ongoing work as we consider how services can better meet the needs of people living with these complex conditions.
NHS England continues to strengthen clinically led pathways for people with hypermobility-related disorders, with an emphasis on non-surgical management, co-ordinated physiotherapy, and pain management and rehabilitation, as is consistent with the best available evidence.
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford about the number of people affected by these conditions, the Getting It Right First Time programme is supporting more consistent assessment and management of complex joint and spine conditions, and assessment of the number of people affected, helping to reduce the unwarranted variation in treatment that particularly affects people with EDS. The programme has a strong emphasis on robust, evidence-based and personalised pathways. Through RightCare, integrated care systems are supported to commission evidence-based pathways for long-term and complex conditions, including improved access to community-based musculoskeletal care, which many people with EDS rely upon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned some numbers in her contribution, quoting a ratio of one in 250 and saying that between 1% and 4% of the population are affected. I would imagine that those are the ballpark figures, but the Getting It Right First Time and RightCare programmes, which I have just mentioned, will look into that in more detail.
How can we facilitate better care and support? We need better clinical education, clearer referral routes and a stronger emphasis on shared decision making. We also need to recognise the burden of chronic pain and fatigue that comes with these conditions, and ensure that people can access appropriate services, even when a definitive single diagnosis may still be evolving. Where the evidence is established, the NHS should provide timely, appropriate care. Where evidence is uncertain, we have a responsibility to be transparent about what is known, what is not known and what options are supported by clinical consensus.
Patient safety must always be paramount, and decisions about invasive treatments must be made within appropriate specialist teams, with robust clinical governance, multidisciplinary review and clear plans to follow up. EDS illustrates why integrated care matters. Pathways must connect primary care, community therapy services and specialist support so that patients do not have to tell their story over and over again, or navigate multiple disconnected services.
Stronger evidence is also imperative. The Government support health research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and we want to see well-designed studies that can inform future guidance and reduce unwarranted variation.
Josh Newbury
One thing that we have come across consistently is that a huge amount of research has been done internationally and, as many hon. Members have outlined, constituents are funding themselves to go abroad for treatment and surgery. As part of that work with the NIHR, would the Minister be willing to look at international best practice in this area, so that we can draw on the experiences of many other countries as they work out how best to treat this group of patients?
Mrs Hodgson
I am happy to recommend that international best practice is looked at, and I will take that on board. I will also come to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett about the international best practice that we can learn from in Wales.
Guidance matters too, and clinical guidelines and service specifications help reduce variation and improve quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett asked about NICE guidance. Where NICE guidance exists, the NHS is expected to take it into account, and where it does not, we should consider what other guidance can support clinicians and patients in the interim. I commit to asking the NICE prioritisation board, chaired by its chief medical officer, if it will look at the Wales pathways that she suggested when it considers updating NICE guidance.
My hon. Friend also asked about multidisciplinary teams. NHS England, along with the neurosurgery and spinal surgery clinical reference group, has not currently identified a need for an MDT. NHS England has established clinical networks for spinal surgery and neurosurgery, and we expect those networks to work closely to ensure that both cranial and spinal pathways are optimised.
I was also asked about a pathway by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. There is currently no separate national diagnostic or treatment pathway for CCI because it is not recognised as a distinct NHS diagnosis, and there is no agreed national definition, validated imaging criteria or robust evidence base to support creating one. However, the Department recognises the concerns that patients have raised, and we are working with NHS England, clinical networks and patients’ organisations to improve pathway consistency by strengthening the existing framework, so we will look further into that.
Jayne Kirkham
I understand that the Department will be looking at it further, but will it be looking at it further with the intention to create a pathway for CCI?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes, I would imagine that if the Department looks at it and it is deemed necessary, that is what will happen. I am sure that my hon. Friend can follow up on that as time progresses.
I will cover the last couple of questions from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, the hon. Member for Ashfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow made points about access to care and ensuring that people do not fall through the cracks. EDS and CCI often require input from rheumatology, neurology, pain services, physiotherapy, genetics and primary care, and the 10-year health plan’s emphasis on integrated multidisciplinary care models will help to join up those pathways for the first time. That will reduce repeat referrals and conflicting advice, and patients feeling that they must be the ones to join up the system. We will hopefully see progress on that through the 10-year plan.
The hon. Member for Ashfield also asked about wheelchair services. In England, they are commissioned locally by ICBs and eligibility is determined by functional need, lifestyle and clinical assessment, not by whether a patient has a specific condition such as EDS or CCI. NHS England has developed a model service specification for wheelchair and posture services that sets clear expectations for timely assessment, appropriate prescribing and user-centred provision. That specification enables commissioners to organise consistent, high-quality services that meet individual mobility needs, including those arising from complex conditions such as EDS and CCI, so I was keen to give the hon. Member an answer to that particular question.
The 10-year health plan sets a clear direction for improving outcomes for people with EDS and those experiencing symptoms associated with CCI. The plan prioritises earlier diagnosis, better co-ordinated care and stronger multidisciplinary working across primary, community and specialist services, which are key issues consistently raised by patients and families. It promotes integrated, personalised support closer to home, reducing the burden of navigating multiple services. The plan also expands the use of digital tools, remote monitoring and personalised care planning to help people manage complex, fluctuating symptoms more effectively. Importantly, it commits to strengthening research, clinical education and system-wide awareness of overlapping, multi-system conditions, helping to ensure that people with EDS and CCI receive more consistent, compassionate and joined-up care.
Let me clear about what I can commit to as the Minister today. I will ensure that the concerns that have been raised are shared with NHS England to help identify where guidance, pathways, referral routes or clinical advice could be clearer and where good practice is already emerging internationally—as well as in Wales—that could be spread more consistently. Meaningful engagement with those directly affected must sit at the heart of our approach. Departmental officials are already in discussions with patient groups, and that ongoing engagement will be invaluable in shaping our understanding and ensuring that future policy is grounded in the reality of patients’ lives.
We will be asking the NIHR to consider how best to encourage further quality research in this area. It is already expanding its work on conditions with overlapping symptom profiles, including myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome, and post-viral syndromes, and we want to ensure that future research programmes recognise the clear need for better evidence on diagnosis, management and outcomes for people with EDS and suspected CCI. I commit to continuing to press for a culture that is compassionate and evidence-based—one that listens to patients, avoids dismissal and false certainty, and supports shared decision-making.
Josh Newbury
I thank the Minister for her words, but I would add one point to her list, if I may, which is aftercare for people who have travelled abroad to have surgery. I understand that that is a tricky issue for the NHS, but we have heard consistently from several hon. Members today that their constituents have been rejected for any meaningful aftercare once they have come home, despite having a clear clinical need for it. Could she add that to her list to take back her officials?
Mrs Hodgson
I will commit to looking into that for my hon. Friend. Obviously, aftercare for surgery abroad is tricky—not for conditions such as this, but often for beauty related purposes—but I will take that on board and take it back to the Department.
Jim Shannon
I apologise if I missed the answer, but I asked about research and how we can create partnerships with universities, which are very keen to do that—Queen’s University Belfast is one example, but there are many others across the United Kingdom—and with medical companies that want to pursue cures, as we all want to see them do. The Minister may not have an answer today, but I would be very happy if she would come back to me, and to all of us, to show that we are pursuing that research opportunity to find the cure and help people if we can.
Mrs Hodgson
I did touch on research, but I did not specifically mention universities. I am pleased that the hon. Member got in another plug for the wonderful Queen’s University Belfast—he did that when we were in this Chamber the other day—and I will take his point on board. I thank him for that.
In closing, I return to the people at the heart of this debate: those living with EDS and CCI. Connor, Jo, Rebekah, Carley, Hannah, Stevie and Natasha have been named by their MPs today. They and their testimonies, as we have heard, are just examples of the many more people across the UK and Northern Ireland suffering from these terrible conditions. They are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity, consistency, safe care and to be treated with respect. They are asking for a system that joins up around them, rather than leaving them to piece it together alone. That is a reasonable ask, and one that we should meet.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for securing this very important debate. I look forward to working with NHS partners, clinicians and patient groups to ensure that people living with these complex conditions receive the timely, safe and compassionate support and care that they deserve.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I call Josh Newbury, with two minutes to wind up.
Josh Newbury
I am grateful for the opportunity to briefly wind up; the fact that it must be brief shows the incredibly rich, emotive and deep debate we have had. Obviously, I will not be able to go through everybody’s contributions, but I thank all hon. Members who contributed. They raised the hugely complex issues that people with these conditions face, including mental distress, the need for joined-up care, the difficulties for people under the age of 18, the need to get wheelchair services and other provisions in order, the desperate need to be independent, the want to get back to work and to be able to live a fulfilling life, and the long delays to diagnosis. Members also raised the hope that we can draw from best practice in our own nation as well as overseas.
I also thank Members for highlighting issues including the lack of awareness and the postcode lottery that we have in this country, which hampers our ability to get to where we need to be. I am really encouraged, however, by the speeches we heard today, the Minister’s response, and the things that we can go away and work on together. The whole community will feel far more seen and heard as a result of this debate. I very much look forward to taking that well beyond today, as we hopefully do far better for this incredibly important group of people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability.
Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour
(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 Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.
May I begin by thanking all the Members who have taken the trouble to attend and hopefully speak in this important debate, and also the Minister and shadow Minister for their anticipated contributions? Members of all parties in the House will wish to put on the record our appreciation for prison officers up and down the country, who work tirelessly and courageously to protect our society. Let us especially pay tribute to Claire Lewis, a brave constituent of my friend the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who we heard in full voice a few moments ago on another debate topic. She rightly drew attention to Claire’s work on 18 June last year.
After suffering a horrific assault, Claire set up a petition calling for anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to be made mandatory for all prison officers. It achieved over 32,500 signatures. She had been severely stabbed in the back with a broken bottle while working on a supposedly less risky general population wing at HMP Frankland as a prison officer in 2010. In her own words, the attack left her with
“life-changing physical injuries and deep psychological toll…to this day.”
I understand Claire is watching at home today, so this is a good opportunity to acknowledge her remarkable commitment and dedication in turning such a dreadful experience into an inspirational campaign for change. No one should be subject to needless vulnerability while doing his or her job. Prison officers work constantly to safeguard society from some of the most dangerous and violent people. They are entitled, in return, to expect from us the maximum practicable protection from attack.
Sadly, Claire’s experience is no isolated incident. According to The Independent, the number of assaults on staff in adult prisons in England and Wales nearly trebled in the decade from 2014 to the end of 2024, from 3,640 to 10,605.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The figures in Northern Ireland have also increased in recent years, with 96 attacks recorded in 2024, up from 59 in 2023 and 66 in 2022, reflecting rising safety concerns in Northern Ireland’s prison system, as he has referred to. It is attributed to factors such as overcrowding and higher prison populations. Does he agree that if we are to address the issue of prison officer safety, we need to address the issue of overcrowding and higher prison populations? Every prison officer should have access to body armour to ensure their safety.
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, indeed. No debate in this Chamber or the main Chamber would be worth while without a typically relevant contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The rise that I quoted earlier equated to 122 attacks on staff for every 1,000 inmates on the prison estate. Such a level of violence has inevitably brought into question the safety and adequacy of the current protective equipment available to prison officers at work. Only last year, three officers were viciously attacked in a particularly serious incident at HMP Frankland, the same prison where Claire was badly wounded.
The full implications of this unacceptable deterioration have yet to be learned, though significant progress was made last September, when the Justice Secretary announced during a visit to Belmarsh prison that 10,000 more staff would be given stab-proof vests and 500 tasers would be supplied to trained personnel. Although those steps are welcome—they would have helped protect Claire in her prison—they go only part of the way. The extra 10,000 vests will provide a stab-proof garment for every prison guard working in high-security facilities, but even with body armour being made mandatory for prison officers working in close supervision and separation centres, too many at-risk staff remain without protection.
Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked. Therefore, any prison officer working on any wing of any prison deserves to be protected from violence while trying to do his or her job. Yes, progress has been made, but as long as any prison officers lack adequate protection and remain vulnerable to attack, there is still work to do.
High levels of violence coupled with a lack of protective equipment will undoubtedly serve as a recruitment disincentive for potential prison officers. That must be remedied to ensure that our justice system continues to function and our society remains safe. Prison officers will always face challenges, often in trying circumstances. It is up to us to minimise the risk of attack, if we expect people to volunteer for such a vital, though difficult, career. It is also a matter of justice and fair play. We cannot expect to be protected by brave prison officers if they do not feel that appropriate safety measures are in place.
If the principle of providing protective body armour to all prison officers is accepted, we must ensure the adequacy of the equipment itself. We must listen to and draw upon the experiences of those who have already been issued with protective equipment to make certain that it meets the highest safety standards. In 2024, more than half of police officers and staff in England and Wales said that their uniforms were “unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems, according to the first national police uniform and equipment survey ever undertaken. Furthermore, that survey revealed alarming health consequences, with 44% of men reporting muscular pain, which was often linked to body armour or heavy equipment, and women reporting that body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy. Ultimately, 62% of male and 85% of female respondents reported at least one physical health condition as a result of equipment flaws.
Lessons must be learned and procurement tailored accordingly, in both senses of the word. As well as its protective function, body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods. I understand that Claire Lewis has identified at least one designer and manufacturer of stab vests and other protective clothing that she believes to offer enhanced protection against blunt force, significantly reducing the risk of injuries from punches, kicks and strikes from improvised weapons. Clearly, market research and objective evaluation will need to be done.
The argument is twofold: we should ensure that all prison officers have comparable protection from attack by prisoners, and the selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed. Not only is this morally sound, but it will save costly claims later on from individuals suffering health consequences from faulty equipment.
I conclude with the following questions for the Minister, to whom I have given advance notice—I thank him for his accessibility in this matter. First, does he accept that, regardless of which prison wing an officer works on, he or she deserves protection from violence? Secondly, if that is agreed, will the Government seriously consider rolling out mandatory body armour to all prison officers in all prisons? Finally, may we have the Minister’s word, here and now, that any new body armour procured will be of the highest specification, to avoid causing physical problems for male and female officers further down the line?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Six Members wish to contribute to the debate and we have about 50 minutes, so people can do the sums on that—it is about eight minutes maximum for each speech.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to talk about this very important matter under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I suspect there will be quite a degree of agreement across the House.
The first thing that struck me was a quote from some evidence that the Prison Officers’ Association submitted to the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last year:
“prisons are inherently violent institutions to live and work in because they are places where large numbers of often violent criminals are forced to stay against their will”.
That may seem rather obvious, but if it is true, and I think it is, then we need to take every step to minimise the levels and seriousness of violence. This would not be tolerated in any other profession or environment, and it should not be tolerated in prisons. I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude of all our prison officers, who have to put up not just with assaults, but with risk and vulnerability every day—10,000 assaults a year, or 30, including three serious assaults, a day. That is not acceptable.
As the Chair of the Justice Committee, I routinely receive the chief inspector’s reports, as well as urgent notifications when there are particular problems, and I will refer to two that I received in the past few days. One relates to HMP Woodhill, of which the chief inspector says:
“The prison was not safe. Rates of violence were very high and at the time of this inspection, only Swaleside (also subject to a UN) had a higher rate of violence among similar prisons. The rate of serious assaults on staff was the highest in the long-term high secure estate and around a third of all violent incidents involved the use of weapons. Unsurprisingly, 61% of prisoners said they had felt unsafe at some point.”
On Swaleside, the other prison referred to there, the chief inspector states:
“Our inspection of Swaleside, a category B training prison on the Isle of Sheppey, revealed a prison in disarray, with the lowest scores in my five years as chief inspector…levels of violence were some of the highest of any prison in England and Wales and assaults on staff, many of which were serious, had more than doubled since our last inspection in 2023.
Much of the violence had been driven by the large amounts of drugs being brought into the prison by drones. Drug debts and gang rivalry were often the cause of assaults, and many prisoners were routinely making and carrying weapons.”
I appreciate that that rather dystopian description is not typical of every prison in the country, and certainly not of every prisoner. However, if that is the level of harm, then we have to give proper protections to prison officers, including body armour. In principle, I support that, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this debate just before we pack up for the Easter recess. I am glad, as he is, to see so many people here, because it is a vital issue.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I also apologise as I am trying to represent my constituents in about four different debates today.
One of the issues that the POA has consistently raised is the nature of the people it is dealing with at the moment. Many prisoners have severe mental health problems. The POA says that they should not be in prison; they should be in specialist units, as should those who are drug dependent. Recently, there have been examples of the POA having tried and failed to negotiate safe practices with management. Limited action has taken place and the union has been dragged through the courts because of the ban on it being able to withdraw its members’ labour. That has to be addressed; there have to be some basic protections. As well as body armour, which I support, there has to be the protection of workers having the ability to take industrial action and negotiate a safe working place.
Andy Slaughter
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and other Members present do in supporting the POA and making sure that its voice is heard. It is often the case with prisons that out of sight is out of mind. Both because of the conditions in prisons, which are deplorable in many cases, and in particular for the welfare of staff, it is important that we speak loudly on this subject.
The basic principle of this debate is absolutely right and should be followed through, but I have three qualifications to make. First, I believe—we will no doubt hear this from the Minister—that the Government have done a substantial amount more to address this issue. Body armour was first available in particularly dangerous institutions and is now available in all high-category prisons. That is a huge improvement, which has been acknowledged on all sides, including by the staff. It is in the lower-category prisons where it is not routinely available. That may be where we are moving to, but I want to acknowledge what has been done so far because it is a significant development. Both the current and previous Lord Chancellors have been clear on their intention to give the upmost protection to staff.
Secondly, if there is a danger that, through the widespread, customary, routine use of body armour, we will get into a mode of accepting levels of violence. Violence should never be acceptable in our prisons. Yes, the first priority is to keep staff safe, but beyond that, we have to do something about the appalling conditions in prisons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned mental health; we could equally talk about the chronic levels of drug addiction, organised crime and overcrowding, and the conditions in prisons, all of which create an environment in which violence thrives. That is what I worry about.
The Prison Reform Trust has said:
“The real drivers of prison violence—unsafe conditions, lack of purposeful activity, and poor mental health—can only be addressed through improved safety, decency, and respect. That means better staff training, supporting leadership development, and the political will to invest in prison conditions and reduce demand for drugs.”
I hope that view will be echoed on all sides. Rolling out body armour across the entire prison estate may be the right thing to do, and it may be that what has been done so far needs to be improved upon, but it should not hide the systemic, dangerous problems and conditions in our prisons, which are the result of decades of neglect, overcrowding and failure to provide decent standards for prisoners and for staff, who have an incredibly difficult job.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing today’s debate. For more than a decade, I have had the honour of being the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, during which time I have heard first-hand accounts, some of them grim, visited many prisons and heard from prison officers, the Prison Officers Association and others about the violence and how deeply it affects people.
The Prison Officers Association has been warning for years that its members’ health and safety is in practice a low priority for the Prison Service—that is the reality of what they experience. It has been difficult for the union, for a long period, to improve the safety of prison officers. We must now find a way to change that, but that has been their experience, and some aspects of their experience have yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.
Six years ago, I helped to launch the first Safe Inside Prisons Charter, developed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of 10 national trade unions representing the majority of prison staff, including the POA. The third updated version of that charter was published last year, but the Prison Service has yet to adopt its common-sense recommendations. I press the Minister to tell us why it has not done so. A vast majority of unions that are present in prisons have adopted it and saying, “Every union needs to adopt it,” as a reason not to take it on board is not a reasonable rationale.
It is important to highlight how significantly violence in prisons has increased over the last 15 years. We have heard already how the rate of prisoner-on-prisoner violence has risen from around 130 assaults per 1,000 prisoners in 2013 to 240 last year, nearly doubling. The rate of prisoner-on-staff violence has also soared from roughly 40 assaults per 1,000 prisoners to just under 120, tripling in just over a decade. I also have a snapshot from Wales. In 2024, assaults on prison staff rose 22% on the previous year, with a total of 536 attacks. At HMP Berwyn, the nearest prison to my constituency in north-west Wales, there was an increase in that year of 42%. Unsurprisingly, recruitment at that prison in Wrexham has long been challenging.
In any other workplace, this would be all over the news as a national emergency, but because this is about prison staff, who are effectively hidden in their work behind high walls, the POA tells me—and I have seen this—that it is treated as just business as usual by the Ministry of Justice, as if this is what people should expect in this workplace.
The POA gave evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the other place last year, in which it described being taken to the High Court by the previous Government after two horrific attacks on staff at HMP Lindholme in South Yorkshire. One of those attacks saw a prison officer strangled to the point of unconsciousness, but when officers at the prison told the governor that the prison was unsafe and demanded immediate changes, this was put into effect with the operation of a controlled lockdown to restrict the regime, and the MOJ responded by dragging them into court. Something is very wrong when the response to such extreme workplace violence is to punish those very workers at the sharp end of the assaults.
At the High Court, what shocked me most about the POA’s evidence is that the Government barrister, according to media reports at the time, made the argument that although the violence at Lindholme was “deeply regrettable”, it was—once again—
“business as usual in a prison”.
The POA was dragged back to the High Court again the following year, also for standing up for the health and safety of its members. Because of the permanent injunction that the Government have against the union from taking any form of industrial action, the POA was fined a six-figure sum for what the court called the illegal inducement of members to take action.
Even more outrageous were the threats made in court by Government lawyers to imprison the POA’s leadership for simply protecting their members, meaning that prison officers were threatened with jail for protecting other prison officers. That is the context in which we are talking about the steady increase in violence and the feeling in the profession that there is a lack of response.
I wish I could say that the direction under the Labour Government was significantly different, but evidence suggests that we must question that. When officers at HMP Liverpool took issue last year with the governor’s changes to the prison regime—changes that he himself admitted to the Justice Committee carried an expectation of leading to a potential increase in violence—he cut off direct contact with the local POA committee and restricted facility time, threatening members with disciplinary action and dismissal simply for exercising their health and safety rights.
It is clear to me from talking to the POA many times that the blanket ban on its members from taking any form of industrial action is one of the key factors in prison officers’ discontent. They sense that they are impotent and unable to change their circumstances. The European Committee of Social Rights recently ruled that the UK is in breach of its obligations under the European social charter because of that very ban. It said that
“the blanket ban on prisoner officers striking cannot be deemed proportionate and thus goes beyond the limits permitted by Article G of the Charter.”
The committee concluded that
“the situation is not in conformity with Article 6§4 of the Charter on the ground that that there is an absolute prohibition on the right to strike for the prison officers.”
That is an important ruling, and I urge the Minister to consider its implications seriously, especially in the light of the POA’s current case before the European Court of Human Rights.
Let me go from one aspect of safety to another: back to body armour. The roll-out of stab-proof vests in the high security estate is of course to be welcomed, but it needs to be the norm. The POA is calling for that vital equipment to be mandated across the entire closed male estate. I urge the Minister to take seriously other demands, such as replacing the cumbersome and impractical utility belts, which are weighed down with equipment, with lightweight slash-proof vests, which redistribute weight and can prevent injuries, especially for female officers.
According to the POA, the last Government objected to utility vests because they look too militaristic and intimidating, but surely that is yet another example of the low priority given to prison officer health and safety. In the circumstances, those were not credible objections. Protection at work for prison officers means more than just the right personal protective equipment; it also means the legal protections that almost every other worker enjoys, and specifically the right to take industrial action as a last resort. The last Government treated prison officers as expendable. I urge this Government not to make the same mistake.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for bringing this very important debate to Westminster Hall.
Even though the prison system is largely a devolved matter, I would like to speak about things from a Scottish perspective. I regularly speak about prison officers’ working conditions in this place, in both Chambers and as a member of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group.
I am fortunate to know many serving and recently retired officers from HMP Glenochil in my constituency. Officers at Glenochil and every other prison in Scotland do remarkable work every day for pay and conditions that, in all honesty, do not match their skills, commitment and efforts. The 3.5% pay award that officers are due to receive this coming year is just not enough—not when inflation is sitting at 3% and is projected to rise with ongoing global war and conflict, increasing energy costs and a cost of living crisis that shows no sign of stopping. Prison officers deserve better—all workers deserve better. No one should become poorer. When we factor in the fact that those officers are expected to work until they are 68, which is ludicrous for any worker, and when we look at the mental and physical demands of being a prison officer, we see that it is unrealistic, unjust and utterly unacceptable.
Let me talk briefly about the psychological strain of the profession. No amount of body armour will assist an officer who has to deal with criminals who are looking to gain psychological advantages over them and trying to ingratiate themselves, ultimately to manipulate the officer and to garner information. It is a relentless mental attack, all done to assert power, control and dominance over the officers.
Many officers have said that the mental strength and fortitude necessary to be always in a heightened state of alertness is incredibly exhausting. There is also the physical element of working on landings. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask someone in their mid to late 60s to cope with the demands of going up against a prisoner who could be 40 to 50 years younger. Common sense says that that just should not happen.
Why are we considering body armour provision as a solution? Scotland’s prison population is the largest we have ever had. Overcrowding is making everything much more difficult. It has an impact on officers’ ability to look after prisoners safely, and a negative impact on the likelihood of effectively rehabilitating offenders. We simply do not have enough prison officers to safely manage a prison population of this size.
Alongside the record numbers, the complexity of the prisoner demographic means an urgent need for extra prison spaces, increased investment in staff training, a staff recruitment drive and an overall longer-term strategy that will define the purpose of our prisons. With much of our prison estate in dire need of investment, many facilities are not at the standard necessary to keep officers and prisoners safe. Facilities that are outdated and unhygienic must be addressed. No one should go to their workplace if it is in a decrepit condition.
Our prison officers pride themselves on their professionalism. They are rightly concerned about conditions for the prisoners that they are tasked with keeping safe, but also with helping to rehabilitate. If these issues are not tackled, the strain on our prison system and on the officers who staff it will only keep growing, leaving our prisons much more dangerous and rehabilitation much less likely.
Overcrowding, squalid conditions and increases in prison violence can be attributed to the political cuts of austerity. Rising numbers of assaults on officers have led to retention issues. With so many officers leaving the service, that means an exodus of vital skills and expertise. This is no anecdotal tale. The Prison Officers Association has stated that since 2010, over 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have left the UK wide service.
Time is pressing, so I will lay out some questions for the Minister to address either today or, if it is more convenient, by letter. On body armour, does he agree with the POA that stab-proof vests should be mandated across the entire closed adult male estate, not just separation centres and close supervision centres? Does he agree that slash-proof vests should be available to all prison officers, wherever they work? Does he accept that one of the drivers for increased prison violence is the amount of experience that has left the Prison Service? Can he name another profession that encounters such high levels of violence, where it is so normalised and where workers are expected to work until they are 68 years old? Does he accept that prison officers working until 68 is unrealistic and that the unjust retirement age is a factor in the staff recruitment and retention issues in the service? Finally, will the Government do the right and sensible thing and lower the retirement age for prison officers?
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who instigated it and who does so much in this area. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing the debate, and you, Mr Betts, for chairing it.
Styal prison, in my constituency of Tatton, is a closed female prison and young offenders institution with approximately 450 prisoners. Violence levels there have increased significantly: 189 assaults on staff and 167 assaults between prisoners were reported in the 12 months to March 2025. That, in itself, tells us that greater protection must be afforded to prison staff. In one horrific incident, a prison officer in Styal, Chloe Armstrong, was left with a tennis ball-sized lump in the back of her head, a swollen face and black eyes after she was repeatedly kicked and punched for just delivering a prisoner’s lunch. What a horrific attack as a thank you for a lunch.
Nationally, violence against prison staff is up. Assaults against prison staff have almost trebled in the last decade. In the 12 months to March 2025, there were more than 10,500 assaults on staff, a record high: 26% involved improvised weapons, while the rest involved blunt force or liquids such as hot oil or boiling water. It should come as no surprise that the rate of prison officers leaving each year is more than 13%—a very turnover rate that no doubt leads to understaffed facilities and further exacerbates the safety risks to both staff and prisoners.
The reality is that life as a prison officer, even at the best of times, is extremely challenging. They must confront and contain unthinkable situations almost daily. To do the job, they must possess a level of bravery that most of us simply do not have. But to do the job without proper protective gear is beyond belief.
If staff do not feel safe at work, it will be hard to attract and retain new employees. We know from a recent survey of officers by the POA, the largest union of prison workers, that officers want extra protection. Who wouldn’t? Some 74% want to be issued with slash and bite-proof vests. Yes, the Government have made body armour mandatory for officers working with the most dangerous offenders, and the news last year that 10,000 more officers in high-security facilities would get stab vests and tasers was greatly welcome, but the Minister should not be surprised that with the increase in violence against staff, I and other Members would like to see the Government go further.
Protective equipment and clothing should be provided irrespective of the category of prison. Sadly, violence can happen in all types of prison. Figures from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons consistently show that local prisons, which are mostly category B rather than A—the high-security ones—have extremely high numbers of assaults. Although the lower categories of C and D have less violence, the risk can still be considerable, and it is rising.
I will end by quoting the retired prison officer Claire Lewis, who was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. She was brutally stabbed in the back while on duty—an entirely preventable incident that left her with life-changing injuries. Claire said:
“Protective clothing is not a luxury—it’s a basic necessity. It can mean the difference between an officer walking out of their shift or being carried out. Prison officers deserve to feel safe.”
I have just read—this must really be a slap in the face for prison officers—that killers and terrorists have just got £1 million in compensation, plus legal fees, for being segregated alone in a prison, which was viewed as unlawful and in breach of their human rights. Surely money cannot be spent on violent criminals for their human rights when we are not looking after the human rights of our officers, who are there to protect and look after those prisoners, and who do such a good job for us in society.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
The right hon. Lady had the courtesy to advise me in advance that she would have to leave shortly after 4 pm, so I think it was reasonable to allow her to speak in the debate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing the debate.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I declare my membership of the justice unions parliamentary group, which hears quite regularly from the Prison Officers Association. My region, the north-east, has seven prisons, and I have regular contact with prison officers and their representatives. I have visited all seven prisons in recent years and have heard at first hand the problems, challenges and dangers that prison officers face daily while they protect the public. I place on record my admiration for the professionalism and bravery of prison officers and prison educators in the face of extreme adversity. I pay tribute to all prison staff, who have to deal with often violent and dangerous criminals so that we do not have to.
The horrific attacks on prison officers in the high-security estate—including HMP Frankland, which is near my constituency and in which quite a number of my constituents work—were shocking. They were a wake-up call for the Government and the Prison Service to take action, as the Prison Officers Association has long called for. I acknowledge the Minister’s active involvement and willingness to engage on this and other issues, and I welcome the roll-out of stab-proof vests across the high-security estate, but I question why it took such an appalling security failure for the Government to listen to the union properly. I hope that Ministers will not make the same mistake again by ignoring calls from frontline workers. It is not just the high-security estate; frontline officers more widely say that they need body armour. Prisons have become much more violent over the past decade or so.
We must try to understand why prisons have become so dangerous. There is a degree of consensus on the issue across the Chamber, but we must not forget that the austerity cuts saw a quarter of prison officers leave the service. That triggered a vicious circle of violence and collapsing experience. As prison officer experience goes down, violence goes up; as violence goes up, more officers leave and experience falls still further. It is a vicious circle. Prison officer experience really matters, as I am sure the Minister understands.
I know it is a bit predictable, but every year I table a question about the current cumulative experience of frontline prison officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, my good friend, referred to the latest figures for 2025, which show that more than 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have been lost since 2010. That is an awful lot of prison officer experience. Jailcraft is not something that can be learned in a book or from a training video; it comes with the experience of years served in the Prison Service. It has drained away from our system because of the political choices of the previous Government.
This is a complex problem, and there is no single solution. Body armour is part of it, but it is not just about safety equipment. The recent announcement of a 3.5% pay increase for prison officers, while MPs receive 5%, has caused some upset and has been derided by the Prison Officers Association in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis that its members face. It will take serious investment—a full return of the many millions taken from the Prison Service as a result of austerity, and then more—to bring violence down to its previous level. Prison officers who bear the brunt of this violence must be properly protected. The bottom line is that if the Prison Officers Association says that its members need stab-proof vests in prisons, who are we to say that they do not?
I understand that the union wants slash-proof utility vests, which the right hon. Member for Tatton mentioned, for officers in other prisons, such as open prisons and the female estate, so they do not need to carry such heavy equipment on their belts, which causes discomfort, health issues and even injuries, as we have heard. I urge the Minister to listen to frontline prison staff on this issue too. Proper personal protective equipment is not enough by itself; tackling prison violence will take a multitude of actions. We need a broad-spectrum antibiotic—there is no magic bullet.
It is easy to criticise, but in the previous Parliament I introduced my Prisons (Violence) Bill, which sought to establish a duty on prison management, in public and privately run prisons, to take all reasonable steps to minimise violence in prisons. We do not have time to go into it now, but in brief, my Bill proposed setting targets for staffing levels, staff retention, experience and so on, as well as for reducing assaults against staff and prisoners, and then penalising bosses if the targets were not reached. The proceeds from any financial penalties would be used to fund extra therapies and treatments for staff assaulted at work, and targeted pay awards to encourage retention in failing prisons. Of course, it is no surprise that my Bill did not make any progress under the previous Government, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the ideas I raised with an open mind and engage with the logic behind them.
More importantly, I hope that the Minister will take seriously—I know he will—the concerns of his own frontline staff, and listen to his workers when they say they need better protection now. Prison officers protect us, the public, every day of their working lives. It is up to us, in Parliament, to make sure they are properly protected in return.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing the debate and for writing to tell me it was happening—otherwise I would not have known.
I am here mainly because I have a very good friend who was a prison officer. A number of years ago, he received an award for exceptional service. He took along his young daughter, and I think the video of what happened must have been shown, because afterwards she begged her dad to give up that job, and he eventually did. That stayed in my head for a very long time—what she saw had happened in the prison that day—so I have taken an interest in the issue since.
I have been in this place for only 20 months, but I have met the justice unions parliamentary group secretary and gone to HMP Wandsworth. When I went round the prison, it was obvious that the cuts over the last decade mean that a large number of officers have gone and there is a lack of experience on the landings. There are now perhaps just half the number of officers.
When I was there, the alarm went off, and it amazed me how all the officers literally ran towards the violence—that is what they have to do—and locked all the doors behind them. It was an education for me. There are examples of good practice at Wandsworth: I saw the new neurodivergent wing, which was working extremely well. There are positive things, of course, but what I saw there stayed with me. The officers and the governor are doing the best they can with what they have, but the lack of experience, and the fact that that will need to be rebuilt over a number of years, is telling.
Like a number of other hon. Members, I am asking the Minister to mandate stab-proof vests across the entire adult male closed estate, not just the separation centres. When the new uniforms come out from August, the heavy belts could be replaced with the more practical vests, so that the weight can be distributed around the prison officer’s body.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We move on to the Front Benchers, who are entitled to 10 minutes each. I hope that we can allow at least two minutes for Julian Lewis to wind up at the end. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this very important debate.
Our prison system has been pushed into a deep crisis by years of neglect and mismanagement under previous Governments. Prisons are overcrowded, understaffed and unable to properly rehabilitate offenders. Attacks on prison officers, including on three officers at HMP Frankland last April, shine a light on the consequences of a prison system left overstretched and under-resourced by previous Governments.
I know at first hand the impact that the stressful environment can have: my dad was a prison officer for nearly 20 years, following his 22 years of service in the Army, which included serving in the second world war. My dad worked as a prison officer at Maidstone, and then at the infamous Dartmoor prison in Devon where there were notorious criminals including Frank Mitchell, who was involved with the Kray twins. My dad then moved to Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, which became a maximum security prison. He was looking after many IRA criminals, which made the job particularly stressful as they regularly rioted and caused problems. He then moved to Reading prison, which is how I came to live in the Wokingham area.
During his career, my dad was under immense stress and pressure, often working very long hours with others to look after notorious, violent criminals on a daily basis. From my dad’s experience, I know that stress and safety fears were constant concerns that wore him and many others down.
Violence is unacceptably high in prisons. There is an average of 28 assaults on staff every day in the prison system. In the 12 months to March 2025, the rate of assaults was 7% higher than in the 12 months to March 2024—a new peak of 10,568 assaults on staff. The crisis of severe overcrowding in the prison system is clearly taking its toll on staff. In 2024, England’s prisons lost almost 150,000 working days due to mental health related sickness—a 44% increase since 2019.
What support do prison officers get? According to the Ministry of Justice, all prison officers have access to mental health support, including a 24-hour helpline, but the Prison Officers Association has said that it has consistently called on the service to fund specialist on-site mental health support. It is clear that prison officers do not feel properly supported at the time when they need it most: when they are actually at work.
The crisis in the prison system is also linked to serious staffing issues. The Justice Committee found that the prison operational workforce has struggled with recruitment, retention and sickness in recent years. As of 30 June 2025, there were 22,702 band 3 to band 5 prison officers in post, with a leaving rate of 11.6%. Despite the recruitment of new officers, the number of prison officers decreased by 4% on the previous year. Those are signs of a workforce seriously struggling to cope in a crumbling prison system.
On top of that strain, in September 2025 it was reported that hundreds of prison officers recruited from abroad may lose their jobs and be forced to return to their homelands due to changes to the Labour Government’s immigration policy. That shift came after the Prison Service began sponsoring skilled worker visas for overseas applicants to address staff shortages. To put that in numbers, according to the Prison Governors Association, more than 1,000 prison officers—nearly 5% of the workforce—have a limited right to work in the UK and are reliant on a skilled worker visa to continue. If that solution to the staffing crisis is in danger, the Government need to do more to protect prison officers and provide the support they need so that they do not leave the service.
Ministers have said that they will make new protective vests mandatory in close supervision centres and separation centres, which hold the most dangerous offenders. They then said that more evidence was needed before rolling out the vests to prison officers. It is a welcome step forward that the Lord Chancellor recently announced a big increase in protective body armour for frontline officers, but more needs to be done to ensure that all prison officers have the protection they need to do their job safely and effectively. Having the relevant protective vest will help to improve prison officers’ mental health.
No one should feel unsafe when fulfilling their professional duties, working in a prison, and of course, any changes must always be made in consultation with the officers themselves. Finally, I thank all prison officers, past and present, who have worked tirelessly to protect their colleagues and the public, and who have supported the rehabilitation of prisoners and offenders into our society.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing this important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the work that she has done in relation to her constituent. I pay tribute to Claire. She has taken what must have been a horrific experience and, rather than letting it overwhelm and subdue her, used it to empower herself to have a voice on this issue for the benefit of others.
I record my thanks to prison officers and prison staff across the country. They go to work in difficult, dangerous conditions, doing a job that most of us would struggle to imagine. I come from a public service background—I was a doctor, I volunteered as a policeman, my mum was a nurse and my dad was a policeman—and I have always been struck by the contrast in our public discourse. It is interesting that we have an awareness of, and give our recognition to, those sorts of public emergency service workers but we do not do the same for prison officers.
Prison officers do a job that is just as important, if not more important, and under more difficult circumstances. I know that multiple Secretaries of State for Justice have tried to address that with initiatives to change the public’s perception and help them recognise how important that work is. I absolutely recognise it, and I think that prison officers should be held in exactly the same esteem as other emergency service workers, because that is what they are.
In discussing violence, to some extent this debate has focused on blades because of what happened to Claire, but we have seen violent assaults that have used whatever was to hand. Only two weeks ago, we had reports of an offender who attacked a prison officer with a plastic knife, so it does not matter what the particular weapon is. In recent months, we have seen assaults across the estate using boiling liquids and makeshift implements.
There are much broader issues around the safety of officers. After the appalling attack in April last year on three officers at HMP Frankland—the same place where Claire was attacked—Ministers commissioned a snap review and announced, in June last year, that protective body armour, meaning stab-proof vests, will be mandatory for officers working in close supervision centres and separation centres, with segregation units in the high security estate also benefiting from the roll-out. I welcome any sensible steps to make it more likely that officers will go home safe.
In September 2025, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending told Parliament that “stab-and-slash-resistant” protective body armour
“will be made and issued as quickly as possible”
and that it was expected to be issued “by autumn 2025”. Later that month, the Government announced £15 million of investment, increasing the number of vests available to staff from 750 to 10,000, including 5,000 to equip every officer working in long-term and high security prisons. That announcement also stated that prisons had already begun to receive kit that week, “ready to be worn”. Those are great and welcome commitments.
The problem is that when Parliament has asked very simple questions, namely how many of those vests have actually been issued, Ministers have not been able to answer. In October, the Government said that the roll-out across the long-term and high security estate was expected to begin during 2026. In February this year, when asked in the Lords specifically how many of the 5,000 stab-proof vests for high security prisons have been issued, Ministers again did not provide a number but just said they
“expect to begin implementation across the estate”
this year.
My first set of questions to the Minister is straightforward and factual. How many stab-proof vests have been procured since September? How many have been delivered to prisons? How many have been individually fitted to officers? What proportion of the long-term and high security estate is now operating with every officer equipped as the Government promised?
Secondly, will the Minister set out clearly what “mandatory” means? We know that protective body armour is mandated in close supervision centres, separation centres and high security segregation units. We also know, from a September 2025 written answer, that body armour is already issued for Operation Tornado deployments and for operational response and resilience unit deployments, and that it is required for planned use of force or high-risk prisoner management. We also know, however, that the question of routine issue across other prison categories is very much alive. In Justice questions, a Labour Member told the House,
“Unlike in category A prisons, prison officers at HMP The Verne and HMP Portland are not routinely issued with protective body armour”,—[Official Report, 17 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 750.]
and they asked for appropriate armour for officers regardless of category. I ask the Minister: are the Government now considering the provision of appropriate body armour for all prison officers irrespective of the category of prison in which they serve?
Will the Minister provide a clear and comprehensive statement following this debate—as I appreciate he will not be able to go through all the details now—on where body armour is mandated on a unit-by-unit basis, where it is mandated by activity, and where it is available to officers if they want it, but is not required? That level of transparency is essential for the House, given the promises and pledges that the Government are making. We welcome them, but they do not seem to be transparent about what they are actually delivering.
The point was made that it is not about just saying, “Here’s some armour—get on with it.” We need detail on the weight of the armour, the heat burden, the cover design, and what in-life monitoring and replacement cycles are in place. Those are also important, as is how the Government ensure proper fitting and equality of provision, particularly in relation to female staff.
I am afraid the Government have a lot of work to do. I know the Minister will be critical, as others have been, of our time in government, but if we look at their record in government when it comes to prison officer numbers, they are down. In March 2025 there were 22,737 full-time equivalent band 3 to 5 prison officers in post. As of December, that was down by around 700 to 22,067, and that builds on drops from their earlier time in government.
Although the previous Government took steps to equip officers by rolling out body-worn cameras and introducing safety tools alongside a clear emphasis on training and de-escalation, I recognise we should have gone further on the provision of body armour and other equipment where officers in the POA felt it was in prison officers’ interest, and I regret that we were not able to. As the Minister knows, we have worked together on the change to the law for whole-life orders for people who murder prison officers on duty or off duty. We worked together on that successfully on a cross-party basis. We support the Government on measures that are helpful.
I want to finish with Claire. The offender who attacked Claire is currently held in HMP Frankland in a separation centre and is subject to isolation. We have already discussed the attacks that took place at that centre where people were gravely injured. Sadly, we have seen the Government give thousands of pounds of compensation to people who have been responsible for vile crimes in isolation centres because of a breach of their human rights. That is on the record and we know that that has happened. The Mirror reports that the same person who attacked Claire—the person I am sure the Minister will get up and condemn; I am sure the Minister will pay tribute to Claire and say how fantastic her campaigning is—will get compensation from the Government for having been in an isolation unit. That would be a disgrace and deeply insulting to Claire and all the other prison officers who would see that as an insult after what Claire had gone through.
I ask the Minister to write to Claire’s MP, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South, to tell her very clearly—if he cannot tell us now—whether the Government have paid or are going to pay compensation to the man who so brutally attacked Claire? He does not deserve a penny of taxpayers’ money. When will the Government bring forward their promised plans to review the legal framework through which these vile people get taxpayers’ money because apparently we have breached their human rights?
In the response to the independent review of the isolation units, the Government promised to bring forward a review of the framework. They still have not done that. Can the Minister tell us, following the cases in the public domain, whether there have been any further claims lodged by offenders because of the time they have spent in isolation? I think we deserve to know that, and we deserve to know for certain that the person who attacked Claire, who we are all here paying tribute to, will not get a penny of taxpayers’ money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing today’s debate on this very important subject. I will attempt to directly answer the questions he posed. All our prison officers, to whom I pay tribute today on the record, deserve protection. Whether that means we should roll out mandatory body armour is a more complex question and requires a more complex answer. Some of the reasons why it is a complex task have been set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) who quite rightly raises questions about the commitment that we have already made. He then also, quite rightly, asked about the training and the process by which the roll-out will take place, where items will be stored and ensuring that all staff agree with such a roll-out. I accept the premise of his question, but it is somewhat more complex than perhaps it may seem from the outset—and we are working on that.
I also want to directly speak to Claire, if she is watching this debate. What she has suffered is horrific. Like the shadow Minister, I pay tribute to her for powerfully turning a horrific incident into a campaign on a number of issues, through her efforts and those of her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am very happy to meet her. It may be that Lord Timpson, who is operationally responsible for many of these matters, will also meet her as well. I will look to organise that as soon as possible with her MP.
I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as possible, and otherwise, I am happy to follow up with hon. Members in writing.
Sir Julian Lewis
On what the Minister said at the beginning, I would be the first to acknowledge that it may take time and be a gradual process before all prison officers are equipped with body armour in practice. What we are looking for from the Minister today is whether he accepts the principle that they should be—then we can work on the timescale and the practicalities.
Jake Richards
I absolutely accept the principle that prison officers should be safe at work and be given the tools to be so. Every prison of each different category has a different context, culture and working environment, and each has to make an assessment of the risks therein.
Sir Julian Lewis
That was not really what I asked the Minister. I was asking whether he accepts the principle that all prison officers are vulnerable to attack in any prison and that, in principle, they should be able to have appropriate body armour as standard?
Jake Richards
I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.
As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.
While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.
We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised how key performance indicators for safety would be one particular driver that the Government could bring in immediately, which would enhance all the factors that the Minister is mentioning. Does he agree that another critical KPI could be staff retention? That is the canary in the mine, because where staff are happy, they stay—and they stay with all their expertise.
Jake Richards
I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.
Liz Saville Roberts
The key point is what is measured publicly. I appreciate that Ministers will have the information, and I am delighted that they do, but the sense of what is measured and the standards by which our prisons are held to account—that the public are aware of—are key drivers in creating change within a culture that we know has needed to change for 12 years or more.
Jake Richards
Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course.
As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences.
Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day.
Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.
Sir Julian Lewis
When I realised that this debate was going to be held on the last day before the Easter recess, I was rather perturbed and thought that perhaps not very many people would turn up. I could not have been more wrong, both in terms of quantity and quality. The six contributions from Back Benchers taught me a great deal more about this issue than I ever dreamt I would absorb in a single afternoon. They included contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as well as the leader of Plaid Cymru in the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other senior Members old and new. Every one of them made a very worthwhile contribution.
My hope was that we were going to roll it all the way through to the end with absolute agreement on the single issue of the body armour, even though some of the very knowledgeable contributions we heard from the Floor understandably went into wider issues that are also of concern to the Prison Officers Association, who were in touch with me before the debate as well.
Sadly, the Minister has made indications in the right direction but has not been willing to give the complete commitment that we want, which is that, in principle, given that this is what the staff members themselves desire, they should be able to have stab-proof vests in whichever prison they work. It would be good if we could get that nailed down.
I fully understand the Minister’s point that it cannot all happen within 24 hours of making the decision, but the process cannot begin until the principle is acknowledged. I fear, from his point of view at any rate, that he will not have heard the last of this issue, even though the Government have made some substantial steps in the right direction, as I acknowledged in my opening remarks.
I conclude by referring back to where it all began, which was the brave campaign by Claire Lewis, who turned her own dreadful experience into a force for good so that others will be better protected in the future. I did not know very much about this issue until it was brought to me by people who are more acquainted with it than I was. I acknowledge the help I have received—on background information, information about the issue and in drafting my opening remarks. With that, I conclude by wishing everybody a very happy Easter break.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.
Written Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 311.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for East Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
Written Statements
British Steel
(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 (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £419 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of the site. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Act and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the UK steel sector will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation and to safeguard taxpayers’ money.
Liberty Pipes Hartlepool sale
We understand that Liberty has run a sales process for their site in Hartlepool, with Corinth Pipeworks announced as the buyer. This is a commercial sale in which Government have not been involved. We welcome the new investment in this site.
[HCWS1469]
Government Delivery: Simplifying Processes and Reducing Bureaucracy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My noble and learned Friend the Attorney General, the right hon. Lord Hermer KC, has today jointly laid this statement in the House of Lords:
Further to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on 20 January, which can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-01-20/hcws1260 I am writing to provide an update on some of our next steps to accelerate delivery. Working closely with the new Cabinet Secretary, we are launching a programme of work to simplify the state, removing unnecessary bureaucracy and speeding up the timeline from ministerial decision to delivery for citizens. Together with wider reforms to “re-wire” public services, the civil service and regulatory duties, we are creating a faster and better model for government that will have a real impact on people’s lives.
Our state does not work in the way intended, hindering our ability to deliver real change for British people. This is the result of overcomplicated bureaucratic processes that we have lived with for too long. Individual elements of the bureaucracy were, mostly, designed for good reasons, but they have now become layers built upon layers without any proper assessment of the overall effect. Despite the good intentions, the cumulative result has been a stifling effect on Government. The need for change is urgent. We are developing a plan to free Ministers, officials and the British public from the bureaucratic mire that prevents innovation and improvements to people’s lives.
Our agenda is simple: strip back the burdensome, disproportionate processes to speed up decision making and delivery across Government. Instigating this work is essential to reach the desire for radical reform across Government. It directly supports the Prime Minister’s ambition to “re-wire the state” to make it work for working people.
Immediate first steps include aiming to:
End the introduction of unnecessary reporting and consultation requirements through introducing a higher bar to their inclusion in legislation.
Use AI to identify existing disproportionate reporting and consultation duties that are slowing down delivery.
Take action on the use of equalities impact assessments to ensure they are proportionate and actually improve policy and outcomes.
Replace environmental impact assessments with environmental outcomes reports as part of a significant step in reducing bureaucracy around new infrastructure projects.
Simplify and improve Government controls—a reformed controls framework goes live from the start of the 2026-27 financial year, reducing bureaucracy in projects and programmes, empowering those closest to delivery.
Continue to deliver the Government’s commitments on arm’s length body reform, ensuring that decisions are taken at the right level. All Departments have been asked to set out their plans to reform their ALB landscape, with a view to confirming mergers, closures and repatriations ahead of the next spending review.
Working alongside the new Cabinet Secretary, Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, to deliver the Prime Minister’s priorities, Ministers will also implement a number of changes to:
Continue exploring new ways to reduce administrative burdens and speed up Government decision making, building on existing progress to digitise processes and improve efficiency.
Introduce a new accountability framework, working with permanent secretaries, to set clear expectations and measurable targets to drive delivery of the Prime Minister’s priorities, and innovation within their Departments, and hold people to account for doing so.
This is far from the limit of the Government’s ambition. We are scoping the significant longer-term opportunities for simplifying Government processes, to “ungum” the system and ultimately drive growth and deliver faster outcomes for people. Reforming these fundamentals will increase our capacity to get on with the business of government: delivering for the British public.
[HCWS1467]
European Union Finances: Annual Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I am today laying before Parliament, “European Union Finances Statement 2025: Statement on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement” (CP 1538). This is an annual publication; this year’s edition covers the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. This publication is available on the gov.uk website.
The publication sets out the Government’s updated estimate of the financial settlement on withdrawal from the EU. HM Treasury estimates that the total net value of the financial settlement is £30.9 billion since the UK ceased to be an EU member state in February 2020. Of this, £25.7 billion has been paid up to the end of December 2025, and the forecast of future outstanding net liabilities is £5.3 billion.
[HCWS1478]
National Savings & Investments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of a failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of this failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates.
Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customers’ holdings where those were spread across multiple profiles or systems despite consistent identifying details, such as name, address and date of birth, that should have made that possible.
There have been wider related historical challenges, for example, the FCA took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following bereavement claims. It is now clear that NS&I did not respond to these warning signs as fully as we in the Government, and more importantly their customers, would expect.
Action so far
Since being notified of this issue, HM Treasury has ensured external advisers, including EY and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, have been engaged to identify the scale of these errors. Through this work NS&I has reviewed 34 million customer records.
Their work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,000 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. This number is likely to fall in future, but while it currently represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, it is still far too many.
NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising for these failings today.
The Government’s priorities are now threefold:
Fixing the problem going forward
First, and immediately, the priority is to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place.
NS&I has received written assurances from its customer facing supplier, SSL, that the causes of this tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation given this issue is long standing.
Reuniting funds and compensation
Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds.
We can confirm that those savings are 100% safe. This issue is about tracing, not the security of any funds.
NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team to oversee this work, hiring an additional 100 staff, and will be publishing a delivery plan in May, detailing how it will take forward this work to reunite funds with their owners.
This will cover:
the numbers of cases affected
how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds they are due, including interest on savings;
and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid.
There is no need for individuals to utilise a claims management company or solicitor to reclaim this money. The onus is not on individuals but on NS&I to act and to contact estate representatives and reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. We are committed to ensuring NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible.
We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates, and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of this error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan.
Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week.
To confirm, current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any customers wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website.
The organisation
NS&I plays an important role, helping the public save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role, while also addressing the tracing issue.
NS&I must also complete what has proved a challenging digital business transformation programme. This programme was put in place back in 2020 but with little progress made in the latter years of the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone —former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence—to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track.
It is important that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, we have appointed Sir Jim Harra, former HMRC first permanent secretary, to take over as chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. We would like to thank Dax Harkins, his predecessor, for his 22 years of public service at NS&I.
As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to this tracing problem, and to set out what lessons must be learned for NS&I going forward.
We will ensure Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion.
[HCWS1482]
Hodge Review of Arts Council England: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We are a nation of storytellers. Through literature, television, film, music, fashion, dance and drama, and through our galleries, our libraries and our museums, we light up the world. In a time when it feels like we have lost our ability to understand one another, the arts are an essential force for good in a divided nation and our gift to a troubled world.
But in this last, lost decade, the arts have been treated as an unaffordable luxury—or worse, as a nuisance or a weapon for Governments in their ongoing, exhausting culture wars. Culture and creativity have been erased from too many classrooms and communities, the routes for working-class artists and performers have narrowed almost to the point of extinction and the contribution of most of us, in places with a proud history of culture and contribution, has been written off. As a result, too many of us no longer see ourselves reflected in the story we tell ourselves, about ourselves, as a nation.
An inclusive national story does not mean making movies where posh boys play gangsters. It means harnessing the strength of our nation; the extraordinary diversity of our people, places, traditions and disciplines—across ballet, northern soul, opera and street art—that creates one of the most vibrant, sought-after artistic scenes in the world, drawing on the contribution of the whole nation and all the people in it. All of us deserve the chance to be part of it and, in turn, we need all of us to sustain it.
We have put arts back at the centre of the curriculum, worked with our national institutions to bring collections out of the basement and into our communities and launched a new town of culture contest to recognise the cultural contribution of our whole country.
We have announced the biggest capital uplift to the arts in a generation so that the battle to keep the lights on and the doors open for institutions—especially outside of London—is no longer the struggle it has been for so long.
But we are impatient for change and our country deserves more. That is why I asked Baroness Hodge of Barking to review the role of the Arts Council, to ensure that this most precious institution, founded by a visionary generation who put arts and culture at the heart of our efforts to rebuild a nation after war, can thrive for generations to come.
We are convinced that her vision will help us to anchor our arts in our people and places, and help us to recover our sense of self-confidence as a nation and turn outwards to the world.
That is why we are accepting every recommendation made by the Hodge review.
This is not a licence for business as usual. For so long arts organisations have had to exist day to day, focusing on protecting and preserving our institutions. We will work with them to rebuild the foundations but in return ask them to blow the doors off, to become anchors in our communities, enable access to excellence everywhere and provide the chance for every person in our country to live richer, larger lives.
This Government believe that the arts are for everyone, everywhere. We know this vision is shared by people across the country and together, through the actions outlined in this report, we will write the next chapter in our nation’s story.
I will place a copy of the Government’s response in the Libraries of both Houses.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/arts-council-england-an-independent-review-by-baroness-margaret-hodge
[HCWS1464]
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am pleased today to be able to update the House on the review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. As this House knows, these Afghans worked alongside UK armed forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as Members on both sides of the House.
When in opposition, the Defence Secretary and I, alongside many sitting and former Members of the House, advocated for a review of decisions made on Afghan relocations and assistance policy applications from the Triples. This review was begun under the previous Government, but I am proud to have been able to drive its progression since I took office and ensure that those who we owe so much to are appropriately supported.
Last year, I announced a second and final phase of the Triples review, following the conclusion that, in some cases, evidence of certain top-up payments would also be sufficient to demonstrate a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives in Afghanistan due to the nature of the work undertaken by those individuals. This revised approach made it more likely that some individuals from these cohorts previously found ineligible could potentially secure a positive decision.
I believe this second phase was the right thing to do—to ensure we fully analysed and understood all available records that could inform eligibility decisions for the those who may have been impacted. Today I can announce that this review is complete, and over the two phases we have overturned 884 decisions.
I can assure the House that all those who have already had their applications reviewed under phase 1 and 2 of the Triples review and have had a fresh decision made have either been contacted or will be contacted in due course. All decisions made in phases 1 and 2 will still carry a right to have this decision reviewed.
This review has led to improvements in the ARAP casework function, and we have put in place additional resourcing and new processes to continue to drive those improvements. Enhanced training is now in place within the ARAP casework team to better identify organisations that may hold relevant records—and guidance has been amended to reflect this.
The Ministry of Defence is investing in both the systems and the people to improve our digital records management now and in the future, as well as enhancing our capability and approach to interrogating legacy data sets. In co-ordination with the recommendations made in the McIvor review into data protection compliance within the MOD, we have also been implementing a digital records management plan across defence. The journey of improvement is of course a continuous one, and the MOD will continue to build on the learning from this review.
Although I cannot change what happened in the past, I am proud of the work that we have undertaken to conclude this review and deliver on our promise to support eligible Triples who contributed to the UK mission in Afghanistan.
This Government are clear that we intend to conclude the Afghan resettlement programme by the end of this Parliament. The end of the Triples review is an important step towards this. However, there is more to do, and I will update the House shortly on further developments.
[HCWS1486]
Energy Infrastructure Planning: Botley West Solar Farm
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Photovolt Development Partners on behalf of SolarFive Ltd for the construction and operation of a solar farm on land in West Oxfordshire, Cherwell and Vale of White Horse districts, across approximately 1,400 hectares.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless a new deadline is set using the power under section 107(3) of the Planning Act 2008. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the Botley West solar farm application is 10 May 2026.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 10 September 2026 for deciding this application. This is to enable my Department to seek further information from the applicant with sufficient time to allow for consideration of this information by other interested parties.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS1471]
Energy Infrastructure: Development Consent Application Deadlines
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
This statement concerns three separate applications for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by:
North Falls Offshore Wind Ltd for offshore wind turbines approximately 24.5 km from the port of Lowestoft, including onshore connection to the electricity transmission network. The current statutory deadline for the decision is 28 April 2026.
Morgan Offshore Wind Ltd and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd for the Morgan and Morecambe offshore wind farms transmission assets in the east Irish sea off the coast of north-west England, including onshore connection to the electricity transmission network. The current statutory deadline for the decision is 29 April 2026.
RWE Renewables UK Dogger Bank South (West) Ltd and RWE Renewables UK Dogger Bank South (East) Ltd for the Dogger Bank south offshore wind farms in the north sea approximately 100km for the east coast, including onshore connection to the electricity transmission network. The current statutory deadline for the decision is 30 April 2026.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless a new deadline is set using the power under section 107(3) of the Planning Act 2008. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
Having consulted the relevant guidance and under advice from officials, I have agreed to set a new deadline of no later than 14 May 2026 for deciding these applications. This is because the current statutory dates for these three cases are within the pre-election period for local elections in England. This period commences on Thursday 16 April and the guidance advises that particular care should be taken where there is a specific local or geographical dimension to an announcement; where an announcement could have a particular impact on an area or areas where elections are being held; and where an announcement relates to matters which are likely to be raised in election campaigns. For that reason, I am moving the decision dates to 14 May.
The decision to set the new deadline for these applications is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS1472]
Offshore Wind Investment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today I am setting out the Government’s position on the supply of offshore wind turbines from MingYang, a Chinese turbine supplier. This has followed offshore wind developers seeking the Government view on the use of MingYang smart energy turbines in British waters and in our energy system.
After careful consideration, the Government’s view is that we cannot support the use of them in UK offshore wind projects. We have informed offshore wind developers of this.
We will always act to protect our national security, and we are committed to strengthening and prioritising resilient and sustainable offshore wind supply chains.
We welcome investment from China where it is in our national interest, as demonstrated through the announcement of significant inward investment during the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing early in the year. We will continue to take a long-term and strategic approach to managing relations with China, co-operating where we can, while being clear-eyed to any risks and ensuring security and resilience.
The UK continues to be a world leader in offshore wind, which provides secure, domestically generated electricity, and will play a key role in achieving clean power by 2030 and net zero, and attract investment, creating thousands of new jobs around the country.
[HCWS1468]
Trail Hunting Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock), has made the following written statement today.
Today we are launching a consultation to seek views on how best to deliver an effective and enforceable ban on trail hunting in England and Wales. The responses will be used to inform my Department’s assessment of any potential social, community, economic, business or environmental impacts of a trail hunting ban and the development of subsequent legislation to be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
The consultation invites views on a wide range of matters including:
how trail hunting should be defined for the purposes of a ban;
how to ensure that the ban on trail hunting will not inadvertently affect other activities which we intend should remain lawful such as drag hunting or “clean boot” hunting;
whether it should remain lawful to use animal-based scent trails when training dogs for specific purposes;
considerations relevant to the timing of introducing the ban;
the potential community, social, business, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed approach to banning trail hunting.
The consultation will be open for 12 weeks and close on 18 June. We welcome views from all those with an interest and all responses to the consultation will be considered carefully in developing our proposals.
A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.
Background information on trail hunting
The Hunting Act 2004 made it an offence to hunt wild mammals with dogs in England and Wales, subject to some exemptions. Following the introduction of that Act, trail hunting grew in popularity as an alternative to hunting wild mammals with dogs.
Trail hunting aims to mimic a traditional hunt by laying an animal scent trail which simulates the natural movement of wild mammals through hedgerows, woods, and ditches for hounds and hunts to follow.
Trail hunting has become a focus of concern because, by its very nature, it is difficult to ensure that wild mammals such as foxes are not placed in danger:
trail hunting involves the laying of a trail using an animal-based scent for the dogs to follow;
the trail is not always laid constantly but may be lifted for a distance and dropped again to allow the hounds to search for the scent;
huntsmen and followers often do not know where trails have been laid.
These factors can result in the scent of a live wild animal being picked up. Once picked up, the hounds may follow the scent of the wild mammal rather than follow the intended trail, resulting in pursuit which could cause distress and lead to the death of, or injury to, the wild mammal.
A ban on trail hunting would ensure that wild mammals are not pursued and placed in danger as a result of trail hunting, prevent trail hunting from being used to avoid criminal liability for hunting with dogs and support effective enforcement of the law against hunting with dogs.
[HCWS1473]
British Council Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The British Council is an important international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities for the UK. It supports peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide. It does this by uniquely combining the UK’s deep expertise in arts and culture, education and the English language, its global presence and relationships, and its unparalleled access to young people and influencers around the world.
With a total reach of 598 million people in 2024-25, the British Council creates mutually beneficial relationships between the people of all four nations of the UK and other countries. Such connections, based on an understanding of each other’s strengths and shared values, build an enduring trust. This helps strengthen the UK’s global reputation and influence, encouraging people from around the world to visit, study, trade and make alliances with the UK.
In 2024-25 the British Council received £162.5 million core grant in aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and even in tight fiscal circumstances, that core grant was maintained at that level in 2025-26. On 19 March 2026, as part of the FCDO’s allocation of official development assistance funding for the next three years, it was announced that ODA funding for the British Council would be protected at its current levels up to the end of 2028-29, while non-ODA funding will be increased by £40 million over the same period. This supports our objective of a financially sustainable British Council for the long term.
This funding settlement—against a backdrop of substantial cuts that have had to be made in other FCDO-funded programmes—is also a recognition of the continuing financial pressures facing the British Council, including in relation to repayment of its loan from HM Treasury, and the underlying need to update the organisation’s business model. The British Council has put forward a financial turnaround plan, and the FCDO has commissioned an independent review of that plan, and the British Council’s cash-flow position, to provide a robust evidence base for future decision making in this area. FCDO officials are also engaging constructively and on an ongoing basis with the British Council Board and executive to work through the findings.
Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2024-25 financial year have been placed in the library of both Houses. The annual report can also be found at the British Council’s website:
www.britishcouncil.org/about-us/how-we-work/corporate-reports
[HCWS1470]
Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong: 1 July to 31 December 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is attached. It covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2025. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and I commend it to the House. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-january-to-june-2025
Attachments can be viewed online at:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/commons/2026-03-26/hcws1483/
[HCWS1483]
Orgreave Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Today I am announcing the formal launch of the Orgreave inquiry, a statutory public inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.
I pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and the National Union of Mineworkers, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment. Their voices will be central to the inquiry’s work.
This inquiry delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to uncover the truth about Orgreave and to rebuild public confidence in policing. It will investigate the events of that day, resulting in the arrest of 95 picketers and scores of injuries, which left a lasting impact on communities across South Yorkshire and beyond. It will examine the planning undertaken by the police and Government for the policing of the demonstration at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, including relevant decision making in the leadup to the day; what happened on the day; the immediate aftermath and lasting impact on individuals and communities, including the subsequent public narrative; and the charging decisions and prosecutions relating to those arrested at Orgreave.
As announced on 21 July last year, the inquiry will be chaired by the Right Reverend Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield. He will be supported by a panel of independent experts appointed in accordance with section 4 of the Act. I am pleased to confirm the appointment of the following panel members to support the Chair in his work:
Baroness Mary Bousted, a former senior trade union leader representing teachers, leaders, and support staff and workers. She led the panel which, in April 2025, published the report of its independent review of the Police Federation of England and Wales. She will provide relevant knowledge and insight concerning the strategic and operational leadership and management of trades unions
Wendy Williams CBE, a former chief prosecutor and, between 2015-2024, an inspector in His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. She published the report of her independent Windrush lessons learned review in March 2020, and her update report on the Home Office’s response in March 2022. She will provide independent insight on police governance, and the decision-making and effectiveness of police forces.
Dr Joanna Gilmore, a senior lecturer in law at the University of York, whose research expertise includes public order law, human rights and policing policy. Drawing on her sociolegal and oral history research into the 1984-85 miners’ strike, she will contribute analysis of the broader societal, legal and political issues arising from the events at Orgreave.
Dr Angie Sutton-Vane, an historian with extensive experience in evidence-based research, historical accountability and the archiving, preservation of and access to police force records. She will provide expertise on the interpretation of historical records, particularly those of the police.
The panel will operate under the agreed terms of reference, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of each House today.
[HCWS1477]
Police Pension Scheme: Opt-out Contingent Decisions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
In 2014 and 2015, the previous Government reformed public service pension schemes. When the reforms were introduced, they provided “transitional protections”, which allowed members who were closer to retirement age to remain in the previous “legacy” schemes rather than move to the “reformed” schemes. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found, in the McCloud and Sargeant cases, that these protections in the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination.
Governing legislation—the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022—was enacted to remedy the discrimination identified by the courts. A core element of the remedy is providing affected members with a choice of pension benefits, legacy or reformed, for the period the discrimination had effect from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022. It also provides affected members with an opportunity to unwind certain pension scheme decisions that they would have made differently but for the discrimination.
However, for police officers who opted out of their pension scheme due to the discrimination there is an unintended consequence of the legislative provisions of the Act, as it specifies the relevant legacy scheme for members who have suffered discrimination. A cohort of these members currently do not have access to the legacy scheme they had last accrued benefits in, as there is a barrier within the Act to rejoining the 1987 police pension scheme, so they have not yet been provided with a full remedy.
This Government will use the additional provisions for special cases set out in the Act to disapply sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act for any eligible member who had opted out due to the discrimination and now, under the terms of section 5 of the Act and regulation 6 of the Police Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023, makes an election to buy back all the opted-out service during the remedy period. This will be applied retrospectively so that opted out service within the remedy period—1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022—can become remediable service in the correct legacy scheme.
Police pension scheme managers should apply this, effective immediately, and in anticipation of the amending legislation. We will correct the position through a statutory instrument as soon as parliamentary time allows.
[HCWS1475]
EU Entry/Exit System: UK Preparations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
In July 2024, this Government set out the steps we were taking to strengthen readiness for the European Union’s entry-exit system—EES—and to minimise disruption for journeys via the United Kingdom’s juxtaposed border controls. Since then, the Government have continued to work closely with ports, carriers and international partners, including supporting the delivery of necessary infrastructure and technology at juxtaposed sites. Today, I am updating the House ahead of full implementation on 10 April 2026, setting out the context for its introduction, the preparations undertaken at UK ports, and the practical implications for travellers.
The Government have been working to prepare UK citizens, ports and carriers for the introduction of the EU’s new digital border system. EES is an EU-owned system, introduced by the European Union and its member states as part of their external border reforms, and its design, delivery and implementation timetable are determined by the EU.
In October 2025, the EU introduced EES, which many British citizens will already have experienced. EES replaces passport stamping throughout the Schengen area. The system was launched with a six-month phased implementation period and is due to come into force in full on 10 April 2026. Most travellers from the UK and other non-EU countries who do not hold a long-term visa or residence permit will be required to register for EES at the border. This will include capture of both fingerprints and a facial image on entry to the Schengen area, as well as some checks on exit. EES will strengthen the security of the EU’s external border, and the UK remains supportive of this objective as part of our shared commitment to secure and well-managed borders.
The decision to introduce EES, and the timing of its implementation, rest with the EU and its member states. The Government have engaged closely with the European Commission and member states throughout the development and phased implementation period to ensure the implications for British travellers are understood, to advocate for a proportionate and pragmatic approach, and to make sure we are able to support our citizens to navigate these new border arrangements.
At UK ports with juxtaposed border controls—Dover, Eurotunnel, and Eurostar at St Pancras—EES registration will take place on UK soil before passengers’ departure. The Government have supported the ports and carriers to ensure that appropriate technology and processes are in place. This included providing £10.5 million to support the juxtaposed ports in installing new technology and complete infrastructure works, recognising that these changes represent a significant operational shift at some of the UK’s busiest routes to Europe. The UK juxtaposed ports have undertaken a substantial programme of work to prepare for EES.
Last year, the Government launched public communications to raise awareness of the new border checks among British travellers, and this will continue as EES is fully implemented. Travellers are advised to check with their operator and follow the latest advice on gov.uk, which may include allowing extra time for EES exit processing when returning to the UK.
The Government remain committed to maintaining fluidity at the border, and to supporting both industry and the public as they adapt to the changing landscape of modern border systems. We will continue to engage with the EU and its member states to press for smooth implementation and to advocate for the interests of British citizens travelling to Europe.
[HCWS1476]
Correction to Written Statement HCWS1455
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
On 25 March I made a written statement on local government reorganisation. There was a minor error in the statement. In outlining the new councils to be created in Suffolk, it said:
“Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).”—[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 49WS.]
It should have said:
“Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).”
[HCWS1485]
Fire Safety and Building Control
(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)
Today, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government launched a public consultation on proposals to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistently high levels of competency, where trust is rebuilt, and where a strong, diverse pipeline of talent ensures improved standards of fire safety.
Context
Fire risk assessments are a fundamental part of the fire safety regime established under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This legislation requires responsible persons to make a suitable and sufficient assessment to help make sure hazards are identified and the right fire precautions are delivered to keep people safe in the buildings where they live, work, and visit.
RPs can currently undertake this assessment themselves, or appoint someone, commonly known as an FRA, to assist them. Competent and professional FRAs therefore play a critical role in keeping people safe.
Despite this vital life-safety role, FRAs are not currently recognised as a regulated profession. There is no single professional body, no agreed definition of the role, no defined career pathway, and no specified training or qualifications.
While many FRAs are highly competent, we want to see an FRA profession with consistently high and demonstrable standards of competency across the board. Further, we want these proposals to rebuild trust in the FRA profession so that those who rely on their expertise, whether occupying, buying or selling, can feel confident in the fire safety of their homes or other premises.
The Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report identified serious shortcomings in the fire risk assessments produced by the FRA for Grenfell Tower, including failures to identify critical fire safety hazards and to verify that previously identified risks had been addressed. In response to recommendation 26 in the inquiry’s phase 2 report, the Government committed to introduce mandatory certification for FRAs.
Consultation
The consultation we have launched today is an important step in delivering recommendation 26 of the inquiry’s phase 2 report and fulfilling our commitment to introduce mandatory certification for FRAs.
We have engaged stakeholders across Government, the devolved Governments, and industry to secure their initial contributions to our plans and help shape the future of a profession that can consistently deliver its vital fire safety role.
The consultation will remain open for 12 weeks until 18 June 2026. We encourage as many responses as possible, to make sure future measures strengthen confidence in the FRA regime and so that those undertaking this critical work are appropriately competent, supported, and accountable. Following the consultation, Government will carefully consider the responses received and set out next steps in due course. The consultation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fire-risk-assessors-profession
This work forms part of a wider programme to implement inquiry recommendations and improve fire and building safety, including proposals for the establishment of the single construction regulator, recent publications on the fire engineering profession and ongoing work to develop a new strategy for the built environment professions.
Further, a consultation was launched today on improving proportionality and safety outcomes in the higher-risk building control regime, which can be found here: https://consult.communities.gov.uk/higher-risk-buildings/redefining-category-a-building-work-consultation/
This is launched alongside the announcement of a £70 million building professional workforce programme to address shortages of capacity and capability in two safety-critical professions: building control and fire engineering. The funding for fire engineering will contribute to our response to the inquiry recommendations on increasing education for fire engineers.
A separate statement has been laid providing further detail on these announcements.
[HCWS1480]
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme: Opt-out Contingent Decisions
(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)
In 2014 and 2015, the previous Government reformed public service pension schemes. These reforms introduced “transitional protections” that allowed members closest to retirement to remain in their legacy schemes rather than move to the reformed schemes. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found that these protections in the judicial and firefighters schemes constituted unlawful age discrimination: the McCloud and Sargeant judgments.
To remedy this, Parliament enacted the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. The Act gives affected members a choice between legacy and reformed scheme benefits for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022 and permits certain pension decisions to be revisited where they would have been made differently but for the discrimination.
However, an unintended consequence has arisen for firefighters who opted out of their pension scheme because of the discrimination. The Act fixes the “relevant legacy scheme” in legislation. As a result, some affected members cannot be reinstated into the actual legacy scheme in which they last accrued service, preventing them from buying back opted-out service and leaving them without a full remedy.
To resolve this, the Government will use the Act’s special-case power to amend regulations with the effect of disapplying sections 4(2) and 4(3) for the particular cohort of eligible members who opted out due to the discrimination and who now elect, under section 5 of the Act and regulation 6 of the Firefighters’ Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023, to buy back opted-out service between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022—the remedy period. This will mean that opted-out service within the remedy period can be treated as pensionable service in the last-accrued legacy scheme.
The Government will now bring forward a statutory instrument under the Act’s special-case power to correct this position and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.
[HCWS1479]
Building Safety: Higher-Risk Buildings and Professional Development
(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)
An effective and efficient building control system underpins the fundamental safety of homes and communities across the country, built on the expertise of skilled professionals. Today I announce further steps the Department is taking to make sure this system is working effectively and supporting our ambitious remediation and house building targets.
This will restore confidence in the work done to ensure safety in the building sector and boost the housing supply and the improved operation of the Building Safety Regulator’s gateway regime.
Today, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is launching a consultation on improving proportionality and safety outcomes in the higher-risk building control regime. This consultation is seeking views on how building work in existing higher-risk buildings is categorised, to make sure the application requirements reflect the scale and complexity of the work. We are committed to making sure the higher-risk regime is applied in a proportionate way without compromising on safety. It must strike the right balance between robust oversight of safety-critical works and enabling safer building works to proceed efficiently and without undue delays.
Alongside this, MHCLG is announcing a £70 million building profession workforce programme to address shortages of capacity and capability in two safety-critical areas of the built environment: £55 million for building control and £15 million for the fire engineering profession. These professions play a key role in making sure building work is delivered in accordance with the building regulations and that engineering solutions protect people and mitigate harm to the built environment in the event of fire.
Our funding will enable the recruitment and training of up to 700 new building inspectors to increase overall capacity, the training of more building inspectors to class 3 to enable them to work on HRBs, and the expansion of masters level education for fire engineers. This takes forward the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, in line with our recently published next steps on fire engineering profession reform.
These announcements form part of a wider programme to keep people safe in the buildings where they live, work and visit. As part of this, a consultation was launched today for fire risk assessors. A separate statement has been laid providing further detail on these proposals.
Our priority remains, as it must, ensuring the collective safety of residents in buildings across the country, while speeding up progress on crucial building work such as cladding remediation and delivering the new homes this country urgently needs.
The consultation on proposed changes to HRB categorisation can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proportionality-in-building-control-categorisation-of-higher-risk-building-work
We will announce further details on availability of the building profession workforce programme funding in due course.
[HCWS1484]
Planning Decisions: National Scheme of Delegation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we must ensure planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications which require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.
At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committee rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers—such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. However, there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system.
It is for this reason that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to allow the Government to introduce a national scheme of delegation. By setting out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision and which should go instead to a planning committee or sub-committee, a national scheme of delegation will ensure greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.
During the passage of the Act, the Government consulted on proposals relating to the delegation of planning functions, the size and composition of planning committees and mandatory training for members of planning committees. We are today publishing the Government response to that consultation.
As required by the Act, I am also publishing today a further consultation on draft regulations which set out the national scheme of delegation and the maximum size of planning committees, and statutory guidance to support local planning authorities in implementing the reforms. This consultation will run until 23 April 2026.
The draft regulations, which were informed by the responses to the earlier consultation, implement the national scheme of delegation through the creation of a two-tier structure. Schedule 1 of the regulations sets out the applications which must be determined by officers in all circumstances. Schedule 2 sets out the applications that are presumed to go to officers unless they meet the criteria specified in the regulations and the nominated officer, usually the head of planning, and nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, agree that they should be referred to committee—the gateway test.
There are separate provisions for applications made by, or on behalf of, a local planning authority itself, or an officer or member of the authority, to be referred to committee where appropriate even if they do not raise any significant planning, economic, social or environmental issues. The draft regulations also set a maximum size limit of 13 members for a planning committee.
Subject to consideration of the responses received to this latest consultation, we will finalise the regulations and associated statutory guidance, which will then be subject to further scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. The Government’s intention is that the regulations will come into effect in Autumn 2026. We continue to work on the arrangements for the mandatory training of committee members, and these will be announced in due course.
[HCWS1481]
Local Audit Backstop: 27 February 2026
(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)
When this Government took office in July 2024, one of our top priorities was to fix the broken local audit system it inherited, which was failing both local bodies and taxpayers alike. Determined to fix the foundations, restore confidence and put the system back on a stable footing, we took decisive action to introduce a series of statutory audit opinion backstop dates in autumn 2024. The backstops have successfully cleared the backlog of unaudited local body accounts and are now restoring a system of timely reporting and assurance. This progress provides a strong platform for rebuilding assurance and delivering wider reforms of the local audit system.
27 February 2026 backstop—financial year 2024-25
Unless exempt, all local bodies in England were required to publish their statement of accounts, including the audit opinion, for 2024-25 by 27 February 2026. The system has taken another significant step forward in returning to timely publication, with over 91% of opinions published by this date. This demonstrates a consistent improvement in timely publication since the introduction of the backstops, up from 84% at the first backstop and 87% at the second backstop. As of 9 March 2026, the publication figure for 2024-25 had subsequently increased to 93%.
Progress on rebuilding assurance
Due to the time constraints of the backstops and in line with expectations, approximately 45% of bodies received a disclaimed opinion at this backstop, and 9% of published opinions have moved from a disclaimed opinion to a qualified opinion. Almost 3% of published opinions demonstrate fully restored assurance by moving to an unqualified opinion. Approximately 44% of bodies received an unmodified opinion, with only a very small number receiving a disclaimed opinion for the first time. This represents encouraging progress, despite the ongoing challenges to rebuilding assurance that I set out in my statement on 2 December 2025.
Non-compliance
In total, 33 non-exempt bodies failed to publish their opinions by the backstop. A list of these bodies has been published on gov.uk, including where opinions were published shortly after the backstop.
Publication of prior-year opinions
In December 2025, I also provided an update on the status of the publication of audit opinions up to and including 2023-24. Since this update, further outstanding opinions for these years continue to be published as factors preventing the issuance of opinions are resolved. Over 99% of opinions have now been published for financial years outstanding, and 97% for financial years up to 2023-24. The non-compliance lists for the two previous backstops have also been updated.
The Department continues to engage with bodies with outstanding opinions to ensure that they are published as soon as practicable, and it will not hesitate to take further action with bodies demonstrating a pattern of continued non-compliance.
Looking ahead to the 31 January 2026 backstop for 2025-26 accounts
The deadline for publication of audited accounts for the financial year 2025-26 is 31 January 2027. In line with amendments made to the accounts and audit regulations 2015, bodies are required to publish their draft accounts for this financial year by 30 June 2026.
My Department will continue to work proactively and co-operatively with local bodies and audit firms to support a return to timely account publication and to drive the system-wide rebuilding of assurance.
[HCWS1474]
Prison Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am today confirming the Government’s decision on the pay award for prison staff.
Prison service pay award 2026-27
Having carefully considered the 12 recommendations made by the Prison Service Pay Review Body for the 2026-27 pay award, I can announce that we are accepting in full the recommendations made by the PSPRB for all staff within its remit.
Prison service staff are some of our finest public servants. The role that prison staff play in keeping communities safe and supporting rehabilitation is crucial. Accepting these recommendations in full reflects our commitment to ensure that prison staff are able to continue delivering this essential frontline service. This also recognises the unwavering dedication of our prison staff, whose work is largely out of view of the public, but is vital for those under their care and to keep the public safe.
The award will deliver a pay rise of at least 3.5% of base pay for all eligible prison staff between operational support grade and governors—bands 2 to 11—with a targeted focus on the lowest paid.
The award delivers headline pay increases of:
3.5% for prison officer grades (bands 3 to 5)
3.5% for managerial and prison governor grades (bands 7 to 12)
3.5% increase for operational support grades (band 2), in addition to the national living wage increase that band 2 staff received from 1 April 2026. Operational support grades will continue to receive a temporary increase at 25% of base pay until publication of the 2027 report. This is while we finalise work to agree an appropriate permanent approach to unsocial hours working, noting however that the departmental and Government budgets and affordability position for the coming years are not yet known.
This pay award will be paid by the end of June, and will be backdated to 1 April 2026.
Against a backdrop of tight public finances, the Government have had to make tough choices across public spending. Within this context, the Ministry of Justice will fund this award from existing budgets and will require continued prioritisation across the Department’s spending plans.
This Government recognise the essential role played by the more than 6 million public sector workers across the UK, who provide the public services we all rely upon. Accepting the PSPRB’s recommendations is expected to further stabilise the recruitment and retention position in the prison service. This is vital to ensure that prisons have the staff they need to deal with an increasing population and ageing estate.
I would like to thank the PSPRB for their valuable advice and response to the Government’s evidence.
The report has been laid before Parliament today. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for their report.
[HCWS1463]
Third Road Investment Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government will today publish the third road investment strategy. Backed by over £27 billion of investment over five years, this will support our drive to deliver the biggest overhaul to transport in a generation.
The investment delivers on the Government’s ambition to kick-start economic growth, supporting living standards and jobs. The roads that form our strategic road network are the key economic arteries which keep people and goods moving throughout the country. Keeping them flowing supports mobility and jobs, and helps to boost essential sectors like manufacturing, construction and retail. Overall, RIS3 is expected to support tens of thousands of jobs, bolstering supply chains across the nation and helping British businesses.
The strategic road network is a critical national asset, and our priority is to ensure that it remains a network which people and businesses can rely on for decades to come. RIS3 therefore includes an unprecedented £8.4 billion of investment in renewals to strengthen the performance and long-term resilience of the network through replacing structures and worn-out road surfaces, as well as modernising roadside technology to support safe, smooth journeys.
It also includes £3.8 billion of targeted enhancements to tackle pinch points and unlock national, regional, and local economic growth and housing opportunities. These improvements will benefit the whole economy, tackling capacity issues as well as improving safety and journey time reliability.
In the north, the strategy commits over £4.4 billion to key enhancement and renewal schemes. This will support the Government’s northern growth strategy and complement investment across other modes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail. Enhancement schemes include upgrades to the A66 northern trans-Pennine route, which plays an essential role in connecting people and places across the north and is critical for freight and links to international ports.
The midlands is at the heart of the country’s connectivity, and investment to upgrade the A46 at Newark will support sectors such as logistics and manufacturing, which are dominant in the local economy and reliant on roads for growth, as well as improving access to Humber ports.
Elsewhere, the lower Thames crossing will be the most significant road-building scheme in a generation. It will provide a significant boost to the UK economy, easing congestion at the Dartford crossing, strengthening connectivity across the UK to major ports, and improving resilience and reliability for all road users.
RIS3 will contribute to the ambitions set out in the recently published road safety strategy to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads across Great Britain. It includes a safety national programme to deliver targeted safety improvements on major A roads with poor safety performance such as the A1 between Morpeth and Scotland, and it sets National Highways a stretching target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads.
It also includes a small schemes national programme aimed at reducing congestion to unlock economic growth, and a new growth and housing accelerator fund to help unlock development sites where infrastructure is currently a constraint.
It balances the requirements of the network with our obligations to the environment, and includes programmes to improve water quality, reduce noise exposure and support biodiversity, as well as to tackle air quality issues on the network. It includes a performance indicator for National Highways on litter collection, and includes a commitment to explore options to give National Highways new powers as a litter enforcement authority when parliamentary time permits.
Major road network and large local majors programme
I am also today making an announcement on schemes in the major road network and large local majors programme, further to my statement to the House on 8 July 2025. The previous Government left us with an unrealistic and unaffordable programme of schemes which we have had to review in the best interests of local and national taxpayers.
I am today able to confirm that my Department will continue to support 16 of these schemes across the country, with the details set out on gov.uk. In total this represents a Government funding commitment of around £1 billion, subject to each scheme securing the necessary business case and other approvals in due course. Each of these schemes has the potential to deliver benefits such as unlocking housing and economic growth and reducing congestion at key locations. Funding for each will be conditional on their satisfying the Department that they have an acceptable business case.
Many of the other schemes that formed part of the review are being withdrawn on the grounds that the local authority can no longer afford its funding contribution, and my Department is confirming the details of these with the relevant authorities. In respect of the remaining schemes, the Department is finalising the way forward and will announce next steps in the early summer.
[HCWS1466]
Incomes and Living Standards: Statistics Release
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Department for Work and Pensions has today published its annual statistics on incomes and living standards covering 2024-25—the last three months of the previous Government as well as the first nine months of this Government.
These include households below average income statistics, which contain estimates of household incomes and a range of poverty rates and low-income indicators for 2024-25, derived from the family resources survey.
Further publications in today’s release are: income dynamics; the pensioners’ incomes series; children in low-income families; improving lives indicators; separated families statistics; and the family resources survey. These publications cover the four statutory measures of child poverty required to be published by the DWP under the Child Poverty Act 2010.
Accurate data is fundamental to making effective policy interventions to support low-income households and allows us to track and to be accountable for the progress we make. In 2024-25, we have therefore made two important methodological changes that improve the accuracy of the HBAI statistics.
For 2024-25, we have for the first time been able to link HBAI survey responses to benefits administrative data following several years of work started under the previous Government. This means that our statistics now address the fact that survey respondents, for a variety of reasons, do not always report their benefit income accurately, with people more likely to under-report rather than over-report their income. This improvement in methodology produces reduced overall rates of poverty as people in low income generally receive a greater proportion of their income from benefits.
The improved methodology has also been applied to all years from 2021-22, enabling consistent comparisons over the most recent years.
For the statistics released today, the baseline year for absolute poverty has been updated from 2010-11 to 2024-25. The baseline year is updated every 10 to 15 years to ensure it remains relevant to modern-day incomes. This change increases the reported level of absolute poverty while leaving key trends unchanged.
The proportion of individuals living in relative poverty after housing costs in 2024-25 was 20%, unchanged from 2023-24. Within this, the proportions of working age adults and of children living in relative poverty were also unchanged, at 19% and 27% respectively. However, the relative poverty rate for pensioners increased to 14%, compared with 12% in 2023-24.
The percentage of children in food insecure households has decreased from 18% to 14%, with 2 million children overall living in a food insecure household in 2024-25. For working age adults, the food insecurity rate fell from 11% to 9%, whereas for pensioners it remained stable at 3%. The number of individuals in households that had accessed a food bank in the previous 12 months fell from 2.8 million to 2.5 million, around 4% of the population.
These high inherited levels of poverty and food insecurity are wholly unacceptable and, since we first came into government, we have taken robust action to change the course we are on, drive down poverty and deliver lasting change for the millions of families whose lives are damaged by poverty now and in the future.
In December, we published our UK-wide child poverty strategy. This represents our first step towards ending child poverty and will lift 550,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs in 2029-30; this will lead to the largest reduction in a single UK Parliament since comparable records began. The removal of the two-child limit from April alone will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in the last year of this Parliament. Alongside this, we are putting in place robust arrangements to ensure that we can continue to build on our success as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change.
We know that getting more people into better jobs is crucial to reducing poverty and improving living standards, as well as to the UK’s future economic prosperity. Through the proposals in our Get Britain Working strategy, we are driving forward the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, with funding of £3.8 billion by 2028-29, to help more people into work and to get on in work.
Alongside this, we have taken substantive action to support those on the lowest incomes, including:
Boosting the national living wage, which will increase again to £12.71 an hour from next month—an increase of £900 a year for a full-time worker.
Introducing a fair repayment rate for deductions from universal credit from April 2025, allowing 1.2 million of the poorest households to retain more of their award.
From next month, introducing the first sustained above-inflation rise in the basic rate of universal credit since it was introduced, with just under 4 million households benefiting from our decision to increase the universal credit standard allowance.
Providing a £1 billion package, including Barnett, to reform crisis support in England from April—the first ever multi-year settlement for crisis support.
Despite having to make the tough decisions to deal with our fiscal inheritance, this Government remain absolutely committed to giving pensioners the security they deserve in retirement. The basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.8% in April, benefiting over 12 million pensioners by up to £575, and our commitment to protect the triple lock means that annual spending on state pensions is forecast to be an estimated £30 billion more a year by the end of this Parliament. Alongside this, we are delivering the biggest ever drive to increase pension credit take-up, which has seen some 208,900 applications received in 2025, with nearly 33,500 extra pension credit awards compared with 2024.
[HCWS1465]
House of Lords
AI Growth Lab
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward any legislation required to establish their proposed AI growth lab.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register as adviser to Endava plc, the Crown Estate, Submer Ltd and Simmons & Simmons LLP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The AI growth lab is a regulatory sandbox designed to accelerate AI innovation and adoption across the UK in a supervised and safe setting. In the recent call for evidence, we asked for views on how best to operationalise the AI growth lab. Responses are being carefully considered in ongoing policy development and will inform forthcoming legislation that we intend to bring forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the AI growth lab is an excellent intervention. We have a great tradition in this country of sandboxes, and this follows on from there. It will require primary legislation, and it is not alone in that: there is an increasing number of areas where the Government say they want to act in terms of AI, all of which will require primary legislation. Rather than taking a bit by bit, Bill by Bill approach, does the Minister not agree that clarity, consistency and coherence will be better served by bringing forward a cross-sector AI Bill that would be good for the citizen, the creative, the consumer, the innovator and the investor? Will the Government take the opportunity of the upcoming King’s Speech to bring forward such a Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord has a great deal of expertise in this area and, as he knows very well, AI is a technology that has many different applications. We are committed to a context-based regulatory approach where most AI systems are regulated at the point of use. As a novel technology, it can develop in areas which cross regulatory barriers or give particular opportunities for new product and service development. That is the reason for the AI growth lab, which will model a new approach to regulation, with the power to make rapid temporary amendments to regulation to safely test and prove application. As the noble Lord says, the UK’s experience of sandboxes is emulated around the world.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, any AI growth in this country will depend on trust between tech companies and content rights holders. This will depend on robust transparency requirements being created, and quickly. However, the Government, in their report on AI and copyright last week, said they were going to sit on their hands and monitor the effects of transparency rules in other countries. Why is this country not taking the lead on this crucial issue to create a world-class, transparent copyright system for AI development?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As the noble Viscount knows, we published our report and impact assessment on AI and copyright and we have outlined three or four specific areas we will be taking forward, including digital replicas, AI labelling and looking at mechanisms for creatives to control their works online. It is clear that we need to keep considering the approach and we have not as yet found a solution that will address all the concerns.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Government have conspicuously rebranded their AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute and have been shifting their language from “safety” to “growth”. Can the Minister confirm that safety obligations will be among the regulatory red lines that can never be modified in the sandbox, and, if safety is genuinely protected, why are the Government so reluctant to bring forward safety duties in a proper AI Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
There will indeed be safeguards built into the AI growth lab. Modification powers would operate with robust safeguards to protect fundamental rights and safety. The lab’s design must balance the need for rapid reform and, as both noble Lords have mentioned, the importance of retaining public trust and confidence in the UK’s high regulatory standards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the need for proportionate regulation in this area, particularly because the UK already has considerable investment and wishes to see more investment in the future. But there is one area, superintelligent AI, where there is the potential for loss of control, particularly over defence and security systems, and where some legislation is required to prevent some of these developments. In taking this forward, will the Government consider this?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The specific proposals around the AI growth lab are separate from considerations on the development of superintelligent AI and the risks that poses. We are extremely fortunate in the UK to benefit from the AI Security Institute, which is testing those models and is also able to advise the Government, and indeed the wider economy and all market participants, on the risks that superintelligent AI may pose. As we speak today, it is uncertain exactly what some of those risks are.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, we have had a plethora of initiatives on AI. We had the welcome announcement of the sovereign AI fund last week. All of them are welcome individually: Innovate UK, ARIA, the AI Security Institute, the British Business Bank, and the National Wealth Fund. Could we perhaps have a moratorium on announcements of AI initiatives and perhaps an overview and co-ordination of this plethora of bodies?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
In our AI opportunities action plan we have indeed set out a plethora. That is because this is a technology that provides great potential benefits, and adoption is absolutely key. We need all areas of the economy to be thinking about the implications. We are a heavily service-based economy and it is very much in our future interests to adopt this technology and harness its benefits, whether that is in healthcare, energy efficiency or many other areas. So we will continue to focus on all areas of the development of AI, from data centres to regulation.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, my experience as Health Minister in this space is that we have fantastic innovation and fantastic pilots: the joke in the NHS is that the NHS has more pilots than British Airways. But the challenge is always the scale-up funding and, because that scale-up funding is not there, we then lose the best to America. The problem is that the AI budgets are all fragmented across hundreds of different hospitals. What are we doing to centralise those budgets so that we have the firepower to truly scale them and not lose our best British innovation to America?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Building on both noble Lords’ recent questions, we need to look across the whole of the economy. There will be a great amount of private investment going in, as well as investment from our public financial institutions. We are also thinking about how we can harness the benefit of sovereign AI here in the UK, and we are making a particular effort to think about where our sovereign AI fund is going to invest, so that the UK can benefit British frontier AI companies, not seeking total self-reliance but to build and defend comparative advantage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am no AI expert, as my colleagues will tell you, but I do know something about environmental devastation, and AI growth is going to impact very strongly on environmental issues. So, as well as the huge AI Bill that my noble friend Lord Holmes is suggesting happens, is there going to be new legislation to actually make sure that we achieve our climate goals?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The purpose of the AI growth lab is to provide a sandbox so that we can harness some of the novel uses. Those novel uses might for example be in energy efficiency, or water efficiency. There are many ways in which AI can be harnessed to minimise environmental impacts. We are cognisant of the potential sustainability challenges from the energy demands of data centres or other areas. That is why we have set up the AI energy council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, bringing leaders together to think about how we move forward sustainably and take up the promise of AI, while keeping to our net-zero goals.
Antisemitism in International Human Rights Bodies
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to coordinate with international partners to address the proliferation of antisemitism in international human rights bodies, as reported by organisations such as UN Watch and NGO Monitor.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, after the heinous events in north London just a few days ago, we must state once more that antisemitism has no place in our or any society. This Government are committed to stamping it out wherever and however it occurs, both in the UK and around the world. At the UN, OSCE and other multilateral fora, we consistently speak out against antisemitism and co-ordinate effective action to combat it in collaboration with international partners. This includes raising concerns directly at senior levels when they arise.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that two Questions this morning have to deal with antisemitism—I never thought it would come to this. Unfortunately, the United Nations and other bodies, such as Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Council, treat Israel—and have done for a long time—as the emblem of everything that is bad in the world, making no distinction between Jews and the state. For example, the resolutions they have passed over the last few years greatly outweigh resolutions on any other state. The epitome of this perversion is Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, whose antisemitic comments verge on the deranged, blaming Mossad for the Charlie Hebdo murders, comparing Israel with the Third Reich and calling it the common enemy of humanity, and saying the BBC is an Israel lobby. Will the UK join France, Germany, Czech and Austria in calling for her dismissal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness is saying and it is true. I agree that Francesca Albanese has a history of making inflammatory comments such as this. Although special rapporteurs do not represent the UN, they are associated with the UN. We understand that they are independent, but it matters, and we have raised these concerns directly. The right way for this to be done is that special rapporteurs need to have objectivity and credibility. Where there are concerns, the comments that have been made need to be tested against the code of conduct, and then appropriate decisions ought to be taken.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself totally with the Minister’s remarks about the fight against antisemitism, both in the UK and internationally. On specific action with international partners, she will know that the previous Government, in 2023, together with the United Arab Emirates, passed Resolution 2686, which targeted the issues of antisemitism, Islamophobia and, importantly, the persecution of and hate against Christians globally. That is the kind of collaboration we need. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that we will continue to collaborate with international partners on specific initiatives such as those.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I meet regularly with our FORB envoy, David Smith, and support him very much in the work that he is doing around the world on this. I acknowledge, as I find myself doing very frequently at the Dispatch Box, the work that the noble Lord led in his time in the Foreign Office.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is often difficult to draw the appropriate line between legitimate criticism of Israel—for example, in relation to Gaza and Iran—and antisemitism? Will she agree to undertake robustly to challenge any state that goes beyond that line into antisemitism?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not find it difficult to draw the line between criticism of the State of Israel and antisemitism. I have expressed my concerns on the record around some of the problems with access of aid into Gaza, for example, and other issues over time. At no point does this criticism ever get anywhere near anything that could be described as antisemitic. People who do not know the difference need to educate themselves, and it is their responsibility to make sure that any comments they make could never be interpreted as being antisemitic. It is perfectly possible to hold strong views about the Middle East without being antisemitic. We need to be clear about that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is disturbing that Jewish individuals and communities feel themselves vulnerable to attacks, threats, criticisms and abuse. It is absolutely right, especially if it comes from within international organisations that we support, that we call it out, condemn it and show solidarity to the community. I echo the words that have been said. There is legitimate criticism of Israel, and it is perfectly possible to criticise. I chaired two committee reports that were very critical of Israel. Never did we stray anywhere near antisemitism. Criticism of Israel should never be justification for making antisemitic remarks. The State of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community are different and separate, and can always be kept separate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I broadly agree with the comments of the noble Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, as noble Lords have said, we should all be deeply concerned by the resurgence of antisemitism around the world. We must all unequivocally condemn the sickening recent incidents in our own country. The definition of antisemitism agreed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is widely, though not universally, accepted, including by our own Government. It has also been adopted by the Church of England. Attached to that definition is a list of 11 possible examples of contemporary antisemitism, of which seven reference attitudes to the State of Israel. Would the Minister agree that one-sided, simplistic or inaccurate accounts of what is a complex and contested situation in Israel-Palestine can fuel the growth of antisemitism and other forms of religious hatred, including in our own country? If so, what support are His Majesty’s Government able to give to interfaith organisations that seek to present more balanced views and to encourage dialogue and learning around these difficult issues?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Interfaith organisations have an important role to play in this area and in many others, too. The Government are willing to, and do, work alongside many interfaith organisations in this endeavour.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, recently, the Health Secretary introduced welcome powers to dismiss antisemitic medics. Will the Government consider applying similar provisions to international organisations that we fund?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not aware of any international organisation that we fund where we have direct capability to hire and fire. That is not how multilateral organisations tend to work. As I have said, we raise concerns directly and openly about the conduct of individuals, as and when that is the right thing to do. We will continue to work in that way.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next and then the Labour Benches.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the UN Human Rights Council has placed a disproportionate focus on Israel over the years? If she does accept that, what will the Government do to genuinely combat the institutional antisemitism that that can entrench?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As my friend the noble Lord will know, we are opposed to item 7 in the Human Rights Council, and we will use our leadership to try to persuade others that that is not an appropriate item to have. That is probably what he is getting at, and I suspect we probably agree.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, we were the first country in the world to adopt the IHRA definition. We are regarded by many countries, in some areas, as being world-leading in how we tackle antisemitism, not least in the way in which we have succeeded in working on a cross-party basis for the last two decades in challenging antisemitism, unlike many other countries. The Foreign Office has often been a little shy in briefing our embassies and commissions abroad on some of our successes. Could it perhaps be encouraged to do more in letting our representatives abroad know what some of our successes are, so that we can have an honest dialogue, about both successes and failures, show others what we are doing well and learn from others?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not detected and was not aware of the timidity that the noble Lord alluded to. I am very happy to have further conversations on how we can appropriately talk with our allies and partners around the world about the work we have done.
HBOS: Fraud Investigation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of Lloyds Bank’s investigation of fraud at HBOS; and when they expect Dame Linda Dobbs’s review of the fraud to be completed and published.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in 2017, Lloyds Banking Group independently launched the Dobbs review to assess the handling of the fraud, which took place in the early 2000s, and to determine what it knew or should have known and whether it reported it appropriately to the regulatory authorities. The Government understand that drafting is under way, and the review’s findings will be shared with the Financial Conduct Authority once completed, which will then consider what actions are appropriate to take.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It would be helpful to have a bit of background. Fraud at HBOS goes back to 2002. The regulators did little. In 2017, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner secured six criminal convictions. Still the FCA, SFO and the police did not fully investigate. The Government left it to Lloyds Bank, which owns HBOS and which then appointed Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and prepare a report. There has been no report to date. Victims are still awaiting compensation, and many have died since. Does the Minister agree that it is a government duty to deliver justice to victims of bank fraud?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government share the frustration at how long processes relating to this issue are taking to conclude. In 2017, Lloyds Banking Group independently launched the Dobbs review to assess the handling of the fraud, what it knew or should have known, and whether it reported it appropriately to the regulatory authorities. The noble Lord mentioned the FCA. The FCA has undertaken an investigation into this matter historically and has taken enforcement actions. The FCA previously investigated and, with the PRA, jointly reported on the failure of HBOS. There was a criminal investigation resulting in six convictions in 2017. The FCA investigated knowledge of these matters with HBOS and its communications with the FCA after the initial discovery of the misconduct. Lloyds Banking Group has informed the Government that it is providing all the assistance and resources that Dame Linda and the review have requested, and that drafting is under way. It has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate with Parliament. The Government inherited a series of processes that are independent of government and not accountable to us or the FCA. With our having inherited that legacy, it is right that the Dobbs review, alongside the work of Sir David Foskett, is allowed to conclude.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to press the Minister to take a stronger position on this issue, which was £1 billion of criminal financial manipulation by HBOS Lloyds. The FCA spectacularly failed to investigate, initiating a report only under strenuous insistence from Vince Cable. It then misrepresented, to this House and others, the conclusions of that report—as was exposed when the original document was leaked to the Treasury Select Committee. Given all that, will the Government now back Dame Meg Hillier, who has demanded that when this report is completed, it is published in full and unredacted, which is not the position that Lloyds appears to be taking?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said before, the Government inherited a series of processes that are independent of government and not accountable to us or the FCA. With our having inherited that legacy, it is right that the Dobbs review, alongside the work of Sir David Foskett, is allowed to conclude. Lloyds Banking Group has informed the Government that it is providing all the assistance and resources that Dame Linda and the review have requested and that drafting is under way. It has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate fully with Parliament.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Will the Government reconsider their decision not to publish the report in full? I fully support what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has said. I chaired the Treasury Select Committee through a substantial period during which these issues developed. It really is wholly unacceptable, so long after the development and exposure of this fraud, that people are not receiving compensation. We now need the publication and full transparency of that report.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have previously said, Lloyds Banking Group has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate fully with Parliament. The noble Lord mentioned compensation. As I understand it, the independent Foskett Panel was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020, in part following engagement with the FCA and the Treasury, to determine the right level of compensation in individual cases. That review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled compensation for the majority of victims, but there are a few outstanding cases and I very much hope that this work will conclude in the near future.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the victims of this incredible £1 billion HBOS fraud will have the opportunity to challenge and correct the published version of the Dobbs review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid I do not know the answer to my noble friend’s question. I will very happily check and write to him in due course.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the truth is that this was an appalling state of affairs, with many small and medium enterprises driven into insolvency as a result of the HBOS Reading fraud. Following the 2017 convictions which the Minister has mentioned, courts made several Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation orders—for example, a £10 million order against David and Alison Mills—yet their criminal benefit was assessed to be far higher, at around £69 million. Can the Minister tell us how much has been recovered and returned to victims to date? Will the Minister commit to a victim-first distribution plan for any further recoveries?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said to the House previously, the independent Foskett Panel was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020, in part following engagement with the FCA and Treasury, to determine the right level of compensation in individual cases. As I said before, the review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled the compensation for the majority of victims, although there are a few outstanding cases. I hope this work will be able to conclude in the near future.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I speak as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. The Government have placed considerable reliance on developing financial services as an engine of growth in our economy. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that transparent and clear anti-fraud activity is an essential element and that any doubts about the effectiveness of our anti-fraud policy will weaken the opportunities open to us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, the extent of the pain and problems caused by this fraud should not be underestimated. Somewhat oddly, it only really came to light because of the work of the Thames Valley Police. We really do need to get better on this.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is far more expert in these matters than me, and I think I agree with what he said. As I said, the Government share the frustration at how long processes related to this issue are taking to conclude. We very much hope that the findings of Dame Linda Dobbs’ review will be available very shortly. My noble friend mentioned the importance of the financial services sector, and I would like to reiterate that. The financial services sector is critical to the ambitions of our country; it is one of the largest and most productive sectors of the UK, worth around 9% of total economic output, employing 1.2 million people across the UK. So, I very much endorse what my noble friend says.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Does the Minister accept that some of the difficult political challenges facing western societies today are a consequence of the destruction of the faith that people have in the effectiveness and fairness of the socio-political economic model following the financial crash of 2007 and the economic consequences? Therefore, issues such as the HBOS scandal are not just one-offs; they are not just a matter of dealing with certain financial consequences. If, as a society, we do not clearly address these things, the difficult political challenges that we currently see will continue and, indeed, get worse.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is very difficult to disagree with what the noble and gallant Lord says, and I am sure I agree with much of it. Substantial protections were put in place in terms of financial services after the financial crisis that he described, and those protections remain; that is, adherence to international standards, ensuring robust NRA remains in place, commitment to ring-fencing and the new FPC, FCA and PRA—that whole architecture. The reforms that were put in place post financial crisis are incredibly important in ensuring ongoing confidence in our financial services sector.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister now answer the question from the Conservative Front Bench? How much money has been got back from the fraudsters and how much of that has ended up with the victims of this appalling crime?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said before, that is a matter for the independent Foskett Panel, which was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020. The review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled the compensation for the majority of victims, although there are, of course, a few outstanding cases. I hope this work will be able to conclude in the very near future.
Golders Green Ambulance Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the antisemitic arson attack on ambulances in Golders Green, and what steps they are taking to protect Jewish communities from similar attacks in the future.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the police are in the early stages of their investigation. They have arrested two British nationals, who are now on bail, and the police are looking at possible motivation. I cannot speculate further at this time. The Government have supported the Jewish community with record levels of security funding, police support, and clear action to root out antisemitism wherever it appears.
Lord Polak (Con)
I thank the Minister, but as we celebrate Passover next week, the ancient festival of freedom, it is shocking that the Jewish community needs help to enjoy that freedom in 2026. Over the past weeks, I have stood in this place and spoken of the Golders Green ambulance attack, antisemitism on campus, 20 failed IRGC plots, proscribing the IRGC, West Midlands police lies, BBC antisemitism, proscribing the IRGC again, hate marches, and the deadly terrorist attack in Manchester. I am not sure whether noble Lords have noticed a pattern. The Jewish community is being intimidated and terrorised at home, here in the UK. I ask the Minister just one question: can he name any other community that is obliged to have professional guards and enhanced security systems to protect all its places of worship, all its schools and all its communal buildings?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that I think the attacks he has listed are vile crimes. Some are still under investigation, but they are vile crimes and there is absolutely no place in this United Kingdom for antisemitism. There is a range of other communities which regularly face attack, but I share his concern that the Jewish community is being singled out. In this Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, we will take a stand against antisemitism, we will not tolerate it, and we will take steps both to protect the Jewish community and ultimately to drive out the causes of those attacks in the first place.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I must first declare an interest in that Hatzola, which runs the ambulances, came to my home when my wife broke her leg, and it came to my home when I fell down and was unconscious, and took me to hospital. It is a Jewish organisation but it does not help only Jews. I have been in Golders Green, the area we are talking about, when a woman fell down in the middle of the street, and Hatzola came to deal with it. There was a man lying prone on the pavement, of who knows what religion, and Hatzola came to help him. This is a charitable organisation. I ask the Minister this question with great reluctance, because I have always said we must not conflate the things that happen in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza with what happens in the UK, but is there not a similarity between these attacks on the ambulances in Golders Green and the Hamas attacks on the peaceful settlements of kibbutzim in southern Israel? Is there not a playbook here, where Jews in Israel and the UK are being targeted? Can the Minister ask the police authorities whether Hamas is active in the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First of all, I share the noble Lord’s concern about the attack and about the damage that was done. In response to that damage, the Government have replaced those four ambulances that were burned and will help support that organisation in future to rebuild the types of services that the noble Lord referred to so that we can have a continuum of support in that way. I hope the House will recognise that I cannot comment on the motivation of the attack. Two individuals have been arrested and they are on bail. We do not know what their motivation was, but I say to the noble Lord that antisemitism, whether in Israel or in the United Kingdom, is a vile action. It needs to be attacked and shown up for what it is, and the Government, both at home and abroad, as my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned earlier, will take action to ensure that we drive it out. We can of course attack the State of Israel and its policies but antisemitism is an entirely different thing, and I share the noble Lord’s concern on that matter.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question, but first I must commend the actions of my former colleagues in tackling this terrible incident—this vile attack on the Jewish community in London—because they faced great danger and difficulty in doing so; having spoken to them, I am sure of that. My question is focused on, and builds on, the question from the right reverend Prelate: what is the Home Office doing in combination with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in interfaith work? My experience in these matters is that after events escalated in the Middle East, in the London Fire Brigade and in the Metropolitan Police we saw an extraordinary rise in physical attacks on both the Jewish and Muslim communities, almost in parallel. Our view as professionals in the security and safety space was that more work needed to be done to generate co-operation and mutual understanding and to counter some of the vile politics, antisemitism and Islamophobia that we were seeing played out in the most awful way in physical attacks on the streets. What are we doing in the interfaith space to support local community groups, which very often do great work but not always with the resources they need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right to praise the emergency services that responded to the event, because they do not know what they are walking into at the time of an attack. The Government are very keen to support, and are doing a lot of good work through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with the Home Office and others, to encourage, that genuine interfaith co-operation, so that faiths understand and support each other and the division between Jew, Christian and Muslim is not one that is reflected by the community at large, and so that they put resilience in place to help give support after incidents such as this across community bases.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition I too express my absolute horror at the antisemitic arson attack in Golders Green, which was an abhorrent attack on community ambulances provided by a peaceful volunteer-led service. Unfortunately, this is what happens when we have slogans such as “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea” aired so publicly on our streets. In light of this, what action will the Government take to choke off the rising tide of antisemitism, particularly arising from Islamist extremism? Will the Government perhaps now act to outlaw and proscribe the IRGC, which we asked for in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have taken very strong action and recently published Protecting What Matters. That will include, for example, specialist disruption units to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK. We are looking at giving state threats designation powers, which is another form of proscription, in relation to a range of bodies. We are also increasing efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists both entering the UK and using platforms outside the UK to influence activity as a whole. The noble Lord knows that we keep the IRGC proscription under review, but that also does not mean that we do not take sanctions against the Iranian regime and very strong measures generally. But the review is ongoing, and we will never trail any proscription that we finally undertake.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next and then we will come back to my noble friend on the Labour Benches.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the Minister’s assessment that this was a vile attack on the Jewish community. As a Christian, I stand in solidarity with that Jewish community today. Does the Minister agree with me that the growth of extremism and indeed the continued glorification and normalisation of terrorism in our society lead to attacks such as these, particularly with the impressionable young people who listen to these chants all the time and are influenced by them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We should never glorify terrorism. I know that we have had debate on this in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are still reflecting on points that the noble Baroness has mentioned. It is important that the Government and every individual citizen make a stand against antisemitism and extremism. We will do that, and I hope that I will have the support of the House in trying to devise policies to put that into practice.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, we know from our security services that they have so far foiled at least 20 Iranian-backed, potentially lethal plots against the Jewish community on British soil in recent years. On Monday, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia claimed responsibility online for the attack on the Hatzola ambulances, the veracity of which I know is under investigation. Can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the extent, nature and severity of the Iranian threat against the British Jewish community?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We recognise that the Iranian state is a malign influence, and we have taken steps to sanction individuals and prevent them entering the United Kingdom, and, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we keep the issue of proscription under review at all times. We have also given £28 million to the Jewish community to help protect synagogues and schools, and we will keep that under review. In addition, as my noble friend mentioned, the security services are active, day in, day out, in order to take intelligence-led action against potential plots against the Jewish community, and indeed in other areas of our society. This is an existential threat and the Government will take action when it is needed. However, we keep the issue of proscription under review as to whether that is an effective way of supporting our security services in achieving the objectives that we all want, which are that people from the Jewish community—to go back to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Polak—have a right to enjoy their religion and their community and to live safely in the United Kingdom like anybody else.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a pre-recess treat, I will update the House on planned recess dates. I have already announced most recess dates until Christmas this year. I will now add those for the short November weekend, when the plan is to rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Monday 9 November.
I am delighted to update noble Lords with the plan for the February and Easter Recesses of 2027. To save noble Lords from hurrying to write these down, my office has arranged a notice to be in the usual places with all recess dates. I will shortly email all noble Lords. Subject to the usual caveat of the progress of business, the House will be adjourned as follows: in February 2027, we will adjourn the House at the end of business on Thursday 11 February and return on Monday 22 February. For Easter Recess, we will adjourn at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 March and return on Monday 12 April. I hope that noble Lords will find this helpful in planning, especially for booking well-deserved holidays and meeting family and friends.
I thank all noble Lords and staff for a productive term. We have concluded a range of important business. I am grateful to the whole House for facilitating the vital scrutiny that we undertake. Finally, noble Lords may also note that the Leader of the House of Commons has just confirmed in the other place that State Opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 13 May. Noble Lords will get further information on the arrangements from Black Rod’s Office in due course. We will return in April for the last few sitting weeks of this Session. Before I am asked, I should say that the date of Prorogation will be announced in the usual way, subject to the conclusion of business. I wish everyone a restful and well-deserved Easter Recess.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 April to enable the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill and Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, for the third time in as many weeks, the Chancellor came before the other place on Tuesday and once again delivered a Statement remarkable only for its lack of substance.
I welcome the confirmation respecting nuclear power, including the implementation of the Fingleton review, which should help to accelerate construction. The references to relations with the EU are less convincing. What price will we be expected to pay for these supposed benefits? The Government’s history of giving in unnecessarily to the EU does not give confidence. We are also suspicious of claims about the need for new powers regarding alleged price-gouging. This smacks of playing to a not very well-informed gallery, but what exactly do the Government intend here?
The Chancellor has praised countries such as Norway and Canada for increasing oil and gas production and for playing their part in securing energy supplies during a time of conflict. Yet here at home the Government refuse to do the same. The Energy Secretary continues to block increased production in the North Sea, so the Government applaud others for strengthening their energy security while wilfully weakening our own. That is pure masochism.
We could scarcely be entering this crisis in a weaker position. We face the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world, with consumer prices not far behind. Just today, the OECD has said that the war in the Middle East will hit UK growth hardest of all, with inflation set to accelerate. The Government speak of reducing dependence on energy imports, yet their own actions are driving us in precisely the opposite direction. That is a self-inflicted vulnerability.
This is a dangerous position to be in. I gently say to the Minister that the public will not thank the Government for ideological gestures; they will expect practical action to secure our energy future. It ought not to be beyond the wit of government to expand green energy supplies while also sustaining supply through oil and gas—which we will simply import more of if we do not produce it at home.
I will also briefly mention the defence investment plan. It was very unedifying to see the Prime Minister discomforted when he was asked about it at the most recent Liaison Committee meeting. On Tuesday, the Defence Select Committee heard from industry leaders that without the defence investment plan—which is now well overdue—some defence manufacturers are going bust, while others have been left in “paralysis” and “bleeding cash”. The plan was originally expected last autumn, but it has been repeatedly postponed, despite repeated warnings that our Armed Forces face a £28 billion funding gap. When will we see the plan?
The Chancellor said that her response to the crisis in the Middle East would be “responsive” and “responsible”. What on earth is responsible about this: a refusal to agree a defence funding plan when the MoD faces a £28 billion black hole, British defence firms going under—and all at a moment of acute global instability, when our sovereign territory has been attacked and our citizens are being threatened at home?
Our economic and defence situation is perilous. Gilt yields are at levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Inflation and employment are disturbingly high. Our defences are in a mess. Taxes, borrowing and spending are at record levels and interest rates are going the wrong way. No wonder a respected commentator said this week that he had never been so concerned that the person nominally in charge of the economy—the Chancellor—was manifestly out of their depth. We need better than this.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, if this war with Iran continues, and especially if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed as we approach autumn, the global economy will be in serious trouble and the crisis will impact severely—directly on energy prices and, more broadly, on the cost of living. There was far too little in the Chancellor’s speech to give ordinary folk, never mind the markets, real reassurance. People are not naive. Simply to repeat the steps that the Government planned for the economy anyway in the pre-Iran war world is not sufficient.
The Chancellor indicated that any support beyond changes that are already in the system would be targeted at those who are most in need. What does that mean? Is it limited to the 6 million people who claim welfare or pension credit? Is it correct that the Treasury lacks the capacity to identify and assist those who do not qualify for those benefits but are still very low earners? What should the earnings threshold be for support? Will the Chancellor act immediately to, at the very least, zero-rate VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas? Will she introduce a proper price-cap mechanism for off-grid fuels? Will the Government also reverse their senseless cuts to home insulation programmes, which will be important to a wide range of people?
In her speech, the Chancellor failed to recognise the dire position of small businesses. Inflation in January pre-war was at 3%. We have found today that UK business activity is growing at its slowest pace since September, with a huge jump in manufacturing input prices. At such a time, tax, NICs and other blows from the Budget will fall on small businesses in April—a few days away. This Government seem cavalier about loading small businesses with additional costs, even though they are the backbone of our economy and jobs, and sustain our local communities.
The Government know that small businesses face a broken energy market that leaves most of them paying inflated energy prices. Will they now instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate suppliers that are blocking small business access to the best energy deals? Will they now change the business rate system so that small businesses can improve their energy efficiency without facing business rate penalties? Will they adopt the idea of an energy security bank to provide low-cost loans for households and small businesses to invest in energy efficiency?
When the country is anxious, it needs a speech from the Chancellor that recognises and responds to the changed reality. Will someone from the Government please give that speech before anxiety becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and their questions. As it is the last day before Recess, I wish both noble Baronesses a very happy Easter in advance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, began her comments by welcoming what we are doing on nuclear, and I am grateful for her support on that and for her support as we implement the Fingleton review. As she knows, we have already begun to rewrite the story on nuclear for this country: we have begun construction at Sizewell C, we have agreed an extension to Sizewell B and we are due to sign the contracts on the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey in partnership with Rolls-Royce. The Chancellor has also confirmed that we will legislate to implement the Fingleton review on nuclear and wider infrastructure in the next Session and has also written to industry and to regulators to get them to set out their plans to fast-track its implementation.
I was disappointed to see the noble Baroness indulge in some anti-EU rhetoric, which I know she does not actually believe. I think it makes absolute sense at this time of global instability that we deepen our economic relationship with our closest partners. It is clear that that is where maximum growth will come from for this country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, spoke about the Competition and Markets Authority. It has stepped up its statutory monitoring of fuel prices and will publicly update on fuel pricing later this month. It is also working with Government to monitor the cost of household essentials, including groceries, for price rises and disruption. It has launched a market study into heating oil on top of its existing work to identify and tackle breaches of consumer law in the heating oil market. The Chancellor also announced this week that we are going further to make sure it has the bite it needs 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 as needed. Yesterday, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary both met and convened the regulators’ council to discuss its work to protect consumers and small businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned.
On oil and gas, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. We will ensure the North Sea oil and gas plays an important role in our economy for years to come. Last week, the Chancellor met with the North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. The noble Baroness also mentioned energy security. She did not mention the fact that the last Government’s failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. But, through determined long-term action, this Government are taking control of our own energy supply. We are investing in renewables, lifting the ban on onshore wind, streamlining grid connections, bringing the next renewables auction forward to this July and driving forward negotiations on the UK’s participation in the EU internal electricity market. We also ran the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.
As I mentioned already, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, welcomed nuclear, and we must guarantee that our domestic oil and gas industry can play a crucial role as well for years to come. So we are investing in tie-backs to make the most of existing production facilities. The Chancellor has also announced that she has instructed officials to develop plans to back critical energy projects with indemnities if their planning consent is challenged in the courts, so that we can build the infrastructure that we need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned the OECD projections out this morning. As she knows, the war in the Middle East is not one that we started, nor is it a war that we have joined, but it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The OECD’s projections are highly sensitive to the duration of the shock and reflect the impact of higher energy prices, which the UK, as she knows, is more susceptible to. But, in an uncertain world, we have the right economic plan. The decisions we have taken have put us in a better position to protect the country’s finances and family finances from global economic instability.
Both noble Baronesses touched on the economic situation that we find ourselves in. The full economic impact of the conflict remains uncertain, but the spring forecast showed that the Government have the right economic plan, that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong and that we are more prepared for a more volatile world. We have cut inflation, which now stands at 3%—a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards. The OBR forecast before this conflict showed that GDP per head was set to grow more than was expected at the Budget, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. We have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP—its lowest level for six years and the fastest reduction in the G7. Of course, these forecasts predate the current conflict in the Middle East, but Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand whatever uncertainty comes our way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noble-Rolfe, spoke about defence. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The Chancellor has approved access to the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the Middle East, meaning that the net additional cost of these operations will be funded by the Treasury. The defence investment plan will be published in due course. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone.
Finally, both noble Baronesses spoke about energy bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me what “responsible” means. It means that, as we respond to this crisis, we should 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. 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.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the background to this strategy and the shock referred to by the Minister, as post-conflict Iran at some stage moves from regional threat into a period of post-conflict reconstruction, do we intend to stand by and watch as Israel takes advantage of the situation by accelerating its programme of land annexation, thereby further promoting regional insecurity and international tension? These conditions challenge the very recovery projects and programmes we are funding, which were identified in the Statement. We all support Israel in its hour of need, but should we not be demanding in response and end to the settlement expansion, as it challenges the stability we all want? It will destabilise recovery.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am pleased to say that this is a Statement about the economic situation, and I do not think anyone would ever put me in charge of diplomacy. I am not going to stray into matters that are much more properly a subject for my colleagues in the Foreign Office, so I shall leave it there.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am a 40-year veteran of the fertiliser industry, and two weeks ago I raised for the first time the prospect of shortages of ammonia causing a fertiliser-led food security shock in this country. Last week, I highlighted the effects of the Iran war on our foundational chemical industries based on soda ash, aniline, vinyl, chlorine, ethylene and others. This morning, the Financial Times’ leading article echoes my concerns, and elsewhere there are reports that the EU is backpedalling fast on new carbon taxes and reviewing the emissions trading system. When are the Government going to announce a delay to the counterproductive food chain taxes that will turn an inflation disaster into a cost-of-living catastrophe by driving up the cost of beer, bread, biscuits, milk and cheese to new heights in short order?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know he has a great deal of expertise in the specific sectors that he mentioned. Of course, the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade are constantly monitoring the impact of this crisis on those sectors and we will take action if necessary. It is not currently our intention to take the specific measures that he mentioned but, as I say, we will be reviewing and monitoring those sectors very closely.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and join the Chancellor speaking in the other place in paying tribute to our Armed Forces. In particular, I welcome support for those families and households hardest hit; however, I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for small businesses, and extend that with a question around what we are doing to support the charitable sector: for example, from my recent experience, in the transport costs associated with food banks, in heating warm hubs and so on. We have a responsibility to care for those who care for others, and I ask what the Government are doing to support that work.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question and I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the importance of small businesses to our economy. As the Chancellor said, 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. It remains the case that the best way to protect families and businesses, large and small, and charities, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, is by the rapid de-escalation of this conflict.
He mentioned transport costs and we have already taken action: we have extended the fuel duty cut of 5p and have pushed out the cheaper fuel finder, empowering people to avoid rip-off prices. We are chasing down the last few filling stations, so that we can reach 100% compliance with that. He will also know that, 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 we took in the Budget. Also, the price cap is giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months when people use 78% of their gas.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, the Government say that they will directly reduce food bills by joining the EU SPS. Can the Minister give us a forecast of how much cheaper food is going to be? It certainly never worked when we were in the EU and it is a very complicated and expensive scheme.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, but I am certain that it will lead to lower food prices, just as I am certain that the Brexit that the noble Lord championed has led to all manner of difficulties for consumers, households and businesses. I am sorry that he is still unable to concede that very important point. As I have said before, at a time of global instability, getting closer to and building a deeper economic relationship with our closest partners is in our national, security and economic interest.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in coming back to the comment on oil and gas made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the growth of green energy and the growth of oil and gas are often described as somehow at odds with each other. It is quite clear that we need both for our energy security. We should grow our green energy while oil and gas remain transitional fuels. Therefore, as Norway is doing, the UK should grow its energy and gas supplies so that we can support our tax base and improve our energy security. It may not affect prices, but it is an important role that the UK can play not just for itself but for other countries, and it is not at odds with the energy transformation.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with every word that the noble Lord said. We will ensure that North Sea oil and gas play an important role in our economy for years to come. Last week, the Chancellor met with North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. As the noble Lord and I have said, and I agree with him, we are investing in renewables at the same time. We are lifting the ban on onshore wind and streamlining grid connections. We ran the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year and have brought forward the next renewables auction to this July, and we are driving forward negotiations on the UK’s participation in the EU internal electricity market.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will take Labour next.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister confirm the number in the OBR report which accompanied the Spring Statement that public sector real investment will increase by 12% this year? Could he explain to what degree that 12% is repairing the damage done by the previous Administration and increasing productivity for the future?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this to the House’s attention. I absolutely agree with what he said and am happy to confirm the figure that he set out. As he knows and we all know, investment was a particular failure of the previous Government over the last 14 years. When we won the election, private sector investment was the lowest in the G7. Public sector investment was no better and was set to fall again, from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. We have increased capital investment by £120 billion over this Parliament, ruling out a return to the austerity of the past. As my noble friend said, that is incredibly important for increasing growth and productivity in the economy.
The OBR has estimated that the eventual growth impact of this increase in capital investment will add 1.4% to GDP. Cutting this now and returning to austerity would be the worst thing that we could do for growth and the very definition of short-termism, yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was most needed, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee was clear last week that the cost of another oil price crisis would be greater than the cost of reaching net zero by 2050, so these Benches fully support the need to roll out renewables at a faster rate. However, we continue to have high energy bills and there is a need to decouple gas, so I ask the Minister what further action the Government are considering in this space, so that we can bring down energy bills.
The Minister spoke about the need to target support so that it reaches the most vulnerable. I briefly want to ask whether he agrees that there is a need for the Government to do a greater piece of work on data, so that they can identify those people who are in most need of support with energy bills.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question and his consistent support for the action we are taking on renewables. He is absolutely right that it is important that the Government enable the country to take control of its own energy supply. As he says and I have said, we are continuing to invest in renewables by lifting the ban on onshore wind and running the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.
On household energy bills, I have said that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality. I agree with what he says about data, and of course that work is ongoing. It is very important that we keep costs down for everyone, while providing support for those who need it most and acting within our fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I hope I am not going to test the noble Lord’s legendary diplomatic skills in answering this question but, last year, the Prime Minister said that “security and defence” were
“not one priority amongst many others but the central organising principle of government. The first thought in the morning, the last at night, the pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.
In light of the Statement that the Chancellor delivered the other day, could the noble Lord confirm that that statement from the Prime Minister is still the case and that defence is the overall organising principle of government? Can he therefore explain when we will see a rapid rise in defence spending and why current forecasts show a welfare spending increase way above that of defence?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows that the previous Government increased welfare spending by £88 billion in their last five years, which is quite a legacy for us to have inherited. He also knows that we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. As I have said already, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East.
He asked me how we will increase defence spending. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027 and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow. We are not going to put an arbitrary date on that percentage until we know exactly where the money is coming from.
I should also say that, this week, the Chancellor announced a new defence procurement mechanism. A core group of NATO allies—Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and other partners—have announced that they are exploring setting up a new mechanism for financing by 2027. The aim is to aggregate demand to drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s Statement, for the steps the Government are taking, and that they will keep under review the impact on families and businesses, particularly small businesses. I return to the question of energy security. Is my noble friend in a position to give us more details on the work being done on the grid infrastructure to ensure its efficient use, speedily bringing down energy prices as we shift to more renewable sources? Will the Government consider returning to their considerations on zonal pricing as a way of bringing energy bills down?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question on energy security. As she rightly says, energy security for this country is about making the best use of all the resources at our disposal. It is why we are investing more in nuclear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said at the outset: we are investing in the construction at Sizewell C and have agreed an extension to Sizewell B, and we are due to sign the contracts on the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey in partnership with Rolls-Royce SMR. It is why we must, as several noble Lords have said already, make the most of our oil and gas reserves—we will ensure that North Sea oil and gas plays an important role in our economy for years to come—and why we are meeting with industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. It is, of course, why—again, as several noble Lords have said—we must make the most of our transition towards renewables and why we should invest heavily in those, as we are doing. We are taking action, as my noble friend says, to streamline grid connections, and that work goes on. We are undertaking a series of very important initiatives in that respect. On zonal pricing, as I understand it, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has said that that is not the direction that it intends to go in.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury has made any estimates of how much oil, in value, Iran needs to export before it drops below a way of maintaining any form of international economic viability? Has the Treasury estimated how Iran will cover its shortfall in foodstuffs and such materials that are, and have always been, needed by Iran beyond those that it grows itself?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Those are both very interesting questions. I cannot say that I am aware of estimates on either of those—they certainly have not crossed my desk—but I am more than happy to look into them for the noble Lord. If I find anything, I shall write to him.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lord, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. I listened carefully to the Minister’s Statement about the increase in defence spending, which is, of course, most welcome. Can the Minister perhaps then confirm to me that, next year, the Ministry of Defence will not be required to make significant in-year savings?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I think I have said clearly, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East, meaning that the net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the Treasury.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I understand it, the Government’s commitment on defence spending is to increase it from the 2.3% of GDP that it inherited to 2.6% of GDP, which the Minister has reiterated now. In the 1930s, in the five-year period after 1933, defence spending in this country increased from about 2.3% to 6.8%, which is a trebling. Do the Minister and the Government appreciate that, to deal with the scale of the threats with which we are now faced, we need to take dramatic action on defence—to increase it at considerable pace, far faster than the 0.3% to which the Government are committed at present?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think I have set out very clearly the pace at which we are increasing and will increase defence spending. From 2027, we will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP, and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness’s question about grid capacity and upgrading the grid, does the Minister not agree that the more small nuclear we can introduce instead of intermittent renewable sources—such as onshore and offshore wind—the better, because it is firm baseload power? Also, it reduces the need to upgrade the grid because, for example, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors—50-megawatt reactors—can be placed over the fence, alongside data centres or industrial clusters. Our Japanese friends have almost given up on us and are now considering working with different partners on commercialising their high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, which was originally a British invention. When will the Government confirm their commitment to early deployment of this very effective and useful technology?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, who clearly has a great deal of expertise in this matter. I agree with everything he said, certainly in the first part of his question. SMRs and AMRs being deployed in the UK will form an incredibly important part of our energy mix. We have set out and published a framework so that we can see more private sector investment in exactly those technologies. As he says, AMRs in particular can provide very high heat to decarbonise a lot of our industry, which is incredibly important. They do not need to connect to the grid, so they do not use up grid connections. That is exactly the kind of technology that we would like to see deployed more. As I said, we have published a framework so that we can see more private investment in exactly those technologies.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, while the Minister is not transferring to the Diplomatic Service—we would miss him greatly—there does seem to be a sense of denial in the question by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the Minister’s answer. GDP is now expected to expand by just 0.7% this year, according to the OECD interim economic outlook, which he will know was published today. That is down by 0.5 percentage points from the organisation’s prior prediction of 1.2%. This would put the UK second last in the G7 growth table and represents the largest downgrade in growth projections for any G20 economy. Rather than denial, we need to face reality. I am particularly concerned that, in the debate on this matter in the other place earlier this week, the Chancellor kept referring to the fact that borrowing will fall. Does the Minister think she really understands the difference between deficit and debt?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I am absolutely certain that she understands the difference between those two things. As I have said already, the war in the Middle East is not one that we started nor one we have joined, but it will have an impact on our country. The OECD’s projections are highly sensitive to the duration of the shock and reflect the impact of higher energy prices, to which the noble Lord knows we are more exposed than many other countries. But I am absolutely certain that, in an uncertain world, we have the right economic plan. The decisions we have taken have put us in a better position to protect the country’s finances and family finances from global instability.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pension Schemes Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 26(7B) of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I did not expect to be back moving amendments quite so quickly, but despite the 20 consequential amendments that I moved on Report, four more have come to light. They are printed on the Marshalled List. They are entirely consequential on Amendment 52, which deleted mandation. All I seek to do with Amendments 1 to 3 and 8 is to move them formally when the time comes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word or two at this stage about government Amendment 4, because I understand it relates to Amendment 156, which the Minister moved on Monday. That Amendment 156 had wide Cross-Bench support, coming as it did after an amendment in the other place that was supported across parties and particularly by the Liberal Democrats. It gave the Government the responsibility and ability to issue statutory guidance on the fiduciary duty of trustees in relation to systemic issues, including climate change and many more.
In response to that, the Minister in the Commons said that the Government would bring forward plans to ensure that the guidance reflected the views of all within the sector and that it could be useful to trustees. All I have ever been interested in is bringing forward something that would help those involved with investment decisions for pensioners to be able to take into account with confidence the long-term systemic issues that they found. I am sure the Whip would not want me to repeat their arguments, which I am in danger of doing.
Following the vote on Amendment 156 on Monday, which I still do not understand, I am concerned about what the Government will now do. They are committed to this course of action and have taken a great deal of effort in setting up the technical working group and getting views from across the sector. It would be a real shame if that work were somehow to be halted by the procedural issues of how we get the legislative base to do this.
I should pay tribute here to the Minister and her officials, who moved at great pace and put a lot of effort into coming up with a solution that unfortunately was not accepted by the House on Monday. I would very much appreciate some understanding from the Minister, when she winds up, of how this issue will go forward. Because it was a government amendment, we do not have the opportunity of asking the Commons to think again; it is dead in this House. I would very much value an understanding that the need for this guidance has not gone away. As I understand it, the Government’s commitment to the guidance has not gone away, so it would be very interesting to know how we take the next steps.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 6 is entirely consequential on the amendment your Lordships agreed to. I am very grateful to the Public Bill Office for its advice in helping me to correct this, and I will move it formally when the moment comes.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments here are minor and technical following Report, and the Government will not oppose them today. Amendment 4 in my name is also minor and technical. This amendment was tabled to correct an error concerning Amendment 178, which was moved by mistake on Report on Monday 23 March. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, that amendment relates to the commencement of Amendment 156 on investment duties guidance, which was disagreed by the House. The amendment now removes the commencement clause to honour the usual channels’ agreement on the package, as it was a missed consequential amendment.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I commend her on her work on this important issue—the Government introduced their amendments to this House to honour the commitment given by my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions in the other place. Since the House disagreed with those amendments, obviously that cannot proceed. They were removed from the Bill in this House. Therefore, the other place will not get to consider them again. However, she is right that the need for guidance and clarity does not go away.
The Government remain committed to improving clarity around trustees’ existing investment duties, including how schemes consider long-term and financially material factors such as climate and systemic risks, while maintaining their core duty to act in members’ best interests. We will press ahead with this important work. We are currently reviewing next step options to ensure this objective continues to be progressed in the most important way in the light of the decision of the House on this matter.
The technical working group, which was discussed at some length in our proceedings, bringing together legal, actuarial and investment experts, will continue to play a central role in helping government develop high-quality guidance and ensuring it is workable, proportionate and valuable to schemes. Further updates will be provided in due course. I hope that gives enough information; it is all I am able to say at the moment. In the meantime, Amendment 4 is a necessary step, and I hope the House will support it.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted to the commencement clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 26(7B) of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a mistake.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(g) section 130 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 130, which was inserted by an amendment in Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s name at report stage.
Viscount Thurso
“(g) section 131 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 131, which was inserted by an amendment in Viscount Thurso’s name at report stage.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“(g) section 132 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 132, which was inserted by an amendment in Baroness Stedman-Scott’s name at report stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 28G of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Bill. The Bill will make a real difference for people saving for their retirement. It will help their money to work harder by improving how pension schemes operate, reducing unnecessary costs and enabling larger, better-governed schemes to secure stronger long-term returns. It will also make pensions easier to follow by tackling the growth of small dormant pots, and it will give people clearer and more dependable support when they come to draw their pension so they can make choices that meet their needs. For those in defined benefit schemes, the Bill strengthens long-term security through a well-regulated superfund regime. It brings clarity to areas that have caused uncertainty for savers, including historic scheme alterations and support for those facing a terminal illness.
Taken together, these reforms help build a system that is easier to navigate, better run and more supportive of people as they move towards retirement. During the passage of the Bill, the House voted for amendments that the Government did not support. I can assure the House that we will reflect carefully on these as the Bill moves to the other place.
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debates. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for their engagement throughout proceedings. I thank my noble friend Lord Katz, my Whip, for doing so much work on the Bill and being such a great source of support.
I am also grateful to all those who worked so hard on the legislation, including the excellent Bill managers, Jo and Amanda, for advice, encouragement and the provision of excellent cupcakes; our officials, Sam, Rob and Anna, and their brilliant teams; and my private office, especially Hussein and Ollie, who have worked incredibly hard and kept me upright, well briefed and organised as time has gone on. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am pleased that the Bill is to pass. It is a good and welcome Bill because it deals with administrative and bureaucratic complexities in the present system. I have to admit that it is not quite as good as it would have been if it had adopted some of the amendments I tabled in relation to people who were denied pre-1997 pension increases, and the release of surplus, but we have to accept that. I am therefore pleased that on Report my noble friend the Minister gave an assurance that the Government will closely monitor how the powers of surplus release will be used and will keep that very much under review. This was reinforced in the House of Commons Adjournment debate last Thursday, when the Minister for Pensions made clear the extent to which they will closely monitor how the Bill will be operated in the context of surplus release.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, if only we had dealt with all the amendments during the passage of the Bill as quickly as we have today, we would not have been here quite so late on many occasions.
I thank my noble friends Lady Bowles—whose expertise has been amazing—Lord Sharkey and Lord Thurso, and our hard-working political adviser, Ulysse Abbate. I also thank profusely those on the Conservative Front Bench, with whom we have worked very well on things on which we agreed. When we disagreed, we did not come to a bunfight. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, a former Pensions Minister, whose expertise has been valuable in dealing with the Bill. I also thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and their team, for their superb work on a very technical Bill with high-stakes issues. I realise that there are pressures from the other end as well as here, but we think we have worked well and come out with something pretty reasonable.
On these Benches we recognise and welcome some of the measures in the Bill, such as the value-for-money framework and the superfunds legislation. We have also noted large gaps in the regulation, including on pension scandals such as the AEAT pension scandal and injustices that no one seems to want to face up to, such as the pre-1997 indexation issues. The Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the Government on going further.
We have worked hard to expose the flaws in the Government’s plans on mandation. This is probably one of the most important issues. Not only is a reserve power dangerous, in that it gives this and future Governments huge powers, but the clause itself has flaws, which my noble friend Lady Bowles and others across the Chamber have pointed out extensively in our debates.
We have had a very good run with this Bill. I again thank the Minister for engaging with us and, I hope, coming up with something that maybe, as time goes on, we can tweak in some ways, but not necessarily in primary legislation.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I warmly acknowledge the collegiate and genuinely cross-party approach that has characterised the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I know I also speak for my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in expressing our sincere thanks to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement. It has been a pleasure to work alongside them, and our collective efforts have ensured that this important Bill has been subject to the careful and thorough scrutiny it deserves.
This is a fundamentally important Bill, and I am pleased that we have agreed several amendments to address some of the concerns that together we have identified. I had one amendment on the Marshalled List today, a technical amendment necessary to commence Amendment 169 passed by your Lordships’ House on Report. The Government accepted this amendment today.
I will not rehearse an exhaustive list, but the Government now have an obligation to return with clear answers to the concerns we have raised, including in particular: the Local Government Pension Scheme and whether it is truly fit for purpose for its members; whether the proposed consolidation timetable is workable in practice for ordinary working people; whether the scale requirements risk undermining innovative and high-performing schemes; and the scope, rationale and implications of the mandation power—there was a resounding view that it should be removed entirely.
Many noble Lords have made valuable contributions to our deliberations on this policy through amendments, speeches and constructive engagement both inside and outside the Chamber. It is not possible to thank everyone, but I place on record my particular gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Lucas. I also extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to work. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his thoughtful engagement on the Bill.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her work in steering the Bill through the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his support. The Minister has responded to a great many questions, often highly technical and searching ones, and has given considerable time both in Committee and on Report to what is, in many respects, a dense and complex piece of legislation. I thank noble Lords for their engagement, particularly in Committee, which has been helpful and much appreciated.
This Bill contains a number of significant flaws and shortcomings. Your Lordships’ House has offered the Government a clear opportunity to make necessary and timely improvements. I very much hope that we will continue to work together with the Minister and her colleagues in the department to take that opportunity.
Arrangement of Business
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of the guidance I provided on Tuesday about the conduct of debates on Report. As we enter the second day on this Bill, there are 13 groups to be considered. In providing noble Lords with guidance, I intend to help the whole House to make progress and proceed to votes. First, as mentioned last week, the House is resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and particularly relevant, the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed in Committee … should not be repeated at length on report”.
Thirdly, although interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, there should be brief questions for clarification, and lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. This is Report, not Committee, so a continued collective focus on ensuring that debates are contained, with those objectives in mind, as we saw on day one, would be welcome to help Report proceed in an orderly way.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:14 - Division on Amendment 82 - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 82 disagreed.
13:25 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
13:38 - Division on Amendment 84 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 84 agreed.
16:13 - Division on Amendment 121 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 121 agreed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure functions can be removed as well as added to the GLA.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this first group of amendments concerns the Greater London Authority and the London councils. We expressed concern regarding Clause 15 in Committee as we do not see why conferring more powers on the Mayor of London should be such a priority in a Bill supposedly concerned with devolution to the rest of England. Although we recognise that London’s governance is unique, we do not believe that this alone shields its governance arrangements from scrutiny.
Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would expand the London Assembly’s existing powers to require the attendance not only of the mayor but of experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services. It is clear that further democratic oversight of London’s services is needed, and not from the mayor alone.
Amendment 84, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would alter the voting requirement for the assembly to change the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority. The two-thirds majority requirement has proved to be a barrier to effective scrutiny, particularly over taxation. This is especially pertinent amid the rising cost of living for households in London and has our full support.
All these concerns and proposed changes can be deliberated further through Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to whom I am very grateful. This amendment would initiate a full review of London’s governance model within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, giving Parliament the opportunity to look at the GLA’s effectiveness, accountability and outcomes. This amendment also has our full support.
The amendments in my name seek to give the Government the flexibility to respond to such a review or to any changes Parliament decides on in the future. By amending Clause 15, our amendments would ensure that functions can be both removed and added to the GLA without requiring more and more primary legislation. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ valuable contributions and I hope the Government will consider our constructive proposals to allow the Government flexibility in the future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me so that I could explain more about my amendment, in particular the need for the wider power of summons for the London Assembly. Amendment 82 is about the need for a greater power of summons. The London Assembly has a limited power of summons over individuals and documents, but it can currently summons the Mayor of London only in very limited circumstances. The assembly is also prevented from summonsing those delivering services in London. At times, organisations refuse to attend hearings, including London councils. That cannot be right. Organisations that are delivering services to Londoners and spending huge amounts of money should be required to attend and answer questions.
When I met the Minister, it was suggested that the assembly should simply ask the mayor to secure guests who were reluctant to attend. That would be rather like the Lords asking the Prime Minister to help with our work—completely inappropriate. This power would strengthen the London Assembly and the scrutiny of services to Londoners. I therefore hope that Members across the House will support this simple amendment, which has always received cross-party support at the London Assembly. Given that there has been a shift between Committee and Report and a clear understanding of a need to increase scrutiny and transparency of mayors across the country, this amendment would help address that issue.
Amendment 84 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend the mayor’s budget at its final stage. This is an anomaly; it does not exist in other parts of local government. This simple amendment would remove it and make it the same as for other levels of government. I am pleased to have received support from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. This is about basic democracy and powers for a scrutiny body. It would mean that any mayor would have to work cross-party to secure his or her budget. Again, I hope all Members will support this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Our Benches do not support Amendments 81, 154 and 156, which go against the devolution agenda by suggesting that powers can just be taken back by the Government from the GLA. Why would you single out London for this? Surely we should be looking at devolving far more services and powers to local and regional government, rather than just trying to recentralise.
Amendment 83, which we will hear about shortly, calls for a review of the London model. I believe that work may already be under way looking at London. I hope the Minister can update us on that but I am sure that this probably should not be in the Bill.
The Government’s Amendment 243, which allows for grants to be paid to joint committees of London councils, rather than the current messy situation where one borough has to take the lead, is a tidying-up exercise and we support it. I look forward to hearing a positive response to my amendments from the Minister in due course.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously Bexley’s longest-serving leader, with associated involvement in London Councils and the Local Government Association. I will speak to my Amendment 83 and to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, as they are interlinked Before I do, I thank the Minister for Amendment 243 and the power to grant funding for distribution via a joint committee, as this will, I hope, resolve some of the issues I raised in Committee.
I raised the suggestion of a review of London governance in Committee, given that the mayoral GLA governance structure in London was the first of its kind and has been in place for about 26 years. The Minister promised me a conversation before this stage, but I suspect she ran out of time. It would still be helpful to have that conversation; it is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, got one.
As I said, the governance arrangement in London has been in place for nearly 26 years. It is interesting that that structure has never been repeated. Indeed, the Bill does not seek to replicate that same arrangement. That appears to be an indication that it is not viewed to be the most successful governance structure, so surely it would be worth considering the learning from mayoral authorities set up since, with a view to improving the arrangements in London. The irony is that I sat here the other night listening to the Minister talking about commissioners, and it occurred to me that a review of London that picks up some of the issues and shows some of the weaknesses could be of benefit to others. That would be an additional benefit.
The main difference with the arrangements post-London is that their governance relationship is between the council leaders and the mayor in pursuit of devolution, we hope to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, the proposal in this Bill suggests overview and scrutiny arrangements, whereas the London arrangement—the GLA—is considered to be for checks and balances.
In London there are 25 elected members of the assembly; 14 are constituency members and 11 are London-wide. They can call people before them, but they cannot instruct or make things happen, which comes back to the earlier point. The only real power over the mayor is to overturn the budget with a two-thirds majority, which in effect has never happened—something that Amendment 84 seeks to address. According to Google, the GLA’s budget for 2026-27 is £22.7 billion; that is an awful lot of money. It includes the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police and London fire. Each council tax payer on a band D property in London pays just under £500 per annum towards that.
It is an awful lot of money and, given the responsibilities, would not it be more effective to have the mayor and boroughs working together for the best outcomes for London? I am talking about outcomes such as tackling crime, making sure that our public transport is effective and efficient, and building the homes that London needs—outcomes that impact every Londoner, as well as those who come to London to work, learn or visit. In fact, in Manchester those outcomes even include health, and it could be beneficial to join up the public health or prevention knowledge in councils to deliver better health outcomes for London.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as co-president of London Councils and, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as a former borough leader. I think I was also the longest-serving leader in my particular borough at various times, and I am a former member of the London Assembly.
I rise particularly to address government Amendment 243, to welcome it and to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for the consultations that she had with me and also with London Councils about the content of it. The amendment that has come forward is a welcome compromise. Obviously, there is a desire from London Councils that perhaps written in somewhere should be a formal requirement to consult. But I am very pleased that the Minister and the department have been able to respond in this way, and I am pleased that it is now going to be in the Bill.
To underpin the comments made by other noble Lords in respect of the other amendments, I think that what is being forgotten is that the basis of the settlement in London was that people should work together. I do not know whether that is a criticism of the three mayors that have been, the various iterations of London Councils or the relationship with government, but I suspect that that could be improved. Whether it requires the sort of review that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has suggested, I do not know. But all I would say is that noble Lords should be careful what they wish for in such a review, because it might produce outcomes that they do not like.
I will sit down by concluding again with my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 243.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, for their amendments on the functions and governance of the Greater London Authority and London boroughs.
I turn first to Amendments 81, 154 and 156. This Government are committed to delivering a permanent transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions. Strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government will be able, on a whim, to easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is, of course, sovereign. The Government will always be able to introduce primary legislation that changes which functions should sit with which level of authority. However, this Bill makes sure that the Government will have to make that argument through the various stages of a parliamentary Bill; it must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this Government and future Governments to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation so that they can be exercised again by central government. It would be wrong to single out the Greater London Authority and allow its functions, and only its functions, to be removed by secondary legislation.
On Amendment 82, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for meeting me to discuss this issue. Her insight into the governance of London was very valuable to me. First, I would note that the Mayor of London is already required to appear before the assembly 10 times a year for Mayor’s Question Time. This affords assembly members an opportunity to question the mayor on a regular basis. It is a tried and tested mechanism for questioning the mayor, and is backed up by a strong incentive for the mayor to attend, in that generally, if they fail to attend six consecutive meetings, they will be removed from office. This amendment would not remove the existing mayor’s Question Time mechanism; rather, it would represent an additional burden on the mayor of London potentially requiring them to appear before the assembly multiple times within a given month.
Secondly, this amendment would enable the assembly to summon witnesses who are not connected to the Greater London Authority or work on its behalf. In using a broad definition, it could allow the assembly to require attendance from virtually any entity linked to activity in, or related to, Greater London. The assembly’s power is backed up by powerful enforcement mechanisms. A person who fails to comply with the assembly’s request can be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for not more than three months. I am sure noble Lords can appreciate that the expansion of a power with such an enforcement mechanism needs to be considered very carefully. In London, the assembly has broadly either the same or similar powers to those being introduced for local scrutiny committees. As London’s devolution settlement continues to evolve, the Government will continue to work with relevant partners, including the noble Baroness.
I turn to Amendment 83, for which I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I recognise her very long and dedicated service to Bexley and to London. The Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities, and it has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny, arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for London and Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, we want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities.
With this ongoing conversation already happening, it is not necessary to impose a formal review of London governance to be reported on at an arbitrary point. Indeed, it would be unusual to put such a requirement into primary legislation. The accountability arrangements for all mayoral strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will also be strengthened by revised guidance, such as new iterations of the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol.
I turn to Amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Simple majority voting in London would make it harder for the mayor to exercise executive authority and deliver for Londoners in areas where other mayors are being empowered. As I have said, London’s devolution settlement has served Londoners well for 25 years, striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the assembly. Mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities can have their budget amended only by a two-thirds majority, and there is no reason why London should be different.
Finally, my Amendment 243 would enable central government to pay grant funding directly to a London joint committee, such as that run by London Councils. This will address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, among others, for bringing this issue to my attention, and I also thank him for his very long service to London government.
Where there are cross-borough initiatives which are outside the remit of the Greater London Authority, the committees established by London Councils are best placed to receive and direct related funding on behalf of boroughs. Among many other examples, this is evident in the Freedom Pass, which the London Councils transport and environment committee negotiates with Transport for London and pays for on behalf of boroughs. At the moment, when central government wishes to pay funding for initiatives co-ordinated by London Councils, it must use cumbersome workarounds, such as paying to a nominated lead borough or routing it through the GLA. This creates additional barriers in time and complexity to getting money where it needs to go. It also lacks transparency, making it hard for citizens to follow who is involved in the spending of their money.
This amendment is a simple yet significant change that will allow money to flow directly from central government to joint committees established by London Councils, speeding up and simplifying delivery for Londoners. It is important that any entity receiving public money has the appropriate governance and oversight in place. Therefore, this amendment enables payment to take place only once the Secretary of State has made regulations setting out eligibility requirements. Those regulations will be approved by resolution of this House and the other place.
I commend my own amendment to the House and ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, could she clarify something? With the new mayors of strategic authorities, I understood that the committees voted using a simple majority. Are we now saying that it is a two-thirds majority, the same as for London, in the new mayoral authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My advice, as I read out, is that it is a two-thirds majority.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I read the Bill yesterday and thought that it was a simple majority, but there we are.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for making the clear and compelling case for the need for change to specific London governance arrangements. These amendments are ultimately intended to help improve services for Londoners and to strengthen democratic scrutiny of the mayor, whoever he or she might be, by elected members.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making the case for a full London governance review. I restate our support from these Benches for her amendments. We feel strongly that this is necessary in London, as is happening across the whole country. The Government may wish to contemplate further the possibility of that review, and therefore consider more seriously at the moment our proposed amendments to Clause 15, which would allow for the removal of functions from, as well as the conferral of functions to, the GLA.
If the London governance arrangements are so unique, as the Minister made plain in Committee, we believe Parliament ought to have further oversight and that democratic scrutiny should be strengthened in London. I hope that the Government will not dismiss these proposals but give them serious consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings(1) Section 61 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or (5)” substitute “, (5), (5A), or (5B)”.(3) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) This subsection applies to the Mayor of London.(5B) This subsection applies to—(a) any person who has professional competence, specialist knowledge or relevant experience connected to the delivery, management or oversight of services provided in or on behalf of Greater London, and (b) any person who is a member of, or a member of staff of, a body which employs individuals with such competence, knowledge or experience.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the London Assembly’s existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to require the attendance of the Mayor, as well as experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, but I think it misses the point. There is a gap in the existing legislation which means that key organisations can simply refuse to attend meetings and to answer questions. That includes organisations such as High Speed 2, London Councils and the Environment Agency. This is about transparency and accountability. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
“Review of the London governance modelWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness, accountability and outcomes of the Greater London Authority governance model, including lessons applicable to mayoral and combined authority arrangements established under this Act.”
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. There may have been few speakers, but they were fairly powerful. The Minister said that the current structure has served London well, yet she has spoken to a member of the GLA and, with all due respect, she has not spoken to the Official Opposition—she might have had a different view had she done so. This is a pragmatic amendment. It asks for a review within a year of the Bill becoming law. In reality, that would mean that we could look at the good things and the bad things in London and learn from those, which surely has to be beneficial for everybody. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In Schedule 6 (procedure for determining the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement), in paragraph 8(4), for “two-thirds of the Assembly members voting” substitute “a simple majority of the Assembly members voting”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the voting requirement for the Assembly to change the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement by replacing the two-thirds majority currently required under paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 with a simple majority of the Assembly.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I heard her say clearly that it is a two-thirds majority that is required in other authorities when voting on a budget. This particular piece of legislation, however, refers clearly in Part 1, Clause 6(2), to
“a simple majority of the voting Members present and voting”.
I would like to have in-writing clarity on that, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, would it be in order to make a correction in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have double-checked the voting arrangements. It is a two-thirds majority for combined authority and combined county authority budgets. It is a simple majority, including the mayor, for most other things in a combined authority, and a combined county authority. The Bill does not override existing voting arrangements set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, or the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. This has to be done by consequential SI. The existing voting arrangements are set out in Article 8 of the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017, and will continue to stand. I hope that is helpful.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 84?
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the disqualification provisions in Clause 16 to elected members of a local authority.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I hope this group will be very brief, because I seek clarification from the Minister on a matter that has caused me some concern. Clause 16 of the Bill refers to
“Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority”.
There is a whole variety of rules which, in my view, are right.
I want to address the issue of elected local councillors, who do not seem to be part of Clause 16. Clearly, a local authority councillor can stand for election as a mayor, but I would assume—and hope the Minister will confirm—that they must resign if they are elected a mayor. But if they are elected a mayor when they are not a councillor in the first place, can a mayor become a local councillor? In other words, in terms of Clause 16, the issues are understood and well defined for members of legislatures—but a local authority is not, it appears, a legislature. I just wonder whether a mayor can also be a councillor at the same time, either as a member of the combined authority or as a member of a local authority somewhere else. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an interesting point which deserves an answer. On this side of the House, our views were made very clear in Committee: we are on the side of democracy, we believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments relating to disqualification for being a mayor of a strategic authority. These amendments seek to prevent an individual from simultaneously being a councillor of a local authority and holding the office of the mayor of a combined county authority.
The noble Lord will know that existing law already prohibits council members of constituent councils in both combined authorities and combined county authorities from being elected or holding office as the mayor at the same time. This is provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These amendments would have the effect of almost mirroring that prohibition, in relation to combined county authorities only, for councillors of any local authority.
However, the Government are planning to replace all two-tier council areas with unitary authorities and hence replace all combined county authorities with combined authorities before the next planned mayoral elections in two-tier areas. This means that the prohibition would very likely not be required. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation: that as of today, existing legislation holds sway in this respect. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers, and(g) results of any evaluation of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the Secretary of State’s reporting duties to provide a five-yearly assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on economic growth, local service delivery, and value for money for taxpayers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments beginning with Amendments 87 and 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. We have highlighted time and again that we have had no guarantee that the Government’s plans for local government will save money for the taxpayer, deliver economic growth or tangibly improve local services. Today’s announcements put that even more in doubt.
Therefore, our amendments, while they differ slightly, would enable the Secretary of State to review the impact in two ways. Amendment 87 would expand the Secretary of State’s reporting duties under existing Clause 19 to provide an assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, focusing particularly on the impact of newly devolved powers. The report must include the results of any evaluation that has been undertaken of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas. Clause 19 already requires that this report be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable.
Our Amendment 184 would require the Secretary of State to report annually for the first five years after the passage of this Act, this time via a Statement, with copies laid before Parliament. The Statement must assess the performance of strategic authorities established under the Bill, rather than the effects of devolved powers generally, in relation to the quality of service delivery and to the extent to which their functions have been exercised efficiently and represent value for money. I hope that the Government will give these amendments serious consideration.
Amendment 318A from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—of Manchester, I beg your pardon; that was a Freudian slip—would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. In particular, the report must assess effectiveness in relation to land access, green spaces, food production and local decision-making mechanisms. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those asks. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I think I have been cued in. I will speak to my Amendment 318A as—yes, still—the Bishop of Manchester. There is a vacancy in London, but I think I am too old to be considered.
Over the last 18 months, I have been chairing the Manchester Social Housing Commission. Central to our work has been the contributions that local residents and communities representing their neighbourhoods make to our thinking and, eventually, our recommendations. We have seen how empowered communities make a real difference. They are the people who know what it is like to live where they do. They can shape local services for the best results.
Far from being a problem for authorities to manage, communities continually demonstrate how they respond to the cost of living crisis or the epidemic of loneliness. People in communities are vital in driving their own solutions. As I go around my diocese, I see again and again how local people taking the initiative really make a difference.
I admit that, as a bishop, I sometimes get frustrated that my local parishes and clergy do not always do exactly what I want them to do—that would make life simpler for me—but the high degree of autonomy and agency that the parish system gives them means that they are often empowered to exercise the local knowledge that puts them in a much better position than me to know what would work well in their local context.
The community charter that is referenced in my Amendment 318A contains a short number of provisions that would give individuals and communities both protections and positive opportunities to drive change. Some of these rights already have clear legal precedent in other jurisdictions. Some reflect the UK’s obligations and international conventions, but they have not been effectively implemented in England or assessed. They have all been subject to legal advice, which confirms they are capable of legal implementation. Many of the specific concerns, whether about pollution or land ownership, can be dealt with by ensuring that such rights are carefully constructed and balanced with responsibilities.
Upholding many of the rights would require actions by regulators, rather than individuals. I declare an interest in clean air: I live on a major road, the A56, into Manchester, between the city centre and the motorway, and it fails every air quality test that it is ever subjected to. I know how important it is, from all the work I have done in housing—pretty much the whole of my adult life—to ensure that families can live healthy lives.
There are good examples of community empowerment from other jurisdictions: New Zealand’s right to a healthy home, promoted here by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as the Healthy Homes Bill, and New York’s constitutional right to a healthy environment. The rights shown in the community charter are perfectly possible in England.
When His Majesty’s Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last summer, I was very much looking forward to the changes it would propose, but the content of the Bill is overwhelmingly focused on the creation of strategic-scale local authorities. That is not a bad thing, but what is there that is genuinely about community empowerment at community level? To fulfil the ambition that is there in its title, a devolution and community empowerment Bill needs to enable communities to have a strong, democratic voice and to deliver positive solutions for their area.
Communities need to know the extent to which they have such rights, so they know whether they have a chance of their views being heard and listened to. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to report on progress that is being made in community empowerment in relation to the rights listed in the amendment. I will not take up time listing them all here. It is quite simple, it is quite modest; I am not intending to test the opinion of the House on it. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to a future meeting with me and colleagues to consider how progress towards these community rights could be measured and assessed. With that in place, I think we will have a Bill, eventually an Act, that can live up to the words “community empowerment” that stand so prominently in its name. I also support the other amendments in this group, because I think it is important that we measure what we are doing to know whether it has worked or not.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there are three very important amendments here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I have two caveats. The first is that it is quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million, and to manage that effectively. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has raised a slightly different issue, which is about community empowerment. We talk a lot about English devolution, but community empowerment is a much more locally based, neighbourhood concept. The problem that communities will face is that they will have no money to do the work that they would like to do.
I am very supportive of anything that can be done to assess how community empowerment is working, but my second caveat is that overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas. There are people who have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening—having an overview of what is happening. It seems to me that we should go to those people first to assess the success of the Bill when it becomes an Act, rather than going straight to central government and expecting it to do it all.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.
As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.
On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.
At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.
The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.
The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.
On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.
I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.
As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.
Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.
On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.
Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered, in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? These are all questions that the Government should answer and be held accountable for. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local councils and strategic authorities in the future will also have to be doing this work. But it is for the Government to look at the system as a whole and to ensure that it is delivering what it is intended to deliver in this Bill.
Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not be done just for the sake of it or to make life simpler for Whitehall. It should be done to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose, as we made clear on the very first day in Committee. Our amendments would allow just that and help to inform Parliament of how to move forward in the future. I hope that the Government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real-world outcomes of their efforts.
I thank the Minister for explaining how some of these challenges will be implemented. I need to read Hansard tomorrow to see whether we still have concerns. My overall concern remains—that there is still a lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first years after this big reorganisation of local government in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ravensdale, for amendments on collaboration. I will start with the government amendments in this group, which are minor and technical in nature. Their purpose is to align relevant definitions across the Bill. Taken together, they update wording in Clauses 21, 22 and 51. In doing so, they make the wording consistent with that used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 in the definition of “eligible function”.
The effect is to clarify that mayors may convene local partners, collaborate with neighbouring mayors or request an additional function in relation to any aspect of any area of competence. This reflects the Government’s clear policy intention to provide mayors with the flexibility that they need to use these powers effectively in addressing local priorities. For example, the health, well-being and public service reform area of competence should be read as covering its individual component parts of health and well-being and public service reform, rather than as a single inseparable policy heading. These amendments therefore promote consistency across the Bill, avoiding ambiguity or an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of how these powers relate to the areas of competence.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will support these amendments. I will listen to the noble Lords introducing their amendments before I respond to them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I rise to talk to Amendment 181, which is grouped with this. Britain has an unwritten constitution, which gives us flexibility but also lacks constraint on changing Prime Ministers or Governments beyond trust in their behaving like good chaps. As we have discovered in recent years, not all Prime Ministers do behave like good chaps or chapesses. The Minister herself earlier today referred to the question of whether a future Government might “on a whim” change the way they operate in crucial ways. The purpose of this amendment is to entrench the role of the mayoral council in the future governance of England and to make sure that a future Government cannot simply muck things up on a whim.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 309 in this group seeks to impose a duty to co-operate on local public service partners. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for adding his name in support.
I will not repeat at length the arguments I rehearsed in Committee in support of the amendment, many of which are equally relevant to my Amendment 182, which we debated on Tuesday. Suffice it to say that the recent fragmentation of our public services has resulted in disjointed services that do not align with the perceived needs of ordinary citizens, in wasted resources and in a damaging culture of competition rather than collaboration between providers. Ordinary folk just want to see collaboration and partnership working to improve the quality of the services they receive.
Many attempts have been made to address this problem. Noble Lords will recall initiatives such as the joining up central government initiative—a work in progress—health and well-being boards, integrated care boards and the troubled families programme. In all honesty, none of these has resolved the problem. Perhaps only Total Place, in which I played a part, was enthusiastically embraced by all sectors.
The Bill takes a different approach and includes a provision for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will be required to attend, but I am really not convinced that the power to convene meetings will resolve the deep-seated problems that have beset multi-agency working.
To succeed, we need to be more radical. Rather than setting up yet more working groups, liaison committees and joint boards, we should attack the problem at its root and place on public sector agencies a duty to co-operate with the strategic authority, principal councils and each other when they are formulating policies and plans or delivering services. If such a duty were imposed, the responsibility for ensuring that it was met would rest with the agencies themselves, which is exactly where it should be.
There is nothing new in this proposal. After all, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act. Under the Children Act 2004, a local authority must co-operate with relevant partners, bodies and individuals to improve the well-being of children in the local authority’s care. In doing so, it must consider the role of parents and others who play a part in caring for children.
So there is no reason why an overarching duty to collaborate should be difficult, and the advantages of it are immense—I think it would be a complete game-changer. For a start, it would send a very clear and necessary message that this Government expect to see collaboration between agencies, not competition. It would change the culture of our public sector entirely. It would show that the primary driver of public services must be to meet the needs of clients, citizens, customers or whatever you want to call them, not to serve for their own convenience or to enhance their own profile.
This amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, and I am given to understand that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to explore it further. I entirely understand that: there is probably more policy development to do, and there is a need to consult all the players in this sector. That is why I will not push this to a vote, although there is probably a majority in this House in support of the proposal. At the end of the day, this is a decision not for the providers themselves, some of which may find this inconvenient, but for the Government, to decide what kind of local public service they need. I think they need this duty.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments on collaboration. I will not comment on the government amendments, other than to say that we consider them to be technical and will not stand in the way of the Government. I must declare my interest as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 181 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raises a number of serious points that the Government need to respond to. However, we have some concerns that a mayoral council risks duplication of work that is already happening in other forums, such as with the Local Government Association, and therefore risks increased bureaucracy.
On Amendment 309 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, we share his ambition for joined-up public services that co-operate effectively. That will be important to deliver the high-quality services we would all like to see locally. The Government need to consider how best this can be achieved. However, we have some concerns about how this amendment would work in practice as regards the legal duty to attend meetings and the interpretation of “reasonable”. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment as set out is the right way forward, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the Government need to think about how this can be made to work in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this group. I will start with Amendment 181. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the overcentralisation of decision-making in England, and that is part of the whole rationale for bringing the Bill forward. I must be clear that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the mayoral council has done since this Government established it.
I will say just a little bit about the mayoral council: the existing mayoral council, and the Leaders Council of local authority leaders, are non-decision-making bodies so do not need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayoral council has run a shadow right to request process, ahead of that process being made statutory through the Bill, without needing to be a statutory decision-making body. As a statutory process, the right to request provides certainty that engagement will take place.
The mayoral council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they have already adapted to respond to feedback from members and the Government. As more devolution is delivered across the country and we get more mayors with more powers, their needs and best use may change. Retaining flexibility by not having forums set in statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums.
The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen that devolution through the mayoral right to request process, so it is not necessary for the mayoral council to create a framework for further devolution. Funding is discussed regularly at the mayoral council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs-based funding are done fairly across the country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she clarify one point? We are heading towards a model of English governance in which there will be roughly 35 elected mayors. Do the Government envisage that the Council of the Nations and Regions will then have the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government and, on the same basis, 35 English mayors?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those bodies are new bodies, and they will be evolving and changing as we evolve and change the model. They are not decision-making bodies. That is the main reason for saying we do not want to put them in statute, particularly in view of the fact that they will change fairly rapidly as we increase the mayoral model across the country.
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Lord Ravensdale
“103F Regional collaboration(1) Two or more elected mayors may collaborate across mayoral combined authorities and create convening bodies whose purpose, priorities and membership are decided at a regional level. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), convening bodies must work with existing regional organisations, and may—(a) convene regional, public and private sector partners to promote a region internationally,(b) develop investable propositions in key sectors and align trade, investment, major infrastructure and land use issues,(c) coordinate arts, heritage, cultural and sporting activities, and(d) ensure coherence across transport, skills, energy, social mobility and other areas of competence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for partnerships at a pan-regional level (eg. the North or the Midlands) to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities relating to economic growth, infrastructure and other areas of competence.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93, 119 and 183. I thank all noble Lords who supported these amendments across Committee and now on Report, including the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Shipley and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I thank the Minister for her engagement between Committee and Report. I hope she will be able to offer a substantive proposal in response to these amendments in her summing up, particularly Amendments 119 and 183.
Starting with those amendments, I will add to what I said in Committee. Social mobility is a long-standing problem in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, said yesterday in the Chamber, around the Government’s aspirations, that where you come from should not determine where you are going. We know that relative income mobility—the strength of the link between a parent’s income and that of their child—is poor, when we look at that internationally, ranking near the USA as one of the least mobile developed nations.
That echoes my personal experience growing up in inner-city Nottingham. I saw too many young people who did not meet their potential because of where they were from. The tragedy of lost potential that that represents led me to put forward a proposal for a special inquiry committee to look into this, which has now delivered, although we await the Government’s response on that. One of the things that that committee report highlighted, along with lots of recent work by the Social Mobility Commission, is the regional nature of the problem. We know that in places such as London and the south-east, social mobility is relatively good, but in the regions, such as the north and the Midlands, it is relatively poor, which highlights the importance of specific place-based approaches to address this issue of social mobility.
We now have a Bill in front of us to do with getting more power into strategic authorities in the regions. We have a good opportunity here to make some progress on this long-standing issue of social mobility and youth unemployment. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these amendments.
My Amendment 93 on pan-regional partnerships, which I have brought back from Committee with some minor changes, is informed by the work I have done in many areas on pan-regional issues across the Midlands over the past four or five years, and seeing the benefits of working at scale on a pan-regional basis and taking advantage of that larger scale.
In Committee, the Minister said that strategic authorities were enabled to do this already. Indeed, there are some successful examples of pan-regional partnerships—for example, the Great North partnership. The issue here is fragmentation. If the Government do not push this approach more widely, it simply will not happen more broadly across the country. The reason this is so important touches on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in the last group on economic development—another long-standing problem of the concentration of wealth and economic activity in the south-east of the country, with the Midlands and the north being left behind. Getting the regions together at that larger scale is key to helping to increase the prosperity of the regions in areas such as inward investments, large-scale infrastructure and cultural events, and to linking up cross-cutting issues such as social mobility, energy, and many other areas.
The Government have already committed to this. In the devolution White Paper, they recognised the benefits of a pan-regional approach, and the Minister talked about enabling co-operation with neighbouring strategic authorities. This is about going beyond that, enabling wider collaboration between groups of strategic authorities at a pan-regional level across larger geographies. My question for the Government is this: how will they provide support for the formation of those pan-regional partnerships, which are so important for the regions to develop economically, to tackle cross-cutting issues and to enable broader economic growth across the country? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response when she comes to sum up.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As we have heard, this Bill aims to put English devolution on to a stronger footing so that local leaders can drive economic growth and close the persistent and deep gaps between regions. But at the same time as we legislate to empower those places, the Government have decided to withdraw core support from the pan-regional partnerships that operate at the real economic scale of labour markets, transport corridors and investment decisions.
In my own region of the south-west, we saw partnerships such as the Western Gateway and Great South West show what can be done when local leaders come together across traditional boundaries. For example, Great South West set out a vision which would lift the region’s GVA by as much as £45 billion and create 190,000 additional jobs, if fully realised. The Government have chosen to end core funding for those pan-regional partnerships, and are offering only a short, time-limited extension in the case of the south-west, despite the scale of the prize. That risks hollowing out the strategic capacity that has been built up with relatively modest sums of public money but considerable voluntary effort from councils, businesses and universities across the peninsula.
As we have heard, this amendment does not seek to create a new tier of government or impose any kind of uniform model from the centre. It seeks simply to ensure that, where there is a clear economic geography, there is an enabling framework in statute so that collaboration can be sustained over the long term and is not vulnerable to short-term funding decisions or changes of ministerial fashion and that we at least have a fighting chance of delivering those tens of billions in extra output and hundreds and thousands of better jobs. I know that Ministers have said that they remain committed to pan-regional collaboration, they want it to be flexible and locally led, and that scarce resources must be concentrated on mayoral institutions. I agree absolutely with the Government that collaboration should be bottom up, and I recognise the fiscal pressures, but the sums involved in supporting these pan-regional partnerships are tiny compared with the potential returns of unlocking major investment in areas with so much underemployment.
As Jim O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and others have argued in their work on regional growth, those returns depend critically on raising education and skills and giving every young person and adult access to training that matches the needs of the local economy. Pan-regional frameworks are precisely the scale at which universities, colleges, employers and mayors can align skills, from apprenticeships to advanced manufacturing to reskilling programmes in digital and creative industries and others, so the projected jobs in these fields become real opportunities for local people. If we are serious, as all of us in this House want, about spreading high-quality jobs beyond London and the south-east, our regions need both the strong leadership and the ability to act together at scale.
Our amendment is modest and permissive and is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims, but it would help to turn those headline ambitions into tangible outcomes for jobs and growth and for people across our country to benefit from.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As he said, this has its genesis in the Select Committee which we both sat on—the Social Mobility Policy Committee. The noble Lord referred to the fact that we reported on 18 November. I just say in passing that the Government are meant to reply to Select Committee reports within two months; in other words, by 18 January, we should have had a response. It is not the responsibility of the Minister—it is another department—but when I tabled a Question about this, I discovered that on 29 occasions the Government have failed to reply to Select Committee reports on time. I just put on record what I think is a discourtesy to the House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk about the south-west, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and about how well the greater south-west grouping is working. To give noble Lords an example, they have come together and commissioned a successful system of getting wifi continuously on intercity trains. Some noble Lords may think that a complete waste of time, but when you have a five-hour journey, like I do, it is quite nice to have a bit of wifi. All the five counties, I think, have got together and done this. They are about to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to say, “We’ve proved that it works, even in tunnels and things like that. Will you give a small amount of funding to make it cover the whole of the network?” So co-operation works.
I have a question for my noble friend that relates to the relationship between Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. There is a certain occasional antipathy between the two. Size is one thing: one is very much bigger than the other. The smaller one, the Isles of Scilly, feels that it has been “done down” and that Cornwall has not given it the share of the money that it was due for the last co-operative project. Co-operation sounds very good and I fully support it, but what can be done when it goes wrong?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I see group 5 on social mobility as one of the most important that we have to consider on this second day on Report. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his commitment to increasing social mobility and his work to promote that and to promote pan-regional working. These are very important. The Government are determined to reduce youth unemployment and among the ways they will do that is the promotion of growth and devolving power to mayoral authorities. I think all these things can work.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his contribution on the previous group, said that we need a duty on local service partners to co-operate, because we have to promote co-operation rather than competition. I think the same rule applies to Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on pan-regional working.
One of the history lessons of the regional development agencies, which were ended in 2012, was that they competed against each other far too much. One of my fears in this English devolution Bill is that what could well happen is that mayors will compete with each other for funding, rather than trying to work together to increase the outputs from the money that they have. I have found this a very useful discussion, because if we are to have partnerships at a pan-regional level—let us say the north of England or the Midlands—then to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities would be very helpful, rather than having mayoral authorities within, say, the Midlands or the north of England competing with each other to earn the favours of the Treasury through their mayoral structure.
I have said previously that I think there has to be a system of assessment of the success of devolution to mayoral authorities. How do we know if they are working? We discussed that on a previous group, in one sense. I think that mayors should be targeted far more than we currently seem prepared to do. I think mayors should have a duty to reduce youth unemployment, unless they can demonstrate that central government has done something that prevents them from achieving that objective. I think that that would give a focus on the reason why mayors exist in a local area, which is to ensure that training gets better and that fewer young people, 16 to 24, are not in education, employment or training. Young people must be helped more and we have to invest more in their futures.
Finally, on Amendment 183, to which my name is attached, I think that consulting with the Social Mobility Commission on how we collect the data, and on how the evidence of social mobility outcomes is assessed, will matter. It is about achieving real outcomes, and those outcomes will depend on having the data to assess them. The Social Mobility Commission may have ways in which it can assist us. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something that I thought was very important: the cost is tiny in terms of the potential gains that can be made. I think that is absolutely right, so I find the three amendments in this group, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to be particularly helpful and appropriate, and I hope the Government will agree when the Minister sums up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing forward Amendments 93, 119 and 183, which address regional collaboration and the vital issue of social mobility, as we have heard.
Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord and supported by my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is a very sensible amendment that will encourage and enable collaboration between strategic authorities. We believe that this can only be a good thing for regional economic development, to the benefit of local residents. I will not repeat all the points so ably set out in support of this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, decides to press this amendment to a Division, he will have our full support.
Amendments 119 and 183 go to the heart of what devolution is ultimately for. It is not simply about shifting powers between tiers of government; it is about improving life chances, particularly, in these amendments, for young people who are not in education, employment or training. Amendment 119 was ably supported and explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and it highlights the importance of the partnership approach in tackling youth unemployment. This is an area where local knowledge and collaboration between authorities, employers, education providers and community organisations can make a real and lasting difference. Devolution should enable that kind of joined-up working, and it is right that the Bill reflects that ambition. Again, we will support this amendment if pressed to a Division.
Amendment 183 raises an equally important point about measurement and accountability. Taken together, these amendments remind us that economic growth alone is not enough. We must ensure that opportunity is shared and that devolution contributes to widening access to education, skills and employment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues before the House, and we look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to embed social mobility considerations into the delivery of devolved powers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for these amendments, and for taking a great deal of time and trouble to discuss them with me in recent weeks. The amendments relate to pan-regional collaboration, tackling youth unemployment and gathering social mobility data. I agree with the words of my noble friend Lady Blake: where you come from should not determine where you get to. I am a living example of that myself, and I know that there are many around your Lordships’ House. That should apply to anybody, wherever they start out—they should be able to get as far as their aspirations and their ability take them.
Amendment 93 is about pan-regional collaboration, which we have debated in Committee. I recognise the spirit of this amendment and its aim of empowering our strategic authorities to collaborate across administrative boundaries, to tackle shared challenges and to seize regional opportunities. As your Lordships will know, there is already significant pan-regional co-operation taking place between authorities, with mayors encouraged to collaborate across their regions, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. To give one example, the Great North was established last year by northern mayors as a mayor-led partnership to unlock jobs, opportunity and prosperity across the north.
I appreciate the intentions of the amendment before us, but it largely mirrors what has already been provided for in Clause 21, which gives mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners, and Clause 22, which provides a formal process for mayors to collaborate. These clauses establish a more formal framework for local engagement and partnership working, while allowing strategic authorities to determine their own methods and priorities for collaboration.
We will be publishing statutory guidance on the operation of the duty on mayors to collaborate. This guidance, to which mayors of strategic authorities must have regard, will elaborate on the importance of cross-boundary working and the benefits it can deliver for those who live and work across functional economic areas.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am grateful for her words, which really encapsulated some of what we are trying to do. However, on pan-regional partnerships, we had to take very tough decisions on funding because of the legacy we were left. As she indicated, we believe that these functions should now fall into the mayoral remit and it should be for mayors to build up those clear partnerships. I know that some of the pan-regional partnerships continue to exist because they had moved themselves to self-funding, and I am sure our mayors will want to work with them.
In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, regarding Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, he and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I have been to the Isles of Scilly with him. The Isles of Scilly are a sui generis authority, so they are not covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, we expect all areas to co-operate across boundaries, and I know there are useful discussions taking place between our friends in Cornwall and in the Isles of Scilly.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response and for the collaborative approach she has taken in response to these amendments and in all the various letters that have been flying back and forth over the past couple of days on this matter. I appreciate the commitments she has made on the guidance on local growth plans; the socioeconomic duty statutory guidance, which will really help drive forward that approach on data; and the strategic authority guidance. There is a comprehensive response there which will help to meet the intent of my amendments on social mobility, and I appreciate that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say on Amendment 93. She mentioned the collaboration clauses in the Bill, but we are of course talking about broader, pan-regional collaboration here, which is not yet adequately covered in the Bill. I ask her whether she would perhaps be willing to meet me and other stakeholders on this matter to look at that guidance and how we can move forward on this issue.
I can see the Minister nodding. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this Schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 97, I will speak also to the many others in my name in this group. I apologise for that, although they fall into four distinct subject areas, so that partly explains the number of them. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to related amendments in Committee. My noble friend was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.
I will start with Amendments 97 and 98, about non-passenger micromobility vehicles. We have others in this group, but I will focus on the ones in my name. As my noble friend said in Committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here. The intention of these amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micromobility vehicles.
Right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol. From this month, there are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol’s Gloucester Road. Anyone who knows Bristol’s Gloucester Road—as I do quite well, having campaigned there often—will know it is a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. One of these little autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road while one of the Green councillors was walking their dog, which I believe is a very small dog. These micromobility vehicles will have to deal with everything, from very small and very large dogs to children of different ages, and all kinds of different obstacles.
The interesting thing is that in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these Just Eat small-wheeled micromobility robots, and it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots. As I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. There is also the issue of these small delivery robots and people with mobility issues. Even if they do not actually cause a problem for them, it is about how frightening they are going to be.
My noble friend Lady Jones and other Peers expressed concerns in Committee that if the opportunity is not taken in the Bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens. The example given was of just how long it has taken to deal with the pedicab issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but he did not give us any way forward or an immediate course of action.
This amendment would allow for secondary legislation. We are well aware of the issues around Henry VIII clauses. It is not my intention to push the amendment, or any in this group, to a vote, but I hope the Government are thinking very hard and are prepared to take action with this Bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions. This relates to an amendment to Clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would tweak existing powers to allow such a vehicle to be seized if it is causing a problem in the local area. That is the first group of amendments.
Amendments 107 to 113 are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of the local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of its effective transport plans. Again, the response in Committee did not engage with the reality of the effects of the Bill in making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority-level data in addition to what is already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. I note that on 12 February, MHCLG published guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included there. There seems to be a real lack of joined-up thinking between the frameworks and the spirit of the Bill.
Amendments 114 to 116 are about local travel plans. Since we last discussed this, the issue of fuel usage has, of course, become much more pressing and of much more concern. I note the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased by 8% since 2020. We talk and hear a lot about modal shift, but we are just not seeing it happen. The Bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.
I move to the parking levies element of this—Amendments 117 and 118. We need a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities. That would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purposes of parking that a levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority, and therefore responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that the plan, forming the policies of any constituent authority, must be the purpose of this part.
Finally, to put that in an overall context, the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report to Parliament called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that is in the target by 2035. We have so many pressing needs here, and the incredible Parkulator tool shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking—space that could potentially be used for much better purposes including, in many cases, the housing we so often talk about. In a rather complex set of amendments, I beg to move Amendment 97.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.
I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 100 in this group but congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on opening this group of interesting amendments. I thank the Minister for meeting us prior to Report and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility vehicles. It was an interesting and successful meeting, and elucidated that currently there is no definition covering this area.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my task is very simple this afternoon, and that is to thank the Government and congratulate them on bringing forward Amendments 245 and 265, which will ensure that proper enforcement action can now be taken against those who breach parking conditions and park on pavements. This has long been a problem in local government; I can remember it back when I was a local authority leader in the 1980s and 1990s. London has benefited from enforcement greatly and now this is to be shared across the rest of England. The Government should be congratulated on that. The Minister was extremely generous when we were in Committee and said that he would look at this favourably. He has done so, along with his colleague Lillian Greenwood, who I also thank for the time that she has given to this issue.
Local authorities up and down the country will be enormously grateful, but the most grateful will be those who must use wheelchairs, buggies and any other form of transportation to move along our pavements unimpeded and to make those pavements more useful to us as pedestrians. I was happy to put my name to the amendments and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, asked me to record his thanks to the Government as well.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in congratulating the Government on this pavement parking issue.
I will speak in a bit more detail to Amendment 100 and focus on insurance, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been speaking about. She was talking about things that she does not remember in the Highway Code. I suppose that I do not remember things in the Highway Code that were published 50 years ago, when I had a driving licence. The issue is: what are we trying to achieve? Surely the most important thing is safety on the roads. That safety covers not just fast cars, large trucks, fire engines and ambulances but ordinary people trying to get around, often on equipment which has wheels. Are we looking at a series of amendments in this group which say that anything with wheels is, by definition, bad? I hope that this is not the case, because wheels are an essential part of mobility.
Occasionally, the use of this equipment needs to be separated. We spend a lot of time talking about scooters, freight bikes and other related things in between, some of which need insurance and some of which probably do not. You could widen this to a situation where if you are a pedestrian in London and cause an accident which is demonstrated to be your fault, you get the blame. Should you therefore, as a pedestrian, have insurance? It is a very wide subject and I am not sure that it is covered in this amendment.
As it stands, I cannot see why we should have special regulations
“to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance”.
Surely it is for the user to decide whether they should have insurance and what the insurance is for. The alternative is to lock it. I cannot support Amendment 100 and hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears in two or three places in this grouping. I join the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in saying how important Amendment 245 and the consequential amendment are. I have campaigned for many years on pavement parking. I finally feel that action is being taken, so I thank the Government and congratulate them on the step that they have taken.
I began being concerned about some of the transport issues when I was advised that there was doubt about who, between a mayor and a local authority, would be responsible for traffic calming measures in residential areas. In some parts of the country, it was being alleged that mayors would control the decisions on where traffic calming would take place, rather than the local council. I had a concern about that, and I wanted it clarified.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to feel slightly left out. I have not been the beneficiary of a large amount of correspondence from the Minister in the way other noble Lords scattered around the Chamber appear to have been. I do not have the advantage of his support and the wording that he might have supplied to help me make my speech.
I was very interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to them. I also had a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I will just pause for a personal recollection about the Highway Code. Back in, I think, 1973 or 1974, I was part of the team representing my school, which was triumphant in the West Midlands competition on mastery of the Highway Code. It was a sort of quiz and we had to train for it, but it was sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. To this day, I still have a very detailed recollection of the contents of the Highway Code as it stood in 1974. The most devastating consequence of this afternoon’s debate is that I have learned only today, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that it has become a very much larger document and that it is available only online. I have been living by the 1974 version very satisfactorily ever since.
But my noble friend makes a very serious point and she illustrates a degree of confusion and delay on the part of the Government. The uninsured losses that have been accumulating in the motor insurance system have fallen to the expense of responsible motorists, who pay their insurance. They are paying for all these uninsured losses and the Government will have to deal with that. If the Minister is not in a position to do so today, I agree with my noble friend that the Government will need to return to it urgently—certainly in the next parliamentary Session.
I do not object to the government amendments on pavement parking; I broadly welcome them. I find most attractive that they very properly make it a local decision, including on the exemptions required. It is very unlikely that there will be a blanket ban on pavement parking in any part of the country—there will have to be some exemptions in certain areas—but these matters should be decided locally and sensitively in consultation with residents.
That brings me to my Amendments 104 and 105, where I am motivated by a similar consideration of the sensitivities of local residents. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for indicating his support for these two amendments. Through this Bill, the Government are creating a key route network that I imagine is not unlike the red route network in London, but applied to other great conurbations. Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the roads in which that network could be created.
The purpose of my amendment, which we debated in Committee, is to prevent that network being created on residential and minor roads, in essence. The way that I have done that—and it is a slightly rough measure—is to confine the key route network to
“classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic”.
I realise that some of those roads may also be residential in character, but at least they are major roads at the moment, so the residents know where they stand. People need to be protected from the thought that their possibly quiet residential road could become an extension to an urban motorway, with very little say on their own part. The purpose here is to protect those people, and I think the Government could easily agree to this, because it is most unlikely that they would want those consequences to arise, and this would be a way of protecting from them. I give the Minister notice that, unless he is very accommodating on this point, I will test the opinion of the House.
Finally, my Amendment 103—again debated in Committee—would leave out Clause 27. The history of this clause is that, when the Greater London Authority was created, the Mayor of London was given the power to dispose of non-operational land belonging to TfL, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. There would have to be permission from the Secretary of State before the disposal should take place. The effect of the Bill is to remove that requirement and to leave it entirely to the Mayor of London.
I emphasise that the comments I am making have no relationship to the current, or any other, incumbent. The remarks I am making arise because, since the Greater London Authority Act was passed, the mayor has had housing responsibilities added to his portfolio. Those responsibilities did not exist in 1999; I think it was the Localism Act 2011 that added them, but it was around that time that housing responsibilities were added. There is now, irrespective of the personality of the incumbent, an institutional conflict built into the mayoralty about the best use of land under his disposal: would it be for transport purposes or housing purposes? Depending on the political pressures on him at a particular time, poor judgment might be exercised in deciding on the disposal of that land.
The effect of my amendment in removing Clause 27 would be simply to maintain the status quo: the mayor may order to TfL to, or may on behalf of TfL, dispose of TfL land, as currently, but he would require, as currently, the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important point for ensuring the proper integrity and responsibility over any decisions to do with the disposal of land given the potentially conflicting roles that the Mayor of London has in this regard.
I think this has been a very useful debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, since, at least in my case, it will be for the first time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Shipley and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his contribution. I say in response to him that this Government are very much in favour of mobility, but it has to be subject to appropriate regulation. I would also be delighted to supply the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with scripts for his future speeches in response to Bills such as this; my only condition is that he reads them as I give them to him. I will try not to shower him with more correspondence than he needs.
Government Amendments 245 and 265, on pavement parking, will enable the safe use of the pavement by all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments and those with prams, pushchairs or luggage. On 8 January, my department published the response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling an amendment in Committee on this subject, and I am sorry that he is unable to be in his place today, but I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Bassam has so clearly echoed his views.
Amendment 265 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a coherent and adaptable framework under which English local transport authorities could prohibit parking motor vehicles on pavements and verges in their areas. The prohibition introduced by regulations will be subject to civil enforcement. The regulations under the new clause will address matters including how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded, permissible exemptions for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area, and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition, among others.
These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can examine and approve the detailed regulatory framework before it takes effect. In the meantime, we plan to give local authorities powers later this year to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the footway. This can be achieved through secondary legislation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It was not my suggestion that the mayor needed to be supervised: it was the suggestion of the Labour Party drafters of the 1999 GLA Act, which I am simply standing up for. So reject it by all means, but do not cast that upon me.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that the successors of those people have changed their minds, so it is about time that he did, too. We have had the experience of three mayors, over 25 years, and there is no evidence that they have been incapable of taking these decisions. In 1999, there had not been a mayor, but the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful.
We discussed Amendments 104 and 105 in Committee and I said that the powers in the Bill were based on the principle of devolution: that is, it should be for places to consider what is right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act to provide concise guidance on the designation of key route networks, as well as on the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport—especially buses—and links to key employment or development sites. That balance will help places in their consideration of important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution and the fact that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly.
There are strong reasons why roads that are not classified numbered roads could be key routes under certain circumstances. They might well be roads with high levels of bus and public transport use, or linked to locally important employment or development sites. In both cases, the number of people carried, as well as numbers of vehicles, might be important in the designation. I hope that the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction will reassure the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his helpful intervention on that and for our recent discussions.
Amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to align duties with others in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans. Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in this schedule to give mayors of combined and combined county authorities powers to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non-key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them. As was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in Committee, this proposal is duplicative. Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area and, as the highway authority with the relevant powers, are best placed to influence traffic levels on those roads.
Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning. Close working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 supports this close working by requiring the constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s policies set out in the local transport plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement rather than have regard to proposals in a local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.
Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for non-mayoral strategic authorities. For existing non-mayoral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the Government’s commitment in the English devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions for non-mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils. Under existing legislation, it is up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amend them to reflect local transport circumstances. The Government will produce updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice about when authorities should review and update their plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed.
Amendment 117 would remove the word “workplace” from the framework. Extending the levy-introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension, and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is greatest at peak commuting times. Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment would also add strategic authorities to the list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy.
I touched on this in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. As I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities and their mayors. The Nottingham scheme has been a success, and it is understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans.
Finally, this amendment would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, which a workplace parking levy must support, under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 Act already defines local transport policies with reference to the local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.
Amendment 118 would have no effect, I am afraid. Local authorities outside London already have powers under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of Section 62 of the Highways Act 1980.
I turn to the environmental improvement element of the amendment. Adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the Act. Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within a highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. The definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments, and I beg to move the amendments in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating this group. I also join other noble Lords in celebrating government Amendments 245 and 265. I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years and I have heard much talk of doing something about pavement parking. At the weekend I happened to be in Chorley, where people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. I know from Sheffield that there was quite a phase of social media having daily “awful piece of pavement parking” posts, so I think this is really encouraging.
“(3) The regulations must make provision for a licence to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I would like to clarify something on the Highway Code. The Minister was absolutely right that the Highway Code is available in hard copy. It is when it is updated more than once in quick succession that the changes are available only on the internet.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the other amendment of Schedule 7 in my name.
“(5A) But the mayor for the area of a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral CCA is not the appropriate authority in relation to an approval order if the application for that approval order is made on or before the day on which the first mayor for that area takes office; and accordingly—(a) the Secretary of State is (by virtue of subsection (2)(b)) the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order (and continues to be the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order after the first mayor takes office);(b) the application for that approval order must be made to the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that an approval order can be requested and made where the appropriate authority would normally be the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA, but the first mayor for that area has not yet taken office.
Lord Moylan
“(1C) The key route network must consist only of classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the highways or proposed highways that constitute the KRN are genuinely strategic.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I heard the comments of the Minister in relation to guidance to be issued and, with that, I will not move the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.
Lord Jamieson
“Brownfield land priority(1) A mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority may not designate greenfield land for development unless it is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area.(2) In determining suitability under subsection (1), regard must be had to—(a) the availability of land, and(b) the viability and environmental impact of development.”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. There is near universal agreement that a “brownfield first” strategy is the right one. Not only does it save green fields but new developments benefit from existing infrastructure, homes are delivered where they are needed most, it supports regeneration and, finally, it is better for the environment. However, greenfield sites offer the potential to landowners and promoters of huge planning gain, from a few thousand pounds an acre as agricultural land to hundreds of thousands once planning permission is received—hence their willingness to push and challenge the system. Once planning permission is received, building on it is so much easier for developers. As a result, in effect we have a default “greenfield first” approach, losing precious green belt and productive farmland.
If the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that we cannot be dependent on imports; we need to grow our own. Yesterday’s announcement on local government reorganisation, with urban areas expanding into their rural hinterland, will only encourage building on green fields rather than focusing on the urban footprint. For years, Governments of all colours have tried to prioritise brownfield first, but guidance alone is simply not enough; we need something more forceful. We need it in legislation. If we make this a requirement of strategic plans, mayors and combined authorities will need to address the issues facing brownfield in their areas up front, to make it easier to speed up and deliver brownfield development. Without it, greenfield will continue to be the default, the environment will suffer, more money will need to be spent on infrastructure and we will continue to lose valuable agricultural land. We will also fail to deliver the homes we need where they are most needed, continuing the housing crisis, with young people unable to afford their own home and increased homelessness.
In Committee the Minister raised a concern that this would be used as an excuse to delay development of sites. In fact, the very opposite is the case: this is all about getting more sites and more homes faster and where they are needed most. When we are facing a housing crisis and we are failing to build, and that failure is biggest in urban areas such as London with the greatest need, it can only be right that we build more in urban areas through gentle densification and repurposing of redundant sites. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will say a few words in general support of the principle of this amendment. We supported it during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so it would make sense to do so here.
It was good old John Prescott who first promoted “brownfield first” and, ever since then, councils have been encouraged to promote it, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs, and that is the real issue I have with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Decontamination and development costs alone make it much more costly. There is a fear of lopsiding development, and I would be interested in further discussion—but clearly not here now—about how we square the very emotional debates we have had over the last day on Report with rural issues, the lack of housing in rural areas and how people need it, for all the reasons given. This amendment squarely says, “Leave the green areas alone”, so I have a little problem with it, although we on these Benches absolutely support the overriding principle.
Given the large area of combined authorities, there will clearly be a massive range of sites, covering all sorts of greenfield and brownfield sites, so I will leave the Minister with the thought that perhaps the Government need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first. There are lots of ideas that I am sure she is aware of that would encourage that more, but the key thing is that brownfield alone will not meet housing needs. Rural areas need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections for our green belt and our countryside.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 121 about brownfield land. I agree that we should always use brownfield land wherever possible. As succinctly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, one reason for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there is more brownfield land there. We are trying to promote that kind of development as part of the reorganisation process, but there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We have a rural housing crisis that we must tackle, and there are other uses, such as data centres, for which it might also be appropriate.
Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities, but they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy.
The effective use or reuse of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, mentioned earlier, goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development outside of settlements.
Mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through mayoral development orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types in line with their ambitions for growth. It is right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth that this country needs. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is for these reasons that I do not consider it to be necessary or proportionate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments and the Minister for hers. Let us be clear: this is about doing what everyone has said that we need to do, which is developing on brownfield first. It is not about preventing development anywhere else. This is about creating more sites, it is about getting more building done, but it is also about regenerating cities and providing the homes that we need. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister. This is not about blocking; it is about enabling. I therefore wish to test the opinion of this House.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment of clause 2 in my name would add culture as an “area of competence” in the Bill, and it would appear as the last in the list of areas. Clause 41 falls more readily in the new “culture” competence and so this amendment would mean that its position in the Bill reflects the order in which the areas of competence appear.
Lord Fuller
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments from Lord Fuller in Clause 42, seeks to make clear the separation of duties between Mayor and Local Government Pension Scheme to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the mayor and pension scheme.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I will speak briefly to this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with me on the narrow point. These three amendments, which are mostly the same, are supportive of what the Government are trying to achieve.
In Clause 42, there is a requirement for mayors to co-operate with the LGPS to finance infrastructure. I have no problem with that—in fact, it is to be welcomed. My amendments are based on the simple truth that if they are to grow the economy, mayors need to have a complete understanding of how money is raised, deals are put together and bright ideas are turned into investible opportunities.
In essence, mayors need to understand the difference between funding and financing. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. Of course, they are completely different disciplines. My amendments simply substitute “develop” with “promote”. This recognises that it is the role of mayors to produce investible opportunities but not necessarily that of the LGPS to buy them. This is not purely semantics; it is a simple word change that stops accusations of a degree of connivance or collusion between the mayor and funds, which could lead to conflicts of interest.
This group ensures that there is a proper separation of duties between the mayor and the funds. The word “promote” helps everybody be clear: it is the mayor’s job to punt the opportunity, but the scheme is not necessarily mandated to accept it. Promotion makes it clear that the mayor needs to work harder to be clearer about what the market and investors require, to turn that idea into a proposition. In so doing, the important point is that this encourages the wider uptake of good opportunities, not just by the home fund but by the wider pool of investments in the LGPS and beyond.
There would be fewer accusations of connivance, a greater clarity of roles, greater professionalism and understanding of how financing works, and a better separation of duties, which would allow other pools to jump on the bandwagon of good ideas, rather than just being a closed shop. Words matter. This substitution would strengthen the clause and make actual investments more likely. Two minutes—I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue: the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the Local Government Pension Scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interest, as we have heard.
Under the Bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development. That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions and on whose behalf. Pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is fiduciary: to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries.
There is a distinction here that matters. The mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to directly or indirectly influence the allocation of pension fund assets. In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity and another independently decides whether to write the cheque. As has been noted, there are important differences between funding and financing and between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance.
Co-operation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable, but the co-operation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines. What begins as collaboration must not become, even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision-making and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. For those reasons, I support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for Amendments 129 to 131 and for the time he took to discuss them with me. I recognise his intention to clarify the roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and pension funds in making local investments. I agree that it is very important for roles and responsibilities to be completely clear. We want strategic authorities to play an active role in bringing forward investment and guidance. We will further explain the Government’s expectations.
I just point out that there is in the Pension Schemes Bill a reciprocal requirement for local government pension funds to co-operate with strategic authorities. The wording of “identify and develop” in this context is consistent with that requirement, which makes it a bit late to change that just now. The meaning of “development”, however, can be clarified in guidance. Pensions guidance will confirm that there is no requirement to invest in assets that are not deemed suitable as pension investments. This should provide the noble Lord reassurance.
Schedule 20 includes a requirement for local growth plans to set out key projects for achieving economic growth through private or public investment. The guidance on local growth plans already makes clear the expectations and support available to mayoral combined authorities and to mayoral combined county authorities for developing and taking forward that pipeline of investment opportunities. Further, government guidance for local government pension funds will explain the meaning of this requirement for them. This guidance will further clarify our expectations in this context. I am very happy to discuss this with the noble Lord outside the Chamber as we develop the guidance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I think I laid out that relationships should be close but not cosy between the mayor and the funds. I accept the reciprocity between this Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill, which we debated earlier. I accept the Minister’s assurance and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(a) the availability and standards of housing, transport services or public safety,(b) environmental factors, including air quality, and access to green space and bodies of water,(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity,(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services,(e) the use of, level of use of, tobacco, alcohol or other substances,and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, including physical activity and diet, that are or may be harmful to health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the list of general health detriments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 132 is on the general health determinants listed under Clause 44. Under that clause, combined authorities must have regard to improving the health of people in their area. Our amendments would expand the current list of general health determinants to include the availability, as opposed to just the standards, of housing. In addition,
“matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle”
as referenced in the Bill are specified to include “physical activity and diet”.
On housing, standards are crucial of course, but housing availability should also be considered as it affects housing insecurity and homelessness. On physical activity and diet, it should be clear to all noble Lords that these are major health determinants. This is common knowledge: dietary patterns are a key determinants of chronic disease, and physical activity is a major factor for preventable disease. In 2023, evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance showed that the UK was ranked 11th out of 15 comparable European nations for the levels of physical activity that were undertaken, and that we were the third-highest spender on healthcare costs caused by inactivity. Updating the general health determinants in this Bill would inform fthe health determinants referenced in Amendments 133 and 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.
Evidently, there is scope in this Bill to see what more can be done to make our country healthier, based on common sense. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this very short and very simple amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 133 and 134. As we are aware, the UK’s health is fraying and unequal, with increasing numbers of people unable to work owing to poor health. Compared with other high-income countries, the UK now has one the lowest life expectancies and is among those with deepest health inequalities. This has avoidable and negative consequences for individuals, public services and the economy.
Addressing these inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the powers to shape economic growth, create healthy places and reduce inequalities. This Bill provides a timely opportunity to embed health and health equity at the heart of devolved decision-making, and I warmly welcome Clause 44, which is a crucial lever for improving health and reducing health inequalities.
In Committee, I tabled amendments to strengthen this duty and the proposed local growth plans to ensure that all strategic authorities act consistently to improve health, reduce health inequalities and consider health while growing their local economies. My noble friend the Minister responded that she believes the duty as drafted
“will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 613.]
However, the Government have not yet provided any detail on how this duty should be fulfilled or how strategic authorities will be held accountable for this. Without this detail, there is a real risk that inequalities will be worsened, with some strategic authorities taking significant action to improve health and others seeing the duty as a tick-box exercise.
To ensure that the duty is as successful as we and the Government want it to be, I have tabled amendments which would require the Government to report to Parliament on the implementation of the duty. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Bichard, for their support.
The Government previously said that they will monitor the health duty, with Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, saying that
“we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country, so we can ensure that the intent is aligned with practice and delivery”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 21/10/25; col. 358.]
These amendments would formalise the Government’s commitment, providing a mechanism to identify whether further support, guidance, resources or requirements are needed in the future. It would also provide a mechanism to support shared learning across strategic authorities.
The amendments focus on implementation and process rather than outcomes, given the time it takes to see shifts in health inequalities. Information could be collected with a light-touch approach of returns from strategic authorities covering actions taken, strategies produced, partnerships formed, et cetera, and desk research by civil servants. Without these amendments, there is a risk that the new health duty remains well intentioned but inconsistently applied across regions and will therefore fail to have any real impact on reducing health inequalities. This would be a significant missed opportunity to reverse worrying health trends. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that the Government will agree to guarantee strong guidance on this issue to ensure that the duty is properly implemented across all regions.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I spoke to Amendment 132 in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, but I just want to say that the Minister said in Committee that the reason why the Government want to stick with their own wording on Clause 44—a clause that we all support very strongly—was that they did not want to be too prescriptive regarding what areas should be looking at as health determinants. However, if we do not reflect what is known about the determinants of health, we will not be able to set down what we need to measure to evaluate the success of Clause 44, which is so important and which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, spoke about in connection with her amendments. I therefore urge the Government to look very carefully at these amendments to see whether some adjustments can be made that would make Clause 44 as strong as we all want it to be.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and health inequalities duties. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for her helpful contribution.
On Amendment 132, I stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities, which are the experts in their local areas, to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act. It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.
Setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of “general health determinants.” It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”,
and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall for her Amendments 133 and 134. However, these amendments would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State would be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirement for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the
“consistency of implementation of the duty”
is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally.
Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and have the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard. This would constrain local ambition. More broadly, alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations.
However, I reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities to understand the impact that it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it. With these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendment and my noble friend Lady Royall does not move hers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments. Ensuring that we have a holistic view of housing—not just the quality but the quantity of housing and the role that it plays in health—makes it easier for authorities to respond to this part of the Bill. Explicitly recognising the effects of diet and physical activity on our health is not contentious but will also help authorities to facilitate healthier lifestyles in their communities. I hope that the Minister will give his continued consideration to these amendments.
Lord Rees of Easton
“Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officer for designated mayoral fire and rescue authoritiesPart 3 of Schedule 23 makes further provision in connection with the establishment of the position of Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officers in a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.”
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
Amendments 135 and 138 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I will also speak to Amendment 173. I do not intend to provoke a debate and will withdraw my amendment at the end of this group.
I thank the Minister for her openness and the constructive conversations that we have had on the integration of fire and rescue services into combined authorities in response to questions raised with me by West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Earlier today I got off the phone with Mayor Brabin. It is great to be able to say that we are particularly grateful for the Minister’s commitment to bringing the relevant partners together to ensure that the final shape of these arrangements works for fire services, combined authorities and the communities that they serve. We are also very grateful for the broader ongoing commitment to strengthening the working relationship between government and our metro mayors, which will be critical to meeting the challenge of delivery. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments highlight a real tension in this Bill. While powers are being devolved to mayoral combined authorities and CCAs, there remain serious questions about accountability, scrutiny and operational independence for fire services. The financial provisions brought in through Schedule 23 are necessary to ensure that the mayoral fire and rescue authorities are subject to the appropriate reporting and responsibilities. Yet the practical questions remain: will these arrangements be sufficient to safeguard transparency and maintain public confidence, particularly in emergency planning and the management of major incidents? In short, this group of amendments highlights the wider concern that devolving powers to mayors risks concentrating authority without sufficient checks. We will listen carefully to the Minister, but I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously and ensure that robust scrutiny and accountability for fire and rescue functions is embedded in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for Amendments 135, 138 and 174 and for being available to explain why he has brought this forward from other mayors. He has passed on their views for us.
I will speak first to Amendments 136 and 137 in my name. As I set out in Committee, these are essential amendments to Schedule 23. They would not create a new duty or expand powers, but they would ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority. Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities—I do hope we can call them the same thing at some point, because I am getting fed up with saying it twice every time—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes—that would be my amendment.
Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, maintaining consistency and fairness across England.
Amendment 137 would confirm that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities. This amendment would extend the application of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to mayoral fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It would similarly bring them within Section 155 of that Act for the purposes of emergency financial support.
Furthermore, Amendment 137 would clarify the process for handling Section 114 reports for mayoral fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee. The authority’s response must then be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees.
Turning now to Amendments 135, 138 and 174, I stress that Clause 47 is a key provision, ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors. These amendments would cut across that approach by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. Doing so risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. The amendments could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the Bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment. I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course.
With these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments. I commend the minor and technical amendments in my name to the House.
“Matters outside the scope of inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.(A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.”” Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.
“Local Government Finance Act 1988
5A (1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 114 (functions of responsible officer as regards reports), in subsection (4)(b)—(a) in sub-paragraph (iiic), omit the final “and”;(b) after sub-paragraph (iiic) insert—“(iiid) a mayoral FRA, the relevant scrutiny body (and here “mayoral FRA” and “relevant scrutiny body” have the same meanings as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), and”.(3) In section 115 (authority’s duties as regards reports)—(a) after subsection (1BA) insert—“(1BB) In the case of a report made by the chief finance officer of a mayoral FRA (which in this section has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), that mayoral FRA must consider the report and decide whether the mayoral FRA agrees or disagrees with the views contained in the report and what action (if any) the mayoral FRA proposes to take in consequence of it.”;(b) in subsection (1E), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, the mayoral FRA”;(c) after subsection (1FA) insert—“(1FB) As soon as practicable after the mayoral FRA has prepared a report under subsection (1E), the mayoral FRA must arrange for a copy of the report to be sent to—(a) the chief finance officer;(b) the person who at the time the report is made has the duty to audit the authority’s accounts; and (c) each member of the relevant scrutiny body (which has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004).”;(d) in subsection (2), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, a mayoral FRA”.Local Government and Housing Act 1989
5B (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 67(3) (meaning of “local authority” in Part 5), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hb) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.(3) In section 155(4) (local authorities that can receive emergency financial assistance), after paragraph (ha) insert— “(hb) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hc) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would bring mayoral combined authorities or CCAs that are fire and rescue authorities within sections 114 and 155 of the Local Government Finance Act 1989 and Part 5 and section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the seriousness with which our new proposed strategic licensing measures were considered during Committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been valuable.
I begin by stating clearly that this Government recognise the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority—for example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London-wide strategic licensing policy. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds in regulations of what is meant by “potential strategic importance” to Greater London.
London licensing authorities remain the default licensing decision-makers in Greater London, and the mayor will be able to “call in” decisions made by a London licensing authority only on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London and in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London licensing authority.
The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London-wide strategic licensing policy. I am pleased to hear that many London licensing authorities have responded. This will help to inform the criteria by which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what “potential strategic importance” to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other statutory instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call-in process.
Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor encroaching on local licensing authorities’ decision-making unnecessarily. This includes preventing the mayor rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by a London licensing authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London-wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London’s sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call-in power is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances—effective as much in its existence as in its use—to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to licensing across the capital.
I turn to some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, in Committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I am acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous—least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and local policing capacities. There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions—including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies—as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency. New rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call-in power. The Government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force.
I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgments. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion, rather than arriving at a binary outcome. Through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London’s hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people’s local concerns are protected.
I commend to noble Lords the amendments in my name, and I will listen to other noble Lords before I comment on theirs.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.
Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?
The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.
We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, these provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and, ultimately, the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be of strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision-making.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils, rooted in local knowledge and expertise, and accountable to their local communities. The introduction of a mayoral call-in power therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise.
This raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I am grateful that the Minister said that that will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on the time scale. What assurance will the Minister give that strategic importance will mean what the man on the street would determine to be genuinely of strategic importance, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations?
The Minister also commented that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been accepted. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which, in effect, could make that licence inoperable in any event. Could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed, and that these would be fair and reasonable and would not be, in effect, an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local borough had already approved? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendments 140 and 148. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing measures in London is clear: to enable a more strategic approach to licensing to boost London’s nightlife and hospitality industries. These industries are essential to London’s economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and generating £46 billion in economic activity annually. They also play a vital role in shaping the capital’s global reputation as a vibrant, diverse and welcoming city.
However, there is evidence of unmet potential, particularly when it comes to London’s night-time economy. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022 to 2025. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they might have ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wishing to stay out later. Of course, the reasons for this are multifaceted, and licensing is not by any means the sole factor at play. Nevertheless, the Government believe that licensing in London should operate as more of an enabling framework—one that allows responsible businesses to thrive, while continuing to protect residents and public safety. That is very important.
London operates across 32 boroughs and the City of London, with each rightly rooted in its local context and responsive to the needs of its communities. However, when licensing decisions are made in isolation within each of those authorities, the cumulative effect can be a fragmented and inconsistent approach to issues that may have consequences across the capital. For example, a venue of regional or international significance, such as the ones that noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, a major cultural destination or a late-night operation tied closely to transport hubs and visitor economies, does not serve one borough alone. Yet, at present, the licensing system often means that proposals are assessed solely through a local lens, even where their impacts and benefits are distributed far more widely.
It is precisely to address this gap that a carefully constrained strategic role for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority is justified. Other major cities, such as Amsterdam and New York, have shown what is possible when licensing is approached not solely as a reactive regulatory tool but as part of a broader strategic framework for nurturing culture, hospitality and the night-time economy.
Our underlying aim is to enable London to be the best version of itself: vibrant, safe, inclusive and globally competitive. The measures before us are a necessary and proportionate step towards that end. I hope that my reassurance about the consultation we intend to carry out relating to the meaning of “potential strategic importance” to London will have helped reassure the noble Baroness. I ask her therefore not to press her amendments.
Baroness Pidgeon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the London licensing provisions to probe the Government’s rationale behind their inclusion.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have put on record our clear concerns here and I hear what the Minister has said about a carefully constrained strategic role. The consultation on “strategic importance” will be key, but we will watch this space and see how this develops. I wanted our clear concerns on record. There is a lot of work to do to get all the London boroughs on board. With that, I will not move my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“1A In section 3 (licensing authorities), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In this Act, “London licensing authority” means each of the following licensing authorities—(a) the council of a London borough,(b) the Common Council of the City of London,(c) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, or(d) the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers of the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“4A In section 13 (authorised persons and responsible authorities), in subsection (4), after paragraph (ha), insert—“(hb) where the premises are situated in Greater London, the Greater London Authority,”.4B After section 17 insert—“17A Licence applications of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 17 that is a relevant licence application.(2) A “relevant licence application” is an application for a premises licence in Greater London which would authorise the premises to be used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant licence application is an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) is to be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3),“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4C In section 18 (determination of application for premises licence), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period; (b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9B) In subsection (9A)—“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4DIn section 22 (prohibited conditions: plays), in subsection (2)—(a) the words from “a licensing authority” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) after that paragraph, insert“or,(b) the Mayor of London directing a London licensing authority under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or section 41ZB(1)(a) or (c) to impose conditions which the Mayor considers appropriate on the grounds of public safety.”4E In section 23 (grant or rejection of application)—(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London is granted with no steps taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to the Greater London Authority.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply if the Greater London Authority made relevant representations in respect of the application.”;(b) in subsection (4), after “this section” insert—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;”.4F In section 24 (form of licence and summary), after subsection (2)(f), insert—“(g) if it is issued on a direction from the Mayor of London, specify this.”4G After section 25A insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine licence applications
25B Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications(1) This section applies where on an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London a London licensing authority—(a) grants a premises licence having taken one or more of the steps under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, or(b) rejects the application to grant a premises licence under section 18(4)(d).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the premises licence and the steps, and reasons for the steps, taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence (including the detail of any modifications made to conditions under section 18(4)(a)), or(b) its decision to reject the application under section 18(4)(d) and the reasons for doing so. (3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (6) of a decision under subsection (5)(b).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including giving notice under section 23) unless and until such a notice is given.(5) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 25C), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application is to have effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(6) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (5) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18.(7) On receipt of a notice under subsection (6), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor.(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (7) is to be made.(9) In this section—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“ interested party” has the same meaning as in section 17A (see subsection (7) of that section);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.25C Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 25B(5)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the licence in accordance with the application subject only to—(i) such conditions specified in the direction as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, and(ii) any conditions which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(b) to grant the licence subject to—(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) with such permitted modifications as may be specified in the direction, and(ii) any condition which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(c) to grant the licence in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b), but to also do one or both of the following—(i) exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities which were excluded by the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application under section 18(4)(b);(ii) refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor where the London licensing authority refused to specify that person in their decision in relation to the application under section 18(4)(c), or(d) to reject the application. (2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(d) to reject the application if the application was rejected by the authority under section 18(4)(d).(3) The London licensing authority must grant the licence or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(5) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be granted subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(6) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction.(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(8) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the licence under section 18(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or(ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (9)), or(b) the condition relates to an application that was rejected by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(d).(9) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (8)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(a).25D Issue of licence etc by licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants a licence on a direction under section 25C(1)(a) to (c) must as soon as possible—(a) give notice that the licence is granted to—(i) the applicant,(ii) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(iii) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(iv) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated, and(b) issue the applicant with the licence and a summary of it.(2) A London licensing authority that rejects an application on a direction under section 25C(1)(d) must as soon as possible give notice that the application is rejected to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates, (c) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 25C(6).”4H After section 34 insert—“34A Applications to vary of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 34 that is a relevant application.(2) A “relevant application” is an application to vary a premises licence in Greater London where the premises are, or would after the variation be, used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant application is an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) must be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) “application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4I In section 35 (determination of application under section 34), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period;(b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9) In this section—“application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4J After section 41 insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine applications to vary
41ZA Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications to vary(1) This section applies where, on an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, a London licensing authority—(a) grants an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35 and modifies the conditions of the licence under subsection (4)(a) of that section,(b) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35(4)(b), or(c) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in part under section 35(4)(b) and grants the other part (whether with or without modifying the conditions of the licence).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the application in whole and modify the conditions of the licence and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of the modifications made),(b) its decision to reject the application in whole and the reasons for doing so, or(c) its decision to reject part of the application and to grant the other part with or without modifying the conditions of the licence, and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of any modifications made).(3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until—(a) the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (8) of a decision under subsection (7)(b), or(b) the obligations on the Mayor of London under subsection (7) of this section or section 41ZB cease to apply (see section 41ZC).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including taking steps under section 56) unless and until the circumstances in subsection (3)(a) or (b) apply.(5) Where the decision of the London licensing authority has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b), that decision is to take effect as subject to the intervening decision made by the authority in relation to the licence (see section 41ZC(2)(a)).(6) For the purpose of supplementing subsection (5), the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision modifying any provision of this Act as it applies to a decision of the London licensing authority that has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b).(7) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 41ZB), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application has effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(8) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (7) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35.(9) On receipt of a notice under subsection (8), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor. (10) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (9) must be made.(11) In this section—“ application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“interested party” has the same meaning as in section 34A;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.41ZB Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 41ZA(7)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the application in whole with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction,(b) to reject the application in whole, or(c) to grant part of the application with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction (and to reject the other part of the application).(2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(b) or (c) to reject the application in whole or in part if the application, or that part of the application, was rejected by the authority under section 35(4)(b).(3) The London licensing authority must grant or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) Subsection (1)(a) and (c) are subject to sections 19 to 21 (which require certain conditions to be included in premises licences).(5) A direction under this section may not require a licence to be varied so as—(a) to extend the period for which the licence has effect, or(b) to vary substantially the premises to which it relates.(6) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (c) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be varied so as to have effect subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(7) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(8) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving that direction.(9) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (c), the conditions are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(10) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (c), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the application in whole or in part under section 35(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or (ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (11)), or(b) the condition relates to an application, or part of an application, that was rejected by the London licensing authority under subsection 35(4)(b).(11) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (10)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 35(4)(a).41ZC Intervening decision by a London licensing authority(1) The obligations on the Mayor of London under section 41ZA(7) or 41ZB in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London cease to apply if the conditions in subsection (2) are met in relation to the obligation in question.(2) The conditions in this subsection are met if—(a) the London licensing authority that made the decision under section 35 in relation to the application to vary the premises licence has, before the relevant time, made an intervening decision in relation to the licence, and(b) the authority has given notice of that decision to the Mayor of London.(3) In this section, an “intervening decision” means a decision—(a) to take any of the steps under section 52(4) on an application for review of the licence;(b) to take any of the steps under section 53C(3) on an application by a senior police officer for review of the licence;(c) to take any of the steps under section 167(6) on a review of the licence following a closure order.(4) The “relevant time” for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)—(a) in relation to the obligation to make a decision under section 41ZA(7), is the time at which the Mayor makes the decision,(b) in relation to an obligation to give a direction under section 41ZB, is the time at which the direction is given.41ZD Notification by the London licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(2) The notice under subsection (1) must—(a) specify the time when any variation takes effect, and(b) specify any modifications to conditions of the licence.(3) The time for the purposes of subsection (2) is the time specified in the application or, if that time is before the applicant is given notice under this section, such later time as the London licensing authority specifies in the notice. (4) A London licensing authority that rejects an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(5) A notice under subsection (1) or (4) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 41ZB(8).”4K In section 54 (form of applications and notices)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “form” insert “or content”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the period within which it is to be made or given;”.4L In section 56 (licensing authority’s duty to update licence document), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a London licensing authority, in relation to a premises licence, is subject to a direction under section 41ZB (directions by Mayor of London),”.4M In section 181 (appeals against decisions of licensing authorities)—(a) in the heading, after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(b) in subsection (1), after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(c) in subsection (2), in the opening words, after “licensing authority” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”;(e) in subsection (2)(c), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”.4N In section 185 (provision of information)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) the words from “information which” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) after that paragraph insert“, and(b) information which is held by or on behalf of the Mayor of London in connection with the Mayor’s functions under this Act.”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “or”;(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“or(c) to the Mayor of London,”;(iii) in the closing words, after “functions” insert “or the Mayor’s functions”;(c) in subsection (3), for “or responsible authority” substitute “, responsible authority or the Mayor of London”.4P In Schedule 5 (appeals)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—“1A Where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority—(a) to reject an application for a premises licence under section 25C, or (b) to reject (in whole or in part) an application to vary a premises licence under section 41ZB,the applicant may appeal against the direction.”;(b) after paragraph 2 insert—2A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 25C to grant a premises licence.(2) The holder of the licence may appeal against the following aspects of any such direction—(a) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(a)(i) of that section;(b) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section;(c) to exclude licensable activities from the scope of the licence under subsection (1)(c)(i) of that section;(d) to refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of that section.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the licence on the following basis—(a) that the licence ought not to have been granted, or(b) that the direction ought to have imposed different or additional conditions under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or to have taken a step mentioned in section 25C(1)(c)(i) or (ii).”;(c) in the heading of paragraph 4, after “35” insert “or 41ZB”;(d) after paragraph 4 insert—4A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 41ZB to grant an application to vary a premises licence (in whole or in part).(2) The applicant may appeal against any direction under that section to make permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the application on the following basis—(a) that any variation made ought not to have been made, or(b) that, when directing the licence to be varied, the Mayor ought not to have directed that permitted modifications be made to the conditions of the licence, or ought to have directed that different permitted modifications be made to the conditions.(4) In sub-paragraph (3), “permitted modifications” has the meaning given in section 41ZB(10).”;(e) in paragraph 9—(i) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from “the day” to the end substitute—“(a) on an appeal under paragraph 1A, 2A or 4A, the day on which the appellant was notified by the London licensing authority of the outcome of the direction appealed against, and(b) on any other appeal under this Part, the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.”;(ii) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) On an appeal under paragraph 2A(3) or 4A(3), the holder of the premises licence is to be the respondent in addition to the Mayor of London.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to give the Mayor of London the power to make a new determination on applications to grant or vary premises licences in Greater London if the Mayor considers that the application is of potential strategic importance to Greater London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all concern Schedule 25, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe that the schedule, as drafted, lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards.
The current test in the Bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that regulations can be made is “appropriate”. That threshold is notably low and subjective for the exercise of very wide powers. These provisions allow for conferral, modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard.
We on these Benches believe that replacing “appropriate” with “necessary and proportionate” would align the exercise of these powers with well-established public law principles. The amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued but to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed. The amendments do not prevent action but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and transparent.
I turn to the issue of consent. Amendments 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors before they exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As drafted, the duty is limited to consultation, which does not guarantee that local views will meaningfully shape an outcome. Given that these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures, it is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent.
A consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than being imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.
Amendments 158, 160, 164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In Part 1, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, despite later parts conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied. This risks creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government could be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment would ensure that all uses of these powers were guided by consistent and principled frameworks.
I turn finally to the amendments on pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes. As drafted, the Bill confers very broad discretion on the Secretary of State, with limited external scrutiny. Pilot schemes are by their nature experimental. It is therefore essential that they are subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements. The amendments would ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents were made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how the schemes are operating in practice.
The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely on the views of those involved in its delivery. Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of the requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but effective in practice.
Finally—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—the proposal would require all regulations under this schedule to be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, which would reinforce parliamentary oversight and ensure that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and transparent. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for all these amendments. I think that there are 26, so it might take a little time to reply with a depth of understanding.
Amendments 150, 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer a function on a strategic authority or to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. The statutory test as currently drafted in the Bill is already sufficiently robust. The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function. Introducing a more restrictive statutory test which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate could lead to central government being too cautious in using Schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in future.
Amendments 158, 160, 163, 164, 166 and 168 seek to apply the amended statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use Schedule 25 to make regulations to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary, as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The Bill introduces the statutory test in Part 1 of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule provide more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to Parts 2, 3 and 4.
I turn to Amendments 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the Bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people which the Secretary of State must consult before a decision is taken on the conferral or modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes affected mayors, strategic authorities, local authorities and any bodies or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function. In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by a decision on the conferral or modification of functions.
Schedule 25 allows the Government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time-consuming and complicated to implement, and allows us to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country. Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively have a veto which prevented the Secretary of State conferring or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic authority.
If individual authorities or mayors had a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, Amendment 161 appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and the London Assembly to provide their consent to the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside London.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That will help me get to sleep, will it not?
I know that the amendments in my name are long and slightly complicated, but they are not intended to frustrate the Government’s objectives or to frustrate Schedule 25. We on these Benches might not agree about the objectives of the Bill—we probably do not—but we think it is important to ensure that the framework in which these regulatory powers are exercised is properly balanced, and from what I heard from the Minister, I have doubts about that in some cases. These amendments are intended to embed the principles that we should have across the whole Bill about transparency and consent, particularly local consent. They would also ensure that there are necessary safeguards in place so that Parliament can scrutinise any use of these significant delegated powers in an effective and simple way. I hope the Government reflect carefully on these amendments, and perhaps the noble Lord will also read Hansard tomorrow, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move to the next amendment, I need to tell the House that there has been a slight revision to the voting figures on the last vote, on Amendment 121. The figures as announced were Contents 152; Not-Contents 126. The latter figure has been revised to 128. The outcome is not affected, but the figures are slightly different.
Amendment 171
“Exercise of functions may begin at different times etc
16A (1) This paragraph applies to a power under this Schedule to confer a function on, or provide for a function to be exercisable by, a class of strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”).(2) The power includes—(a) the power to provide for the function to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class at different times or in different circumstances;(b) the power to make further regulations which specify the times at which, or circumstances in which, the function is to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class.(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(b) may be made in relation to different members of the relevant class at different times.(4) In this paragraph “different members” of the relevant class includes members of the relevant class that are of different descriptions specified in regulations made under the power.”Member's explanatory statement
This would make clear that regulations under Schedule 25 can provide for a function conferred on a class to become exercisable (a) by different members of the class at different times; and (b) by virtue of regulations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two more votes: that always makes you feel better. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Government Amendments 171 and 180 are technical amendments that provide greater clarity on how Schedule 25 will allow the functions of strategic authorities to be updated and modified over time. Amendment 180 clarifies that Schedule 25 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to modify and confer functions on new mayoral strategic authorities during the period between their establishment and the inaugural mayor taking office. This amendment ensures that the functions of mayoral strategic authorities can be modified if needed ahead of the mayor being elected, ensuring that the authority is able to operate effectively during this period. A good example is the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to devolution priority programme areas whose mayoral elections will take place in May 2028. Where local government reorganisation will see the abolition of current fire and rescue authorities in April 2028, the amendment will ensure that we have a mechanism to provide for the new mayoral strategic authorities to become the fire and rescue authorities, thereby ensuring the continuity of service provision critical for public safety.
Amendment 171 clarifies that Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to specify whether a function which has been conferred on a particular class of strategic authority is to be exercisable by different strategic authorities within that class at different times. This flexibility will, for example, be important in enabling the appropriate transfer of fire and rescue functions from existing fire and rescue authorities to strategic authorities at the right time for each area. In some areas, strategic authorities may be established in advance of local government reorganisation being completed, and it may not be appropriate to transfer those functions until the reorganisation is concluded. The amendment therefore ensures that such functions can be commenced at a point when an individual area is ready to exercise them.
I turn to Government Amendments 192 and 193. I am grateful to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their consideration of the Henry VIII power in Schedule 26, concerning the conversion of a combined county authority to a combined authority following local government reorganisation. The Government have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation to remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend primary legislation made in future Sessions as it relates to this power. We have concluded that any necessary transition of a combined county authority to a combined authority can be delivered without taking a delegated power. I am therefore able to confirm that the Government not only accept the committee’s recommendation in relation to this specific power but intend to go further, by removing the delegated power to alter any existing primary legislation when undertaking conversion, save for amendments to the 2007 Act that may be necessary. I beg to move.
I know that the House will sit tomorrow on the terminally ill adults Bill, but as I am not likely to participate in those debates, I wish all noble Lords a restful and relaxing recess, and we will continue our deliberations on this Bill on 13 April.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for these amendments. They help to clarify certain things and are tidying-up amendments. We fully support them. I also wish the House a very happy Recess.
“Mayoral strategic authorities: period before first mayor takes office
26 (1) The fact that a mayoral strategic authority is in the preparatory phase—(a) does not prevent regulations under this Schedule from making provision which applies to—(i) the mayor for its area, or(ii) the mayoral strategic authority; and(b) where a provision of this Schedule requires consultation with the members of a class which includes the mayoral strategic authority or the mayor for its area, does not—(i) prevent that requirement from being complied with by a consultation that does not involve the mayor, or(ii) require further consultation with the mayor after the first mayor has taken office. (2) Any power under this Schedule to make provision in relation to mayoral strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”) must be read as enabling regulations to make provision in relation to the relevant class which applies only to—(a) those of the mayoral strategic authorities in the relevant class which are in the preparatory phase, or(b) those of the mayors in the relevant class that are mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in the preparatory phase.(3) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision which applies only to—(a) mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations, or(b) mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a mayoral strategic authority is in the “preparatory phase”—(a) after the authority has been established, but(b) before the first mayor for the authority’s area has taken office.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that the powers under Schedule 25 are not affected by a mayoral strategic authority being in the “preparatory phase” (the phase before the first mayor has taken office).
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Mayoral Council for England(1) Elected mayors for combined and strategic authorities shall constitute a Mayoral Council for England. (2) The Council shall meet with the Secretary of State at least four times a year.(3) The functions of the Council are—(a) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power within England,(b) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(c) to choose representatives of the Mayoral Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
This time on a Thursday afternoon, just before the Recess, is not the ideal time to call a Division, much as many of us on these Benches would have liked to do so. We do not resile from the view that this Bill is constitutionally deficient and democratically damaging, but the Labour Party, so long as it remains in government, will have to take responsibility for the consequences of the reorganisation of the governance of England as it develops. The Minister has made it clear that she wants it to develop flexibly, and perhaps, so long as we have a single-party government, it may continue to do so.