Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 April 2026

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority.

I will explain the genesis of this debate, Sir Roger. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services. The group was established some years ago as a result of hon. Members being approached by constituents who had experienced scandals in the delivery of financial services and the failure of regulatory bodies to address their concerns. It was chaired effectively by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has now gone on to greater things as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank him for enabling this debate to take place.

The scandal that has come before our APPG is the use of hidden credit lines, which has caused such serious harm to so many small and medium-sized enterprises, and caused personal disasters for many individuals and their families. We have drawn on the evidence presented to us by constituents, specialist advisers and the reports of BankConfidential, a specialist whistleblowing service for banking staff. Put simply, the story commences with a large number of SMEs approaching their banks for a loan and some of the banks then attaching to the loan a derivative such as an interest swap, supposedly to protect the loan against the risk of interest rate changes, and establishing a hidden credit line.

Lorraine Morris, an expert and specialist derivative lawyer, gave evidence to us on what she found:

“My research confirms that, far from mitigating risk, these instruments were deliberately engineered to transfer significant, undisclosed, and uncapped risk directly onto the customer. The mechanism was the concealed creation of a credit-line liability, booked against the customer’s assets from day one. This contingent obligation was not a notional figure; it was a hard liability that directly impacted the customer’s credit grade”.

Generally, when such a loan is taken, there is an agreed loan-to-value covenant. According to Ms Morris, the application of the derivative and credit line mechanisms impacted on those covenants and

“pushed viable businesses into a state of artificial distress. The sale of products as ‘protection’ when their fundamental structure achieves the opposite is a profound and fraudulent misrepresentation.

It is a profound tragedy that these banking frauds have pushed individuals to the brink, resulting in devastating loss of life, ill-health and destruction of families. As a legal advocate for justice, I believe this affront to human dignity demands not only our deepest sorrow, but a relentless and unwavering pursuit of accountability.”

That is what we are about today.

To understand the behaviours of the banks more fully, we drew on the evidence provided by Ian Tyler, a former senior banking executive who has used derivatives since the 1980s to manage interest rate risk for some of the UK’s largest banks. I will quote Ian at some length. He explained:

“The fundamental truth that has been buried by the banks and the FCA is that when a bank executes an interest rate derivative, such as an interest rate swap, it is required by prudential regulation to mark a counterparty credit risk limit to cover the Potential Future Exposure. This credit limit is a hard credit limit as the exposure generates a risk weighted asset that requires the bank to hold capital in support.

All hard credit limits are typically included in a bank’s Loan to Value security covenant calculation and so the moment a customer executes a derivative their LTV % increases and this weakens their credit standing. This situation was made materially worse in…2008 when in response to the failure of Lehman Brothers, policy makers reduced Bank Rate to 0.5%. This…led to a material increase in the credit line marked for the derivative as both the Current Exposure and the Potential Future Exposure increased, pushing many SMEs into the position where their LTV % was in breach of their security covenant.

However, as the bank had invariably not told the customer about the derivative credit line, in clear breach of conduct regulation, the bank often forced a technical breach of loan covenant through some other mechanism and then transferred the business to their so-called Business Recovery Unit where most businesses were subsequently put into administration.”

Many in the Public Gallery would testify to that.

What was the motivation of the banks? Hidden credit liabilities generated huge up-front revenues, bonuses and commissions. Worse, when the financial crisis hit, they became a mechanism for destroying viable businesses, some already in breach of lending covenants on day one, because of the undisclosed liability that had been taken on. The potential financial upside was so significant that whistleblowers revealed that staff at the state-controlled NatWest Group were encouraged to send victory emails when they successfully brought down a business that could then be feasted upon, with the bank sometimes buying distressed assets directly from the victims of such frauds.

There are too many examples of that, and some of those affected are with us in the Public Gallery. Alongside the banks’ predatory behaviour, there has also been a catastrophic regulatory failure, associated with a deliberate policy by the Financial Conduct Authority and, before that the Financial Services Authority, of siding with the banks and often with Treasury policy under successive Governments, rather than the innocent business owners who were being fleeced at the time.

The FCA has repeatedly and deliberately failed to act. I will give one example of participants’ experience from our all-party group. In November 2022, Lord Prem Sikka, Steve Middleton of BankConfidential and banking derivatives expert Ian Tyler, whom I have quoted, met the FCA to explain the hidden credit liability scandal in detail. They related what The Times assistant business editor James Hurley described across four articles as financial and accounting fraud, including theft from Ulster Bank fixed-rate loan customers, and all the hard evidence was shared. In our view, the FCA should have immediately launched an inquiry at that stage. Instead, it let the NatWest Group mark its own homework. When the bank concluded it had done nothing wrong, the FCA took no meaningful action, even deploying the astonishing argument that the fraud that had occurred was not criminal fraud.

The FCA’s unfitness for purpose is not a new observation for many of us here. On 1 February 2016, Conservative MP Guto Bebb led a Commons debate on the motion,

“That this House believes that the Financial Conduct Authority in its current form is not fit for purpose”.

Nothing meaningful came out of that debate or has happened since. In many people’s eyes, that has left the FCA still not fit for purpose, with Parliament having failed in its duty to fix it.

Where was the Treasury in all of that? The Treasury turned a blind eye and its motivation was simple. It needed the banks to do whatever was necessary to shore up their balance sheets after the global financial crisis, having already made the taxpayer bail them out. As I mentioned, where that has occurred the financial and emotional consequences for victims have been devastating in the extreme. The scale of the carnage has been horrific, with widespread forced insolvencies; suicides and early deaths; thousands of repossessions; and broken families. Many business people were made to believe that they had failed through their own fault, when in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted for insolvency.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate. As he referred to earlier, the conditions that pertained in 2008 and the financial crash have resulted in banks making massive changes, but the banks should not be allowed—or encouraged by the FCA in some instances, as he has outlined—to punish viable businesses rather than promoting those viable businesses and trying to pursue faulty loans, which is what they should be doing.

[John McDonnell]

That theme runs through many of the reports that we have had from constituents about the failure of the FCA to protect them—to ensure that regulation was implemented to protect them. There were also elements of almost turning a blind eye and collusion, and that is the reason for the anger that people feel.

Let me press on because the figures that we have heard in the past need to be challenged. As I said, many people thought that they had failed themselves, but in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted. Internal reports confirm that not 16,000, as claimed by the FCA, but 3 million customers were placed in NatWest’s non-core division, effectively a waiting room before being pushed into the notorious global restructuring group, or Lloyds’ equivalent business support unit.

There are so many examples, but I will give just one. Steve and Joan Finch spoke movingly at our summit last November. They took out what was meant to be a simple fixed-rate loan from Lloyds bank to buy Bredbury Hall hotel. Alongside that loan, the bank added the credit liabilities of a derivative, a swap, with a starting hidden credit liability of £1 million, rising to £3 million. Those undisclosed arrangements generated £179,000 in secret up-front commissions. A further £1 million was taken in fees when the bank processed the case through its so-called business support unit, widely criticised as an asset-stripping mechanism.

The business ended up there because undisclosed credit liabilities created a loan-to-value risk of 136%, against a permitted maximum of 70%. Despite being a thriving business, Bredbury Hall was manoeuvred into administration. Stephen Finch was bankrupted and the family had to raise £600,000 to pay off vulture fund Cerberus, to which the loan had been sold, to save their home.

Suspicious of what had happened, the Finches contacted Greater Manchester police with evidence of all three offences that had been committed under the Fraud Act 2006. The police took the matter seriously and investigated, but when they asked the FCA for technical assistance, the FCA refused, so last June the police closed the case, citing three reasons: lack of FCA assistance, insufficient resources for a complex investigation, and concern that examining the case would oblige them to investigate numerous similar ones.

There are so many other cases. One of the cases I have dealt with involved reading the last letter of a man who committed suicide in the hope that his insurance would pay out to save his family home. Many whistleblowers have courageously come forward. In fact, that is what led to the creation of BankConfidential. I will cite just one example: Mark Wright, a former Royal Bank of Scotland manager. One of our former colleagues, Norman Lamb, supported him. Mark provided internal evidence of the bank deliberately defaulting customers to improve capital ratios and targeting customers for debanking and insolvency. He even named the person who taught trainees how to forge customer signatures on bank documents. Mark experienced incredible levels of personal stress, and I congratulate him on his courage in coming forward, but the FCA failed to act.

The failure of the system to reform or to deliver justice and compensation to victims has been the outstanding theme of our discussions and debates as an all-party group. Numerous schemes, inquiries and reports were meant to deliver meaningful reform and provide victims of banking misconduct with access to justice and redress. We have had the Foskett panel, the Swift review of interest rate hedging products, the Cranston review, the Tomlinson report, the Project Lord Turnbull report by Sally Masterton, the parliamentary commission on banking standards and various Treasury Committee inquiries. The truth is that they have had little effect: victims remain out of pocket and meaningful reform still has not happened.

The result is that trust in the system has now been shattered. The FCA’s Financial Lives survey shows that less than half the public trust the financial sector and its regulatory framework. That is a damning indictment, and it is problematic particularly among SMEs, where we need business confidence to stimulate growth in our wider economy.

Let me conclude. The all-party group, having consulted so many experts, victims and constituents, has come to the conclusion that the only way forward is some form of royal commission or equivalent inquiry to address the deep structural flaws in the system and the widespread injustices that remain unresolved. We need to establish what happened and who was responsible; otherwise, there is a real risk of history repeating itself, and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

In the short term, we are demanding at least a specific inquiry into hidden credit and the role of the FCA. That inquiry must be fully independent, well resourced and—if it is to have confidence in it—judge led, and it must be granted statutory provision under the Inquiries Act 2005.

This all arose because many of us, as individual MPs, were approached by constituents who have suffered. We must remember that it is ordinary people who have been the victims of this tragedy, and some of them are with us in the Public Gallery. They have kept the flame of hope for justice alive, and I urge them to maintain their efforts and to continue to inspire us with their righteous indignation and justified anger. However, I do not want to be here in years to come—as we were in 2016—dealing with the same problems and with a system that is not fit for purpose, with more victims making representations to us. I hope today that the Government will accept there is a need for an independent inquiry, that we can present the evidence to it and that we can successfully reform the system to protect our financial services and, more importantly, the people—our constituents—who rely on them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I think six Members are standing. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. I will not impose a time limit at this stage, but around six minutes a head should ensure that everybody who wishes to be called is called.

09:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I give special thanks to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is a doughty champion for his constituents, and they are fortunate to have him as their MP—well done to him for all that he does in this House.

It gives me great pleasure to be a voice for the households and businesses in Northern Ireland that have, for too long, been navigating a financial landscape filled with hidden pitfalls and undisclosed liabilities. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I have three asks of her, and I hope she will be able to accommodate me, and indeed others in the asks they have.

Although this is a UK-wide issue, the weight of hidden credit falls heavier across the Irish sea, in Northern Ireland. We are a region where 20% of all adults are struggling with over-indebtedness—the highest proportion in this kingdom. When we talk about hidden liabilities, we are talking not just about accounting entries or numbers, but about families in Belfast, Londonderry and Fermanagh who are discovering that the car finance they took out years ago was padded with secret commissions they never agreed to and had no knowledge of.

For our SMEs—the small and medium-sized businesses that are the absolute backbone of the Northern Ireland economy—the scars of the past run deep. Hon. Members may remember the Ulster Bank scandal. I remember it well, as will my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Derivative swaps were sold as protection, but instead acted as a noose around the necks of those who had taken them out. Those people found themselves constrained by what took place, and indeed they still are. Today, many of our small firms still find themselves trapped by complex credit lines and by break costs that were never clearly explained. With that mist, darkness or cloud hanging over those agreements, people find themselves—even today—trying to sort them out and find a way forward. The Financial Conduct Authority has a clear mandate to protect consumers and ensure market integrity, but protection that comes a decade too late is not protection; it is a post mortem. Those people found themselves in agreements where they had no idea about the small print or what it would do to them. Even today, the payments are mind-boggling.

In Northern Ireland, more than 50 bank branches have closed in just three years—11 of them were in my constituency—so the impact has been very real. As physical, face-to-face banks disappear, the digital shadow of credit grows. We see a banking void, where vulnerable people are pushed towards unregulated, hidden lending because the high street banks have abandoned them. That cannot be right. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response. I am sure she grasps the issues, because there will be little or no difference between her constituency and mine.

We welcome the FCA’s current redress schemes, but on behalf of our constituents, we demand more than just retrospective apologies. Apologies are words; actions are what really matter. I therefore have three asks of the Minister. First, we want transparency by default and no more discretionary commissions hidden in the small print of motor finance. Secondly, we want SME equality. Our businesses deserve the same protections as retail consumers when dealing with complex credit products. In my constituency, and indeed across Northern Ireland, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy; they are incredibly important. Thirdly—this is the big ask—we want regional sensitivity. The FCA must recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work when Northern Ireland has the highest vulnerability rates in the United Kingdom. To add to that third point, I would ask the Minister to please engage with the relevant Minister and the banks in Northern Ireland—we need special consideration.

In conclusion, I say this to the Minister and the regulator: the people of Northern Ireland are not asking for handouts; they are asking for a fair game plan. It is time to pull back the curtain on these hidden liabilities and to ensure that the consumer duty is a reality in every town across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It cannot be just a slogan in London; it has to be for everyone.

09:53

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate on an issue that has long been overlooked. I want to take this opportunity to tell Members about James and Becky Glanville, who are in the Public Gallery today. They built a successful nursing home business, and their story shows how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate swaps destroyed a family enterprise.

The Glanvilles’ experience is a stark and deeply troubling example of how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate hedging products have devastated viable businesses. What began as a successful, family-run nursing home enterprise, built with life savings and years of hard work, was ultimately destroyed by undisclosed risks embedded within complex financial products sold by NatWest, which was part of Royal Bank of Scotland Group at the time.

The family were never informed that these swaps carried significant liabilities, which would be treated as secured debt against their businesses, eroding borrowing capacity and triggering breaches of loan-to-value covenants as interest rates fell, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. The hidden exposures escalated dramatically, putting the companies under severe financial strain and ultimately pushing them into restructuring and insolvency processes. Despite clear regulatory requirements for transparency and informed consent, the risks were not disclosed. Subsequent treatment within restructuring units, including asset devaluation and agreements that allowed the bank to profit further from the family’s losses, compounded the damage.

I will provide some background to the Glanvilles’ case by way of context. The family started their nursing home business in 2002 with their lifetime savings and a mortgage of £744,000. By 2007, the business had grown and needed further borrowing. That is when NatWest insisted that they take out interest rate hedging products as a condition of the loans. The family entered two base rate swaps, but what the bank never told them was that the swaps carried large undisclosed contingent credit line obligations, which were treated as hard secured liabilities on the company’s credit file and counted against the 70% loan-to-value covenant. The hidden credit lines ballooned as rates fell, triggering covenant breaches and damaging the business’ credit standing.

Such products were classed by the Financial Services Authority, as it was then, as a complex financial instrument that should normally be purchased only by investment professionals, yet they were sold to inexperienced clients such as the Glanvilles as free, no premium protection against interest rate risk. The additional costs and credit risks had to be disclosed to comply with the FSA’s conduct of business rules. Those rules stated that a firm can grant credit for such products if the customer has given prior consent in full knowledge of any resulting interest and fees. James and his family did not know of the risks or provide any written consent for them.

That raises the issue of the FCA’s role, which has already been mentioned. The FCA’s redress scheme failed to account for the impact of those hidden credit lines. By excluding that critical feature from the regulatory review, the system denied victims fair compensation and meaningful justice. The interest rate hedging products review was allegedly set up to compensate victims such as Mr Glanville and to put them back in the position they would have been in had the swaps not been sold in breach of the rules. All the banks signed an undertaking that the FSA rules would be complied with in the review, but instead the FSA and FCA agreed separate sales standards with the banks, which specifically excluded any mention of hidden credit liability and its effect. The regulator therefore effectively colluded with the banks to keep this undoubted fraud covered up and reduce compensation costs.

In 2019, Mr Glanville’s legal team calculated that, with the losses on the properties that were sold under value, the consequential losses and the interest, the family were owed £6.3 million. What they have received to date from the bank is absolutely nothing. As people know, the Glanville family case is not isolated; it reflects a wider systemic failure that affects thousands of SMEs. That underscores the urgent need for a full independent investigation into hidden credit liabilities and the associated regulatory failures, which must lead to the establishment of a fair and comprehensive redress scheme. Businesses and families that have suffered such a profound harm deserve accountability, transparency and ultimately justice. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in her response.

09:59

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this vital debate.

I have tried to support the Evans family, my constituents, since I first became an MP, carrying on the work of my predecessor Roger Williams, who was here until 2015. I have got to know Don, Rachel and Paul and their circumstances quite well, and Paul is here with us today. The Evans family have suffered as a result of shocking banking malpractice, and I hope and believe that we have a Minister here today with the professional expertise and intellect to understand what the banks did and put things right.

Don Evans led a family firm in every sense: his wife, two daughters, son, son-in-law and granddaughter all played a part. Springdew Ltd, a pharmaceuticals company, was the kind of firm that made its employees and the wider upper Swansea valley community part of an extended family. Customers included Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and GSK. In 2007, the business became GSK’s supplier of the year.

Unknown to the Evans family, Springdew was originally put into a 10-year structured collar by Barclays Capital in early 2006 for a notional amount of £800,000, allegedly rolled into an interest rate swap with a notional value of £1.3 million, with Springdew paying the fixed rate of 5.6% for an excessively long period—15 years. The bank was highly motivated to make the term so long because it had secretly added a hidden margin of circa 60 basis points to the swap rate, bookable as a day one profit of circa £85,000. That interest rate swap was included in the 2012 interest rate hedging products remediation process. Barclays stated that the product had been mis-sold and a full tear-up was agreed, with the Evans family refunded moneys paid plus statutory interest.

However, the bank refused to engage with Springdew’s claim for consequential losses, and the hidden credit line had damaged its credit standing, leading to transfer to Barclays’ business support unit, where additional fees were charged. Its experience in the business support unit included manipulated interest rates, false reporting, a refusal to suspend payments, personal and pension funds being injected and forced equipment sales. The hidden credit line also meant that the bank was unwilling to provide additional lending to support growth. The bank has since refused to disclose key internal documents promised in the guide to the review in November 2012. As a company rather than an individual, Springdew has no legal right to a data subject access request, so reform there is desperately needed. If businesses cannot access disclosure from the other side, they are fighting blindfolded. We also need to regulate business lending properly. The world of SME finance should not be the wild west.

The business had been flourishing, but the bank’s behaviour brought all of that to an unnecessary end. The family invested a further £600,000 of their own money to keep the business afloat—money that is now with creditors. Springdew was the last major employer in the upper Swansea valley, providing much-needed jobs. I must stress that when businesses are destroyed through banking misconduct it is not just founders and shareholders who suffer, but employees and the wider community too.

The stress has had direct medical consequences. In 2011, Don suffered a perforated ulcer and was hospitalised for a week. In January 2024, a month after Springdew began liquidation, Don suffered a major stroke. He was discharged early on a Friday due to his wife’s deteriorating condition; that same night she was hospitalised with pneumonia, an illness that can be brought on by sustained stress. The situation worsened when the family learned that she had cancer, which she had kept secret, not wanting to add to the family’s burden. Although the financial consequences have been devastating, the greatest losses have been of health, of time and of life; one of Don’s daughters also sadly passed away.

The Fraud Act 2006 defines three types of fraud: false representation, failure to disclose information and abuse of position. The Evans family believe that they have been the victims of all three. There was a brief glimmer of hope for justice when the Business Banking Resolution Service was established, but the guilty banks engineered ways to deem Springdew ineligible, as they did with the vast majority of claimants, with a staggering 76% of claimants being turned away. The family were then diverted to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which was an equally unsatisfying experience.

There are clear systemic failures in how financial injustices are handled. The Financial Conduct Authority’s purpose is to regulate financial services, set standards and hold those that fail to meet those standards to account. Clearly, it has failed to help the Evans family and so many others. The FCA deliberately excluded key features of derivatives and consequential losses from its remediation exercise, and direct correspondence with chief executive officer Andrew Bailey and chair John Griffiths-Jones produced nothing meaningful. Springdew relied on a system it was told to trust. It was misdirected by official process, suffered catastrophic personal and financial harm, and followed the rules throughout.

My constituents have been victims of serious banking misconduct and have been terribly let down. As far back as 2014, Parliament made a commitment to the Evanses and others like them that their cases would be reviewed and that fair and reasonable redress would follow. That commitment has not been honoured. Justice is long overdue, and I urge the Minister to relook at the Evans case and the others raised today and commit to ensuring that those businesses will finally benefit from a redress scheme that will provide true compensation and fairness.

10:05

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech to start it off.

I will illustrate the failings of the Financial Conduct Authority in dealing with complaints from businesses who were mis-sold products with high credit liabilities, by using the experience of one of my constituents, Chris, who is in the Public Gallery. In the late 1990s Chris decided to venture into the property market. He secured loans from Nationwide, Birmingham Midshires and other lenders and made a success of his business—so much so that by 2005, he had a property portfolio of 51 properties across north London.

In 2005, Chris decided to refinance the borrowing for his properties with the Royal Bank of Scotland. Chris was sold £3 million in interest rate swaps and £13.4 million in hedging products as part of the refinancing arrangement. Chris states he was not told about any credit risk or commission on the products sold to him, or about the large penalties to exit those credit facilities. In the interest rate hedging products review carried out by the NatWest Group, Chris was assessed as a non-sophisticated customer and has accepted that he had no previous experience of derivatives and relied entirely on RBS’s information and advice.

Chris was told that the bank was fixing the interest rate to protect him from inevitable rate increases. No assessment was carried out to see whether the products were appropriate for his business; no risks were explained and he was never warned about the hidden credit liabilities and break costs that could run into hundreds of thousands—or, as he would later find out in his case, millions—of pounds.

In 2009, as interest rates collapsed on the interest rate swaps, the hidden credit liabilities ballooned, and Chris was now liable for between 20% and 25% of the loan value secured under the bank’s standard commercial charges. That caused Chris huge financial difficulty in repaying the loans. He was also tied in because of the costs on the break clauses, which were also eye-wateringly high. The prohibitive break fees and high credit liabilities locked him in and prevented substantial refinancing, as no other bank would take him on without incurring additional liabilities.

As a result of Chris’s financial situation, his property portfolios were transferred to RBS’s global restructuring group, where exorbitant penalty charges and demands for revaluations made trading impossible for Chris. The GRG then took over the management of the properties, charging 10% plus monthly management fees. All 51 properties were eventually repossessed and sold at auction below their value, leaving substantial shortfalls. Chris was then pursued by RBS, which brought bankruptcy proceedings against him. As a result of the hidden credit liabilities that came with the interest rate swaps and fixed-rate loans sold to Chris, the business he spent 20 years building was destroyed in just three.

Chris is not alone in having had his business ruined as a result of hidden credit liabilities: hundreds of other small businesses suffered. As the House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states, the 2012 Financial Services Authority review concluded that lenders,

“did not adequately disclose to borrowers the cost of exiting an IRHP…failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk…sold products which unsuitably ‘over-hedged’ borrowers (overexposed borrowers to risk)”.

The 2012 FSA-operated redress scheme that followed, which differentiated between “sophisticated” and “non-sophisticated” customers, was criticised not only by the Treasury Committee but by John Swift, who was appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority in response to the Treasury Committee’s report. Despite that, the Financial Conduct Authority chose to ignore the findings of the review that it had commissioned. It refused to budge, saying that

“the decision to treat sophisticated and non-sophisticated customers differently in the case of IRHPs was justified”

while acknowledging that “there were shortfalls” in its decision-making processes, governance and recordkeeping. In its very thorough report on hidden credit lines, BankConfidential noted that

“the FCA announced publicly:

‘The FCA also found no evidence that RBS artificially distressed and transferred otherwise viable SME businesses to GRG to profit from their restructuring or insolvency.’…‘The independent review did not find that RBS had deliberately made businesses worse off so that it could profit from GRG selling them off’”.

My constituent would beg to differ.

The FCA should inspire confidence and act with integrity and robustness. The FCA’s decision making and perceived closeness to the banks undermines that. Its role in dealing with the aftermath of the hidden credit liabilities debacle has fallen well short of the standards we expect, so I urge the Minister to ask the FCA to look again at the redress scheme and allow excluded businesses to get the justice they deserve. I also ask the Minister to ensure that the FCA is a truly independent and transparent regulator, and that it restores the trust and confidence that we all expect from it.

10:12

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing such an important and timely debate.

Catherine and Nigel Jarvis are of the type of local business owners who become the lifeblood of their communities and local economies. Creative, hard-working and passionate about the Northumberland countryside, in 2007 they looked to buy a property deep in the heart of Hadrian’s Wall country. Their dream was to raise their young family there, while renting out some of the rooms as a bed and breakfast. They approached HSBC for a loan of £175,000 to put towards the family home and business proposition.

It should have been straightforward. As more than 40% of the house was always intended to be used as Catherine and Nigel’s main dwelling, under FCA rules their loan request to HSBC represented a standard home on which a normal residential mortgage should have been offered. An offer should have come from the regulated mortgage side of the bank, where all consumer protections under the mortgage conduct of business rules would apply. What happened instead trapped them in a relationship with HSBC for almost 20 years that has ruined their finances, their credit ratings, their health and their relationships. It has ruined their plans for the future and their dreams as small business owners and has had an irreversible impact on the lives of their two children, who have grown up in the shadow of this trauma.

Instead of a residential mortgage, the couple were explicitly told that they had to agree to a commercial loan with a derivative product—in this case, an interest rate swap—as a condition, without which the Jarvises could not have bought their home. As every member of the public should be able to, they trusted the institution implicitly and proceeded. Even when the suggestion of a derivative product came as a surprise, they believed the bank had their best interests at heart. They were sold the swap on the understanding that it was insurance, protecting them from the risks of increasing interest rates with no up-front cost. The reality was that, on the very first day of the agreement, the product they were sold created hidden profit for the bank and an undisclosed credit line for the couple, acting effectively as a second, secret mortgage on their home. They began their SME journey with extra secured debt and a risk they knew nothing about.

When rates crashed in early 2009, the undisclosed “out of the money” position covered by the hidden credit line exploded that risk, damaging Catherine and Nigel’s internal credit grade and making the loan look far riskier to the bank. Eventually, they were threatened with foreclosure unless they agreed to move into the bank’s restructuring unit, even though Catherine and Nigel never missed a payment and had no knowledge of the additional risk now being used against them. Since 2007, they have poured everything they could into trying to untangle themselves from an agreement they never would have signed had its true scope been disclosed to them. That has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds, with an untold cost to their mental and emotional wellbeing and physical health.

The then FSA’s conduct of business rules, which applied in 2007, stated that, before granting any credit or loan in connection with an investment business, such as the interest rate swap, the bank was required to make and record an assessment of the couple’s financial standing based on the information disclosed; take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements for the loan or credit, and the amount concerned, were suitable for them; and obtain Catherine and Nigel’s prior written consent to the maximum amount of the loan or credit and to the amount or basis of any interest fees to be levied in connection with it. The bank did none of those things. In making the interest rate swap a condition of the loan it offered, it hid the credit risk from the couple and made applications for those credit facilities in their personal names without their knowledge or agreement.

The hidden credit line made the agreement toxic from the start. A key factor in the lack of justice for Catherine and Nigel has been the FCA’s handling of hidden credit lines as a specific factor. At the initial IRHP review scheme, the FCA told reviewers to treat the hidden credit line as an internal bank risk and ignore it in considering almost everything that Catherine and Nigel suffered—directly derailing their claim to redress.

The decision was made that the Jarvises’ losses were not foreseeable to the bank. In reality, their losses were not only foreseeable but expected, due to that hidden credit line. Hidden credit line practices and the profit motivations of banks have destroyed the lives and livelihoods of not only Catherine and Nigel but thousands of families and businesses across the country. I strongly support the calls for an investigation into the specific issue of hidden credit liabilities. Without that, and without a proper inquiry into the FCA’s own conduct on the matter, Catherine and Nigel, along with thousands of others, will continue to live without remedy for the financial destruction they have endured.

10:17

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing the debate, for his expert exposition and for the work he has done on this issue over many years.

I will raise case of my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), as she is unable to do because of her Front-Bench position. The case concerns the retired couple Stephen and Gloria Lilley. Their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s investment portfolio were all tied up as collateral for a commercial loan, without their knowledge or agreement, to provide security for the hidden credit liability on a swap the bank insisted they take out.

Mr and Mrs Lilley had paid off their mortgage and were looking forward to a peaceful retirement but, instead, HSBC persuaded them to raise £455,000 of commercial borrowing, secured first on their business premises. When there was not enough equity in the business premises to cover the undisclosed initial commission—internally classed as “added value”—and the hidden credit liabilities on the swap, the bank required their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s share portfolio to be used as additional collateral: a total of £960,000.

The first charge on Stephen and Gloria’s home created a regulated mortgage contract under the FSA’s mortgage conduct of business rules. The bank was required to give clear explanations of all risks, including all-moneys charges and contingent liabilities, but despite repeated requests from their adviser for full disclosure of the credit line and the size of the liability, which was needed for consequential loss calculations, HSBC refused to provide the information. Its response was particularly blunt:

“With regard to the rest of the other queries raised…they are not pertinent to the review methodology nor the redress outcome.”

As personal guarantors, Mr and Mrs Lilley had an absolute right to know the full extent of the bank liabilities and risks they were personally guaranteeing. Had the credit line risk and the undisclosed up-front commission been properly disclosed, the resulting losses and damage to the business would have been entirely foreseeable. Yet the FCA, working in agreement with the banks, deliberately designed the sales standards used in the interest rate hedging products review to exclude any consideration of that damage or harm when assessing consequential losses, as the BankConfidential report confirms.

The stress was devastating. Both Stephen and Gloria have suffered heart attacks in recent years, which were directly linked to the financial worry caused by the mis-sale. Speaking in the House in December 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described how the couple had endured sleepless nights and felt powerless as the bank held their retirement security in its hands. When HSBC later admitted that the product had been mis-sold, it offered only a limited swap-for-swap redress, providing an alternative cap product that still left the Lilleys substantially under-compensated. In fact, they received no consequential losses at all—just interest on what was classed as overpayments on the product. How can a product that destroyed a family’s business and lives for over a decade lead to no recognised loss?

Across the entire IRHP review, the banks paid out £2.2 billion in total redress for around 20,000 acknowledged mis-sales. Yet only £46 million—just 2%—was paid for consequential losses, even though most victims ended up facing insolvency and personal bankruptcy. That was no accident: the non-disclosure of the hidden credit line risk was deliberately kept out of the review methodology so that the devastating downstream harm could be totally ignored. This is another textbook example of why there must now be a fully independent investigation, completely outside the control or oversight of the FCA, into all forms of hidden credit liabilities across every bank, and why a fair redress scheme must be established for every business and family ruined by this practice. No couple should have their family home put at risk or endure years of severe stress and ill health simply because a bank failed to disclose the true risks and costs of the products it sold them.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar can make all the correspondence—including letters demanding explanations on the regulated status of the home loan and the hidden credit line—available to the Minister and her team, in the hope that they may be of assistance to her in considering what remedial actions may be considered. Hopefully, the catalogue of gangster-like behaviours perpetrated by these banks can finally persuade the Minister and her colleagues to launch an independent, judge-led inquiry into an utter scandal that has bedevilled far too many businesses for far too long.

10:23

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for his fight for truth and justice over many years.

Many believe that this issue goes to the very heart of the Hillsborough law, or Public Office (Accountability) Bill, for which I am proud to be the parliamentary lead. My focus is on ensuring that the law delivers a true legacy for the 97 who died at Hillsborough and for all those who have suffered at the hands of a state that failed them. It may also form part of the solution to the issues we are discussing today, because this is about power without accountability, when institutions close ranks and ordinary people are left to fight alone. The Hillsborough law is about driving a cultural change in institutions that resist transparency, and that is precisely where the Financial Conduct Authority is falling short. Time and again, the FCA has failed to give straight answers to straight questions. This is not regulation; it is evasion. We have seen this culture before in Hillsborough, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal and many others. This scandal may well join that damning list of state failure and cover-up.

The 2024 report by the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services should have raised alarm bells for the then Government. A former FCA employee described it as having “the worst staff culture” of their 40-year career. We have heard that whistleblowers were sidelined, dissent suppressed and an official line enforced. This is not a regulator acting in the public interest—it is an organisation protecting itself. When regulators fail, people pay the price: water, energy, finance—the list goes on.

Let me turn to hidden credit liabilities. The APPG report highlights serious concerns about the FCA’s handling of the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to small businesses, including the failure to address hidden credit line risks and a pattern of evasion when challenged. Take the case of Andrew Candy. In 2008, he sought a simple fixed-rate loan. Instead, he was sold a complex product without being told by the seller at HSBC about hidden credit lines, margin calls or the risks involved. He was later hit with a £70,000 break cost that had never been disclosed. His business collapsed, and he sold his family home. What followed was 17 years of stress and injustice, with no proper accountability or resolution. That story is familiar to many sitting behind me in the Public Gallery.

Even attempts at compromise were met with further loss and distress. This is not just a banking failure; it is a regulatory failure due to a fear of standing up to the big banks. Shamefully, the FCA stood by and did nothing. Worse, there are concerns that it obscured the truth, including the existence of hidden credit lines, and colluded in the practices, as we have heard from hon. Members today.

Here lies the deeper issue: the FCA is a private company limited by guarantee. It has immunity from civil liability and can resist scrutiny in the courts. That cannot stand. If there is a gap through which the FCA can escape accountability, it is our duty to close it, because no regulator should be above the law, no institution beyond scrutiny and no citizen left to fight alone. Andrew Candy’s case is not isolated, as we have heard. It is a warning of what happens when power operates in the shadows. As parliamentarians, we must shine a light, demand truth and stand with those who have been wronged.

I understand that amendments to the Hillsborough law are being considered to extend the duty of candour to regulators, including the FCA. The case for that will be compelling, certainly given what we have heard today, and is likely to command strong support in both this place and the Lords. If the Government take forward the call for an inquiry, as I hope they will and I fully support, the Hillsborough law could be a huge element in getting truth, accountability and justice. For people like Andrew Candy, it cannot come soon enough.

10:28

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I would like to start with a story about greed from a previous life. When I was a young, stony-broke filmmaker, unable to afford the hotel costs of the Cannes film festival, I was staying many miles away in cheap digs and was therefore stone-cold sober for the entire undertaking. I watched as, under the gaze of Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio spent $1 million extending a jetty into the sea, on which they hosted the most lavish launch party ever for a film company. It was a manifestation of greed and profligacy.

The movie they were launching was “The Wolf of Wall Street”, and I do not think it is superlative to suggest that the scale of the scandal we are discussing today is of that same epic Hollywood standard. If this place will not take the action to secure the transparency and accountability that is needed, then hopefully the world of moviemaking will.

I am pleased to be representing the Liberal Democrats here today and picking up the mantle of a campaign that my predecessor, Sir Norman Lamb, started more than a decade ago. He was one of the first people in Parliament to speak up about this scandal and how it continued to affect constituents in North Norfolk. It is greatly frustrating that we are still having to push for action so many years on, but I know he will be pleased to see that Members are still keeping the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue.

Hon. Members from all parties often come to this place to champion small businesses. We know that the economies of our constituencies are built on them, and they provide us with vital services on a daily basis. I know that both as a consumer and from my professional background in the business environment. People who run businesses carry on regardless. They are not greedy people; they simply want to make a living, and yet they have been exploited by others who want to make a killing. People’s entire livelihoods and careers were put at risk because wealthy banks and bankers saw them as an easy cash cow to mis-sell products to.

BankConfidential believes that tens of thousands of small businesses have been affected, and tens of billions of pounds extracted from SMEs into the pockets of giant multinational banks that were using the profits to prop themselves up after the disastrous 2008 financial crisis, which, as we know, was made so catastrophic by profit-chasing in an under-regulated sector. Not content with being bailed out by the taxpayer, the banks chose to rinse SMEs in our communities, too. It is worth mentioning that BankConfidential has seen cases of NHS-linked organisations being subject to these practices as well, with capital used to finance and purchase GP surgeries or medical centres being lent with hidden credit lines, which also suffered when interest rates plummeted. It is unconscionable that banks may have gone as far as to rip off GPs and our NHS in their pursuit of profit.

It is deeply concerning that this appeared to be a well-rehearsed routine in which SMEs were taken down, in effect to fund the recapitalisation of banks after the financial crash. It is not just the businesses that suffered, but those in the sector who tried to speak up and speak out. My constituent Mark Wright’s story is detailed in the APPG report, and his experience shows that the sector simply is not fit to handle whistleblowing effectively and fairly. He raised serious concerns about market abuse by his employer, affecting not just him but thousands of employees with savings and investments tied to the profitability and capitalisation of RBS. He tried to challenge senior management and speak out. He has seen his banking career tarnished and his health suffer, and he has spent more than a decade trying to secure justice. His complaint and case were severely mishandled by the FCA, and he has faced barrier after barrier in trying to get answers about his treatment and about the action that it will take on what he revealed.

The ordeals of Mark and others who have worked to expose scandals show that we need to greatly strengthen protection for whistleblowers in this country. So far, in my view, the Government have missed two opportunities to take action: as they stand, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have left whistleblowers behind. Whistleblowing is not about someone having the unreserved right to denigrate their employer; it is not a defamation charter or the power to complain in public. It is about calling out things that are wrong and should not happen, but will continue to happen unless someone decides to be an upstander and not a bystander.

The Liberal Democrats would introduce an office of the whistleblower with stronger legal protections to enable people to challenge corporate behaviour without risk to themselves or their careers. We also need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with a stronger and far more effective piece of legislation. It is simply not fit for purpose and does not give those seeking whistleblower protection enough confidence. In recent years we have seen too many scandals that could have been avoided or reduced if people had had more ability and protection to call out bad practices and illegal behaviours. I am sure the Minister will not treat us to a sneak peek at the King’s Speech and tell us that it will contain more whistleblower protections, but will she make the case to the Government for such protections to be enacted in the new Session?

The complexity of the financial machinations at play in this scandal should not make any less clear to people the wrongdoing that has happened and the damage that it has caused. People have lost livelihoods, those who have tried to speak out have lost careers and, as the report sadly identifies, lives have been lost.

I will end where I started. A wealthy man who I have known for some time for his integrity and generosity—the opposite attributes to greed—built a billion-pound business from nothing that was taken down entirely by the bank. I asked him what the key ingredient to success in business was, and he said luck—he is possibly the only entrepreneur ever to answer that question honestly. He was lucky enough to build his business back up, but we owe it to those who have not been so lucky to ensure that the hidden credit line scandal is shown the light of justice that it deserves.

10:34

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing this incredibly important subject up for discussion. At the heart of the debate are individual people—people who have lost their businesses, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their health and, indeed, their lives. Let me be crystal clear: where there has been malpractice, those affected should and must be supported and compensated. Every stakeholder in this issue, from the banks to the business owners—certainly the business owners—should agree with that.

I have a certain amount of experience of this. I was a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016 and a member of the parliamentary commission on banking standards. We looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, which created the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace the previous regulator, the Financial Services Authority, which had been an abject failure. The FSA was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which started the tripartite regime that singularly failed our economy and resulted in the financial crisis in 2008.

There is absolutely no question but that what we saw prior to the financial crisis, when we had that credit bubble, were some very bad practices. We looked into this again on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. The legislation that came out of that, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, was originally started due to the LIBOR scandal. None the less, we looked into the fundamental malpractices going on in banks, and what we saw, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mismatch in the balance of interests between shareholders, customers and staff that was massively in the favour of staff. That is what we found, and that fundamental malpractice by the financial services system is what those two Acts of Parliament were designed to resolve.

What we are looking at today is three important areas: those who were sold interest rate hedging products, which most of this debate has been about; those who were placed into RBS’s global restructuring group; and those who were on fixed-rate loans in Northern Ireland. I want briefly to go through each. On the hedging products, it was common practice back in the 2000s for businesses to be sold variable rate loans, as well as interest rate hedging products, which were known as collars and caps. In principle, they are not inherently bad products in themselves, as they offered the borrower greater flexibility. If people are borrowing money at 6% and are capped at 8%, but the quid pro quo is that they are collared at 4%, that actually works for them, because it protects them from a spike in interest rates.

Of course, the problem was that we did not see a spike in interest rates; rather, we saw a massive collapse of interest rates during the financial crisis. Interest rates dropped from 575 basis points in 2007 to just 50 basis points in 2009, and that is where borrowers were left out. Of course, we have also seen mismanagement of Government—I am the first to admit that, under Liz Truss’s Government, we saw interest rates spike at 15%. Collar and cap arrangements would have protected borrowers from that, so there is a benefit to them. However, I completely understand that we are looking here at where there has been malpractice behind these contracts.

It is incredibly important, though, to look at the problem with the Financial Services Authority, the precursor of the Financial Conduct Authority, which identified that lenders failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk. That is why it was right that the nine banks involved compensated customers to the tune of £2.2 billion. I appreciate that we are talking about those who were not compensated, but there was a recognition that there was a problem.

On the global restructuring group, the Financial Conduct Authority identified a number of clear failings in customer service and poor interactions. I understand that NatWest bank has accepted that the conduct fell far below the standards expected and has paid out something in the region of £100 million in compensation. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money; none the less, it has accepted that. However, it seems from the results of the regulatory reviews by the FCA, as well as the judicial proceedings, that it has not properly compensated people.

I should also point out that banks did a great deal to support businesses around the time of the financial crisis. That might sound counterintuitive to hon. Members, but one of the great discussions we had on the Treasury Committee was about the surprisingly small number of businesses that had gone bust. There was an argument at the time that banks were artificially supporting businesses while they had bad cash flow and damaged balance sheets, and that forcing companies into liquidation would crystallise the deficit of the loan on to the banks’ balance sheets. There was an argument that they were doing the wrong thing by keeping alive what were then referred to as zombie businesses. This whole issue was incredibly complicated after the financial crisis, and there was an awful lot going on in various different parts of all this.

I want finally to turn to the fixed-rate loans, which are mostly the ones used by Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland, which again is a subsidiary of NatWest. The allegation is that the banks took out their own interest rate swaps, booking them in customers’ names and adding a related credit bump. That is a serious allegation, suggesting that the bank staff recorded up-front profits for those swaps and earned personal commissions. The FCA was absolutely right to investigate it, but following its investigation, it said:

“We have seen no evidence that would lead us to conclude that further supervisory work and/or intervention with Ulster Bank/NatWest was required.”

I recognise that many will disagree with that conclusion, but even so, it cannot be argued that the FCA did not look into it. This comes down to what we want the FCA to achieve. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that the FCA is not accountable, but actually, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, and it is the job of Members on the Committee to ensure that the FCA does the job that we want it to.

When we created the FCA in 2012, the idea was that there would be greater focus on consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority was set up to do the prudential regulation and the conduct regulation. The FCA was set up purely to do the financial conduct regulation, which is looking at how people are looked after. The Prudential Regulation Authority was then set up to do the nuts and bolts of the financial system—to make sure that we did not see a failing in the banking system rather like we had during the great financial crisis. I recognise that many colleagues will feel that process has not happened, particularly in the case we are talking about, but we have to accept that the FCA is an independent body. As I say, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, but it is an independent body.

In a similar debate in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1127.]

To the extent of the law we created, he is absolutely right. In the same way that we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, even if we disagree with it, we should respect the judgments of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is up to the Minister to come up with a solution, but does she agree with that, or has the FCA got this fundamentally wrong? If so, what line will the Government take? Will they deliver the judge-led judicial review that people are looking for? I hope she will be able to answer that.

In closing, I want to return to those who have been affected. SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in the UK, so it is not an exaggeration that they are the lifeblood of our economy. When they succeed, we all benefit. They need confidence that institutions and financial services are backing them and are there to serve them and to make their businesses work. This issue has damaged that trust, and many have experienced painful losses. We need to rebuild that trust. I am not sure whether a judge-led inquiry is the right step, but I am open to it. The decision on whether to undertake one, however, is ultimately for the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

10:43

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent.

From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today.

To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag.

Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses.

It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years.

Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar.

I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence. Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event.

The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.

I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected.

There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective. Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out.

In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing. It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today.

With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed.

However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail. I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively. Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today.

Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues.

I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion.

In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.

Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time.

I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would be the right course to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed.

I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust. We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth.

We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly.

The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.

[John McDonnell]

There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?

[Lucy Rigby]

My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Carer’s Allowance Overpayments

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate, the Minister and the Chair, although no such requests have been made. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Members for joining me here in Westminster Hall. I have committed my career to securing better care and support for older people and their family carers, and I continue that work here in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers.

This year marks a significant milestone for carers: it has been 50 years since carer’s allowance was first introduced. It was known originally as the invalid care allowance, and it was the first benefit to recognise the financial sacrifices of unpaid carers. It has made a huge difference, providing vital financial support to those who give 35 hours or more per week in unpaid care. I am proud that it was a Labour Government that introduced carer’s allowance back in 1976, and I am just as proud that this Labour Government and Chancellor increased the earnings threshold from £151 to £196 per week—the largest increase since the benefit was introduced—and again this month to £204 per week, as promised. The world has changed a lot since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, but some things remain the same, and Labour is still putting its money where its mouth is and standing up for carers.

Supporting carers should be a moral mission of any Government. There are 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK, and the economic value of their contribution is some £184 billion per year, which is more than the entire NHS budget in England. However, despite the value that carers bring to our society, we often fail to value them. According to Carers UK, 1.2 million unpaid carers in the UK live in poverty, and around half of carers cut back on essentials in 2025.

There is a multitude of reasons for carer poverty. Many carers give up paid work, but many juggle paid work and unpaid care, often reducing their hours, harming their careers and impoverishing themselves. It is for all those reasons that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal is hard to stomach.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. Does she not agree that the amount of money the Government have saved from the unpaid labour of carers is astronomical, and that unless the Department can prove that there was a deliberate overclaim, discretion must be available? These people, whose lives are dedicated to the care of others, do not need the stress of paying a penalty for a mistake and thereby being treated as a criminal.

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of the overpayments on carers is terrible, and I am going to share the story of someone who was affected. I am sure others have heard similar shocking stories. As many as one in five unpaid carers who claim carer’s allowance and work part time were hit with overpayments. Thousands of carers have been left with huge debts and the fear of financial ruin.

Helen cares for her son Robin. He was born with a heart condition, respiratory vulnerabilities, developmental delay, mobility issues and Down’s syndrome. Helen gave up work as a teacher to support Robin and she relied on carer’s allowance. She also received some royalties for online resources that she had created as an education provider. She was paid those every six months, but the Department for Work and Pensions considered them as monthly earnings. It stopped her carer’s allowance and informed her that she had incurred overpayments going back over four years. She was charged more than £2,000 and told to pay back £50 a week. In her words,

“there was no care of how we would live or survive. It took me three very long years to repay the debt. It hung over like a great shadow, the letters, the fear of what could come. We were devastated by the department’s actions. Carers just don’t have bank balances that can stretch and withstand such pressures…you are so vulnerable…it shouldn’t be this difficult”.

As I have said, Helen’s is not an isolated case; thousands of carers are in this position, not as a result of failure on their part to report to and notify the DWP, but owing to a failure of Government. This scandal is a stain on the record of the British state.

I therefore commend this Labour Government for asking Liz Sayce to conduct an independent review of carer’s allowance overpayments. She made it clear that overpayments were caused

“not by widespread individual error by carers in reporting their earnings but by systemic issues preventing them from fulfilling their responsibility to report.”

I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of her recommendations and set aside £75 million to implement them.

Among other things, the review called on the Government to reform the earnings averaging processes and guidance, as well as that for allowable expenses, so that there is clarity, transparency and predictability, and it called for a thorough reassessment of cases to right the wrongs and deliver redress. It called for creative short-term solutions to address the cliff-edge crisis, while the DWP works on a longer-term plan. That is vital. If someone earns one penny over the earnings limit, they have to pay back the whole weekly carer’s allowance. The Sayce review found that although the earnings limit cliff edge does not itself cause overpayments, it dramatically increases their scale and impact, negatively affecting people’s health, finances, wellbeing and opportunities to work. Will the Minister update us on progress on the introduction of a taper system?

Liz Sayce recommended a whole range of other reforms, from upgrading computer systems to using more empathetic language, improving the join-up between types of benefits and simplifying the system. I thank her and her team for completing this crucial task. I urge the Minister to implement the recommendations with urgency and to set out the timeline for doing so.

Turning to those affected, I welcome yesterday’s announcement that the Government have launched an audit of more than 200,000 carer’s allowance cases affected by unclear Government guidance that was in place between 2015 and 2025. The cases will be reviewed, and debts potentially reduced, cancelled or refunded for some 25,000 unpaid carers. That is excellent news and I am sure the Minister will say more. However, I believe that there are several categories of people who have been adversely affected whose cases remain outstanding. The DWP appears to be accepting responsibility only for those affected by the unlawful guidance on average earnings and not for the lack of clear guidance on expenses deductions.

Will the Minister ensure, as the audit begins, that the DWP fully addresses all aspects of maladministration? First, there should be consideration of cases in which the DWP held information regarding expenses but did not act on it or make corrections for many years. Secondly, I urge him to ensure that cases in which data has been “lost” by the DWP are dealt with as Liz Sayce recommended, and treated as cases of official error unless the DWP can prove otherwise. Thirdly, in the cases of those affected by the failure to adjust universal credit correctly, Sayce recommended that the DWP should pay UC arrears. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed whether the audit will include reviews for those missing groups.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She rightly highlights the important contribution that carers make to our country and the savings of £184 billion a year. The carer’s allowance scandal that this Government have had to deal with, which has taken place over a number of years, has parallels with the Post Office scandal in the way that individuals have been treated. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions, which rejected a recommendation by the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake a regular audit of its progress on carers, should do that, so that we can see the progress the Department is making?

[Anna Dixon]

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have requested that the DWP reports every six months on its progress on implementing the Sayce review. As a member of that Committee, I will certainly be keeping a close eye on progress.

My final point is about the culture in the DWP. I have had the opportunity to challenge its senior officials in the Public Accounts Committee, and I was shocked by the culture on display, which clearly regarded the victims of Government incompetence as benefit fraudsters. It disturbs me that that culture has been prevalent for so long and that, despite knowing about carer’s allowance overpayments for many years, the Department did little or nothing. As a Committee, we are clear that the lack of integrated and concerted leadership from the Department exacerbated the crisis. I ask the Minister for reassurance that he is confident that the senior team at DWP understand the nature of the harm done to carers, are fully committed to putting this right and do not adopt a defensive culture.

On the 50th anniversary of carer’s allowance, I call on this Labour Government to right the wrongs caused by the state, which have parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said, and to put right the scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments so that our carers are paid what they deserve and not punished for the dedication and care they provide.

11:11

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that.

My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy.

We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment.

The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels.

As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month.

People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.

[Anna Dixon]

I had understood that we were also looking into opportunities to alert carers of potentially having breached the earnings limit. Is there anything in place to help communicate information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP to carers?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area.

As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit.

The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment.

We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years.

We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it.

As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.

[Rushanara Ali]

I draw the Minister’s attention to a point about reassessment made in yesterday’s Guardian:

“the government has admitted its existing ‘business as usual’ overpayment recovery policies will be maintained while a full overhaul of the benefit is completed, in effect ensuring that carer’s allowance penalties will continue to be imposed.”

Can the Minister assure us that that is not the case and that these penalties will not continue to be imposed?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me come to that point in a moment. I saw the article that my hon. Friend refers to. It is an important point, and I will address it in a couple of minutes.

My hon. Friends have quite rightly raised questions about accountability for the review’s delivery. We have appointed a senior responsible officer, and we have committed to update both the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on progress every six months. The review highlighted the need for clearer guidance and better communication with carers, particularly on earnings averaging, overpayments and reporting responsibilities, so we have revised the decision letters so that carers are clearer on how their earnings have been averaged and on exactly what changes they need to report and when.

We have also redesigned the overpayment communications to be clearer and to show more empathy, I hope, than was shown in communications previously. We have strengthened the signposting to independent advice and debt support, including to charities and free money guidance, and we have made it clearer how carers can ask questions, challenge decisions or agree affordable repayment plans. We are continuing to test and develop the letters and the guidance, and there has been recent user research to assess clarity, understanding and impact.

We are planning further improvements. I want to express my appreciation for the carers organisations, particularly Carers UK and the Carers Trust, that we have been working with. They have put a good deal of work into this, together with the Department, to try to ensure we get these communications right. I hope that is going to be a significant improvement.

The Sayce review pointed to the lack of awareness and take-up of carers’ national insurance credits. We want to make sure that carers understand what they are entitled to, so we have been reviewing our letters and guidance to increase awareness. The review recommended reducing the impact of the earnings cliff edge while longer-term reform is developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quite rightly pointed out, if someone is a penny over the earnings limit, they are not entitled to any carer’s allowance; that has been the case ever since 1976.

We have commissioned research on the impact of the higher earnings limit, which is now being regularly updated, unlike in the past, and commissioned behavioural research to inform future policy decisions, including changes to regulations, short-term mitigations and longer-term reform, including a taper. In the end, I think that will be the answer: instead of an earnings cliff edge or cut-off limit, there should be an arrangement so that the carer’s allowance reduces in a tapered way. It will take some time to develop that and put the IT in place and so on, so we are looking at what we can do in the meantime.

As my hon. Friend touched on, the review recommended better join-up between carer’s allowance, universal credit and other benefits. We are aware that a considerable burden is placed on carers, requiring them to resolve offsetting issues themselves. We have accepted Liz Sayce’s recommendation, and we will put in place an automated solution. While we develop that—again, that will take a while—we will put in place a manual workaround.

The review recommended tackling backlogs and identifying overpayments earlier. We have reduced the backlog of automated earnings notifications from HMRC. We now process those alerts much faster, allowing issues to be identified more quickly—another point raised by my hon. Friend. In future, we want to follow up on all those alerts, not just about half of them as we did in the past, so that we can draw people’s attention to problems as they arise. Taken together, those actions are about listening to carers, fixing what went wrong, supporting people better and modernising carer’s allowance in the future.

In response to the review’s recommendations on faulty averaging guidance, we will reassess carer’s allowance cases that might have been affected. A number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, have raised the question of why we did not pause all carer’s allowance earnings overpayments action pending the review’s outcome. My answer is that we have been clear about our approach all along: we have to balance fairness for carers with our duty to taxpayers. If money has been paid out incorrectly, it needs to be recovered. We have retained that position as the review was under way.

In most cases, the Department already holds enough information to carry out the reassessment, and affected carers will not need to take action unless the DWP asks for additional details. For older overpayment cases, dating back to 2015 or perhaps a few years after that, the DWP may no longer hold the relevant data and information: we are required to retain data only as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected. The Department will open a simple online form to allow people to submit the relevant information. We are aiming to do that in November this year.

The Department will work closely with organisations supporting carers who think they may have been affected to register for reassessment on gov.uk. Everybody whose case is reviewed will be notified of the outcome, including whether their overpayment has been confirmed or changed. Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is, or might be, involved in the reassessment exercise will be available, at no cost, from the Department or trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust—I thank them again.

Hon. Members have asked how progress will be tracked. The reassessment exercise is part of our broader response to the independent review and, as I have said, we have committed to updating the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on our progress every six months. Those updates will include statistics on progress, and they will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. We will also put some information in our annual report and accounts.

Rebuilding trust requires honesty, accountability and action, and that is the approach we have aimed to take throughout this process. We have to fix the problems and correct the mistakes; the work of unpaid carers is too important and too valuable not to do so. More broadly, we want to improve and modernise carer’s allowance to make it easier for unpaid carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid work where they are able to, and better reward them for doing so. We will also ensure that those receiving carer’s allowance and universal credit receive a more joined-up service than they have in the past. We owe that to those who provide such a vital service to our fellow citizens.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the all-party parliamentary group and the Committees represented in the debate will scrutinise how we deliver on those aims very closely. They are absolutely right to do so.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:30

Sitting suspended.

“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

14:30

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members, as well as those in the Public Gallery, for their attendance. On Thursday, we will celebrate one year since the For Women Scotland judgment. That was a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court. It clarified something that frankly should never have needed testing in the courts: that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The ruling was a victory for the rights of women and girls; it affirmed that being a woman is a matter of biology not paperwork, and it should have ended years of uncertainty around sex-based protections.

The judgment confirmed what most people already know instinctively: biological sex matters. It matters in sport, prisons, healthcare and education. It matters for women’s safety, dignity and privacy. No amount of paperwork, policy or self-identification can change that reality. I commend the brave women who led the legal challenge. They persevered in the face of intense opposition, and finally common sense prevailed.

The Minister for Women and Equalities claimed:

“This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 945.]

On paper, it has done so, but if we step outside the courtroom and into workplaces across the country, that clarity often evaporates. Instead of confidence, we see utter confusion. There is still an invisible hierarchy of rights in many workplaces. The rights of biological men who identify as women are still being prioritised over the rights of actual women. Hospitals and sports centres are still allowing biological men into female-only spaces.

Even parts of the civil service, which is supposed to be the bastion of political neutrality, are still allowing trans-identifying males to use female toilets. Government Departments should be leading by example, not presiding over unlawful and out-of-date policies. The law is clear, the facts are clear, and the refusal to act is a choice. Meanwhile, women who uphold biological reality are still being challenged, disciplined and subjected to exhausting legal proceedings. One year after the For Women Scotland ruling, Government Ministers are still dodging this topic because it is politically uncomfortable.

As the charity Sex Matters has said so well,

“Complying with the law is not a culture war”.

One year later, we are still waiting for the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice before Parliament. That will require businesses and public bodies to protect women-only spaces. I welcome the Minister’s written statement earlier today confirming that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That is a long-overdue development, following many months of excuses. One could be forgiven for thinking that this debate and the events planned for this week have sparked that development.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the point about the anniversary and the statement from the Minister for Women and Equalities that she intends to lay the guidance in a matter of weeks, will my hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that that will be the long-overdue point at which we see a step change in Government attitudes to reflect the biological facts that society understands and knows?

[Carla Lockhart]

I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.

One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.

I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.

After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:

“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”

When we compare Jennifer Melle’s case with the Darlington nurses’ case, we can see a pattern emerging. After a biological male was allowed to use their changing room, the Darlington nurses raised legitimate concerns about privacy and safety. Instead of being listened to, they were told they needed to be “re-educated” and to “broaden their mindset”. They were left with no other option but to take legal action. These nurses were already working flat out, caring for others, holding the system together and doing their job with skill and dedication every single day. That should be enough. They should not have been forced to fight for their legal rights.

Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses have shown tremendous courage and conviction, but let us be honest, that has come at a price: a personal toll, a professional toll, time, stress and reputation. Despite their legal victories, the punishment has been in the process. Women across the country are watching these legal cases unfolding and drawing the obvious conclusion: “Keep your head down or risk your livelihood.” The result is a chilling effect that should trouble every Member of this House.

Women are self-censoring. They are being forced to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs. They see colleagues hauled before tribunals, threatened with professional sanctions and subjected to reputational harm. Understandably, they often decide that it is simply not worth the risk. Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses, put it this way:

“A culture of fear took over, not among those breaking safeguarding norms, but among the women raising concerns. Many vulnerable colleagues, often the breadwinners in their households, felt intimidated into dropping their complaints, until only eight of us remained.”

That is what happens when an institution closes rank and sidelines women’s voices.

It should not be down to individual women to contest gender ideology in the workplace. The Government should be backing women all the way, ensuring that they are treated with the safety and dignity that they deserve. Instead, a whole year has passed and still those on the frontline are being left to navigate these complex and sensitive issues alone. Silence is not neutral; it sends a clear message that women’s rights come second to political sensitivities and noisy activists. A ruling that exists only on paper is not enough. The Government must act, not with warm words, but with real, practical guidance that ensures that women are protected, not punished, for asserting their rights.

To briefly address the position in Northern Ireland, it is quite frankly extraordinary that we are even having to contemplate a different application of the ruling within the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the Windsor framework could create divergence on something as fundamental as the definition of a woman raises serious questions about sovereignty and equal rights across this country. Women in Northern Ireland should not have less clarity or protection than women in England, Scotland or Wales. I call on the Minister to give absolute clarity that this UK Government will stand up for women in Northern Ireland.

I am glad that, despite some of the noise and legal challenges around this issue, our Education Minister has moved to release guidance to schools. He made it clear that single-sex spaces in schools should be based on biological sex and that the safety, dignity and privacy of girls must be protected. That was a proportionate and practical response to the law as it stands and I welcome it. That stands in stark contrast to the delays that we are seeing elsewhere.

I end with three requests of the Government. First, I urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC’s updated code of practice before this House as a matter of urgency—no more prevaricating; no more delay. While the Minister has today finally indicated that that will happen in May, we must ask why clarity has not been provided far sooner. Secondly, I urge the Minister to provide guidance for workplaces. Employers must be left in no doubt that single-sex spaces are reserved for people of the same biological sex. No employee should be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Thirdly, I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fulfil his promise and issue guidance on single-sex spaces in the NHS specifically. In the absence of leadership from the Government, others have already stepped in. The Darlington Nursing Union and the Christian Legal Centre have already produced draft guidance for NHS trusts. It is ready, workable and would help ensure that no more women are forced to endure what Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses faced. I thank Christian Concern for its support for Jennifer and the Darlington nurses.

Let us be clear: the For Women Scotland ruling was a victory on paper, but in many cases it still needs implementing in practice. Biology should not be disputed in any sector. A woman is not a feeling. A woman is not an identity. A woman is a biological reality. We must act now to ensure that women are heard, protected and respected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, as it is very helpful in determining whether to put a time limit on. Given the number of Members standing, however, I will not be putting a time limit on now.

14:43

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well.

Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out.

This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern that it plays out in the scientific arena as well? The UK Health Security Agency has been collecting data in relation to sexual health infections on the basis of gender rather than sex.

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.

With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.

For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.

While the Secretary of State says that her Government have

“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,

men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?

The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I thank her for it. I think we are probably on different sides of the debate, but it is still interesting. She says that none of trans people’s rights has been taken away. I wonder whether she can explain the legal limbo that trans people feel they are in when trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. They are required to live in their acquired gender for several months in order to obtain a certificate, but if they cannot access the spaces for the gender that they are seeking to acquire, they cannot fulfil that criterion. Does she agree that that creates a legal limbo and does actually take away some of their rights?

[Rosie Duffield]

The hon. Member has a really good point. That lack of clarity is why we need the Government to explain fully what the EHRC is saying and how it pertains to the Equality Act. With or without a gender recognition certificate, biological men are not able to access women’s spaces—women’s toilets, women’s sports. The Supreme Court made that incredibly clear. The area of gender recognition certificates is a bit grey, and I can understand why some trans-identifying people are confused by that. That is why the Government have to step in. This is a matter of legislation.

None of the activists on my side—feminists—is saying that we want to exclude those people, make them feel terrible or give them a hard time. Bodies can introduce single-sex spaces, unisex toilets and all kinds of other activities for those people that they are allowed to take part in. We just do not want our rights to make way for biological men, who are bigger, stronger and faster, and physically potentially more dangerous to us. That is a fundamental right that many of us have fought for generations to get. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but not in the Supreme Court judgment. The Court made it very clear; the Government just have to get on with it, instead of hiding behind the judgment.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I just want to put on the record how welcome it is to see the comments of the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. It is fair to say that Scottish Labour has been on a bit of a journey on this issue, but he has got to the right place, and I welcome that. I join the hon. Lady in stating that the Supreme Court judgment clarifies existing law. It did not change the law. It is about enforcing the existing law. Women have had their lives ruined by this issue over many years, and they are still having their lives ruined by it, as we see in the Sex Matters “One year later” report. Is the hon. Lady as baffled as I am that we still seem to have violent men—murderers, no less—in women’s prisons?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. We have had two quite lengthy interventions. The business is not oversubscribed, so if hon. Members wish to bob, they may well catch my eye.

[Rosie Duffield]

Thank you for clearing that up, Mr Stringer. The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points. Sex Matters has been pointing out, especially in its new leaflet, that so many people, whom we do not get to talk about every day, are still being subjected to these ridiculous tribunals. Jennifer Melle, whom the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, was simply a nurse referring to a biological man as a biological man in her notes. Without wanting to get into too much horrible detail, I believe she was catheterising a man, which is very different from catheterising a woman, yet she was the one subjected to hideous racial abuse and suspended from work.

These things happen every day. We know about them because we are involved with the organisations that help those people, but the general public do not necessarily hear about them and the Government seem very far removed from the reality that not stepping in is causing. Many of those cases would not have taken place if the Government had introduced guidance, spoken on the issue, or had the front to say what I know many of them secretly believe, but do not articulate because they are afraid of their own activists—I am living proof of that. That is a real shame.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I know this is a really important subject to the hon. Lady. Of course, the Government received the revised draft guidance only yesterday and they issued a statement today. It is important to remember that.

The hon. Lady mentioned parkrun a minute or two ago, before the flurry of interventions. What does her vision mean for me, as a keen parkrunner? Would I have to submit evidence that I am a man to parkrun in order to run as a man? Likewise, would women have to do the same? How does she see that working?

[Rosie Duffield]

I think it is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman is a man, to be honest. I think the majority of the human race could tell that. If there is a much smaller person running in that category, they simply do not belong there. The Government have had the guidance since September, but this is the law of this country. No Minister or Government MP needs guidance from the EHRC to suggest ways in which organisations could uphold the law. We made this law, and we are there to advise people how to enact it and adhere to it. We do not need the EHRC. That is just another way of pushing this down the road. It is great to have that guidance. It has done a really good job—that is what it does—but the Government do not need it. It is just another red herring—a delay tactic.

[Marie Goldman]

On the point about it being fairly obvious which gender someone is, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has heard about the case of the woman who had a double mastectomy and frequently gets misgendered as a man? What would she say to that woman?

[Rosie Duffield]

That is extraordinary, but we are talking about a country of 70 million-odd people, 51% of whom are women. The majority of people know what a man or a woman is. If one has a problem with that, that is a specific personal problem. That is a man; these are women. We all know. It is an absolute load of rubbish that we do not, so I reject that. I say to the Government: women are watching, women will be voting, and most people in the country are women.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Alice Sullivan has spoken a lot about identifying sex and gender. Does the hon. Member agree that sex and gender are not the same thing, and that if we are registering for a parkrun, another sporting event or anything else, we all know what is on our birth certificate?

[Rosie Duffield]

That is exactly right. We are not talking about gender identity. We are talking about the law as it adheres to biological men and women.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rosie Duffield]

For the very last time.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady has talked about the courage of the people who stood up on this issue, but will she reflect on the people who felt censored? For example, I spoke to a young lady in my constituency who participated in a hockey club, but she stopped going. The parents of another girl stopped her going to the same club, because there was a man on the young ladies’ hockey team who insisted on using the changing room and the girls felt uncomfortable changing in front of him. The issue is reducing the participation of particularly young women in sport, which is regrettable. Guidance from the Government to make things clear will help to ensure that women can participate in sport fairly and safely.

[Rosie Duffield]

The hon. Member makes a good point. MPs on my side of the argument will certainly hear that time and time again from parents. There is a group called the Bayswater group whose members have gone through the problems and difficulties of their children wanting to transition from a very early age, with all the categories of sport that they should or should not go into. Guidance would really help those parents, but certainly girls should not feel that they should not participate.

All women on this side of the argument have felt intimidated at some point, not just by the death threats—those are passé by now—but by the signs and the balaclavas outside, and by the rubbish about it coming from both sides. I have lived this for nearly a decade; it is not both sides. It would be lovely to end all the intimidation. I have been in the Labour party for a long time, and, sadly, there are women now in government who have always been on my side in secret gender-critical groups but do not have the courage to speak up when in government. That is a drastic lack of leadership and lack of courage. I feel very sorry for them.

I say to the Government that women are watching and men are watching. Women will be voting at the local elections, and most people in this country are women. The Government have a problem. Their problem is not that the Supreme Court ruling is too complicated to understand or implement, but that it is too clear for people to continue to misrepresent our activists.

14:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank and praise my party colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for pressing this issue and for making safe spaces for women in society a matter of fact. She has worked hard to secure a strong and immovable defence for women, and her work is to be appreciated by constituents throughout this United Kingdom; I know that my constituents in Strangford thank her, and many elsewhere would do likewise.

This debate is so important. Today, on the first anniversary of the ruling, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak clearly and categorically to support my hon. Friend. I welcome the ruling and where it leaves us. For too long, a cloud of confusion has hung over our public life—a confusion that has undermined the safety of women, the fairness of our sports and the protection of our children. The Supreme Court judgment restored common sense, yes—but, more importantly, it restored safety for women. That is critical.

Sex is a matter of biological fact. Protections must be in place, and we must ensure that they are recognised and utilised. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the For Women Scotland case was not just a legal victory, but a victory for reality. It was a victory for common sense. However, too many of our Government Departments are refusing to accept that reality and, worryingly, refusing to accept the legal ruling. That must end.

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman always makes such interesting speeches. I just wanted to ask about intersex. We have talked a lot about biological fact. Would he explain a little bit more about intersex and the potential decisions that need to be made in relation to intersex babies when they are born?

[Jim Shannon]

Whenever the hon. Lady refers to me as being “interesting”, I think that says that she and I have a different opinion on an issue. The Scottish courts have taken that legal decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady would always want to support the legal decisions in the land, whatever they may be and whether she likes them or not.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would reflect that there is a biological difference between an individual with a disorder of sexual differentiation, whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to as an intersex individual, and a biological male who feels that he prefers and is more comfortable living his life as though he were a woman.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clear message. She reiterates the position that I and many others in the Chamber hold.

Back home in Northern Ireland, Democratic Unionist party Ministers have appropriately taken decisive action, because the safety of our daughters—in my case, my granddaughters—in school changing rooms and the integrity of women’s sports cannot be put on hold. In the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan—my colleague—has moved to scrap flawed, ideologically-driven guidance that ignores the legal opinion and pushes something completely out of order and wrong. The majority of people are convinced of that. We are ensuring that schools remain places of common sense, where toilets and sports are defined by biological sex. We will not allow a culture where teachers or pupils are forced to speak untruths or where biological males are permitted into female-only spaces.

It is deeply disappointing to see some, including the Equality Commission, trying to use the Windsor framework or complex legal roadblocks to delay the inevitable. Let us be clear: there is no Northern Ireland exception to biological reality. To suggest that a woman in Belfast is defined differently from a woman in Glasgow or London is not only absurd; it is legally incoherent. I remind everyone of the Glasgow legal opinion, which was very clear. If we are all adhering to the law of the land—I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would not want to support the law of the land—then we can all agree on that.

We are not interested in expensive court cases that seek to overcomplicate the obvious, as some would perhaps try to do. We are interested in protecting the hard-won rights of women and girls. We are interested in ensuring that, when a service is advertised as single sex, it means exactly that and nothing else, as the legal decision in Scotland indicated. We have the legislation in place. We need adherence now, and we look to the Minister to demand this of every publicly funded body. This is about dignity, privacy and, above all, the truth. The DUP, my party, will continue to lead from the front, ensuring that our laws and services reflect the common-sense values of the people we represent. The Government must follow suit as a matter of urgency.

15:03

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner.

This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time.

I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced.

When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said.

The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament.

I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Everyone is being generous with their time today, and I am grateful. He said that people have transitioned “biologically”. I thought biology was either one thing or the other and was immutable. Could he explain that point?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.

As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.

Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.

The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.

This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.

It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Member is talking about the way care is managed within the NHS. Has he thought about the importance of ensuring that the biological sex of trans women and trans men is known by the clinician who is treating them? If they are on a ward, there will be a presumption that they are the same sex as the other people on the ward, which could leave them in a difficult position medically. If they receive a blood test result, perhaps for haemoglobin, the results will be interpreted based on the sex that the clinician understands the person to be, which could lead to an error if that is not the patient’s actual sex. When a patient is invited for screening, they need to be invited for the right type of screening and not the wrong type of screening, for their own safety. When statistics are produced that help with epidemiology and further healthcare, they also need to be done in an accurate way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex.

The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice.

We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women.

In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it.

Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law?

As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.

15:18

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on raising this debate in a timely manner, as we approach the anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment that biological sex is the determinant in matters of the Equality Act. That very judgment is a commentary in itself on how our society had been hijacked to the point that common sense had been suborned by the suggestion that a person could be a woman without biologically being a woman. We had got to such a ridiculous position that it took our Supreme Court to tell us the most fundamental and obvious thing that we all should have known. I very much welcome that judgment.

I join in the regret expressed for the sluggishness of the Government’s response to the judgment. Here we are, a year on, and we still await guidance. It seems to me that we are therefore still infected by an ideology that does not want to face up to that very simple and compelling finding of our Supreme Court. I say to the Government: it is time to get on with it. It is now abundantly, demonstrably, incontrovertibly the law, and it is time it is respected and adhered to across all elements of our society.

[Marie Goldman]

A lot has been said about common sense in this debate. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman will join me in reflecting that common sense used to hold that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that everything else revolved around it, and that common sense does not hold true forever?

[Jim Allister]

I do not think that was ever common sense, and if that is the depths to which the hon. Member has to stoop to try and find an argument, it is a very ineloquent commentary upon herself.

I have concerns that we could arrive at a situation where the Supreme Court ruling, which is emphatic and clear, might in fact be disapplied in a part of this United Kingdom, because of the iniquitous Windsor framework. One would have thought that in a United Kingdom, a woman is a woman wherever they are. But in the United Kingdom, under the Windsor framework, we are told that Northern Ireland is subject to a different ambit of laws. We are told that under article 2 of the Windsor framework, we are subject to European law on matters that, some argue, extend to this very subject.

We await—it is due shortly—the Dillon judgment from the Supreme Court as to the extent of article 2. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been so ideologically captured by the trans agenda that it is limbering up to bring a legal challenge to the Supreme Court ruling to say that it should not apply in Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework. If that is upheld, we face a dire situation because we already know what the European courts think on this subject. We know it definitively because last month the European Court of Justice ruled, in a case called Shipova, that biological sex can be trumped by gender self-selection. If, as a consequence, a part of this United Kingdom is subject to that jurisprudence, and not the jurisprudence of our own Supreme Court, we are staring into a situation where Northern Ireland would have a different definition of a woman and a different approach to equality laws, and a situation where that which applies everywhere else would be disapplied in Northern Ireland. That would be of immense constitutional significance.

If that worst case scenario were to happen, and if we had a ruling to the effect that, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, the Supreme Court common-sense ruling does not apply to the whole United Kingdom, will the Government pledge, in the name of being the Government of a United Kingdom, to ensure a united definition and application of the law across the UK? I trust that necessity for that will not arise, but if it does it will be down to the Government to demonstrate whether or not we are a United Kingdom or whether, in addition to every other inequity, we could now have an Irish sea border on gender identity. That would be intolerable, and it would have repercussions far and wide—not least constitutional. I do hope that common sense will prevail, that we will not be found, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, to be in a different jurisprudence and that we will have the same benefits—benefits that I trust the Government will soon elaborate on. They have dragged their feet far too long already.

Internationally, there has been some progress. The International Olympic Committee has rightly made a decision that someone has to be a biological female to compete in women’s games. That is right, sensible and necessary. It is really quite the commentary on our society that we have got to a point where nurses like the Darlington nurses have had to be dragged through the courts to establish the most fundamental principle—one that we have all known from when we could first speak, walk and toddle about—that there is a difference between a man and a woman.

The Government must grasp this nettle. The Supreme Court has pointed the way. There is no escape route. Now is the time to embrace that and to ensure that we have the correct guidance right across this land. It is a matter of regret to me that, in Northern Ireland, the Stormont Assembly still has not grasped the nettle and still allows biological men to use women’s toilets. Thankfully, in this place, the right steps were taken last June, but a year on, it still has not been addressed in Stormont. It too needs to catch up with the world and face biological reality.

15:26

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, even though I know we are on slightly different sides of it.

For far too long, trans, non-binary and intersex people have understandably been left anxious and fearful about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated:

“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”

Would the Minister therefore confirm that the judgment does not and will not affect the interpretation of any other Acts of Parliament?

The ruling also reaffirmed that trans people continue to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. Unfortunately, a year on, the Government have still not provided adequate detail on how that will be achieved. Instead, they have created a legal minefield that has left trans, intersex and non-binary people in limbo while exposing businesses and organisations to costly legal action.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice, which was leaked in November, only worsened the environment. Trans people who hold gender recognition certificates have explained to me the legal limbo that they now find themselves in. During the lengthy process to obtain such a certificate, they are required to provide formal evidence that they live, and will continue to live, in their acquired gender, yet the draft EHRC guidance indicated that they may be required to use facilities based on their birth sex. That simply is not a coherent legal position, and we urgently need clarity on the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling for someone trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate.

The draft EHRC guidance also proposed that staff working across the economy, from hotels and hospitals to cinemas and care homes, could be required to question people about their sex based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others, and refuse access to them if there is doubt they are telling the truth about their sex. That is unacceptable and unworkable. It would put trans and non-binary people in unsafe situations, and it is inevitable that it would acutely impact women and girls.

[Jonathan Hinder]

The hon. Lady is outlining cases where the application of that guidance might be difficult. Does she think that it would be difficult for someone to determine whether I, given the way I look, should be in a women’s single-sex space?

[Marie Goldman]

I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; we are utterly opposed. Does she agree that the cases involving Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses are examples of this very issue? Someone looked like a male standing in the changing room when they were referred to as “Mr”, but these people had to go through the courts to prove it. That is wrong.

[Marie Goldman]

That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Could the hon. Lady say what her ideal situation would be? Would it be that if a gentleman walked into the ladies’ changing rooms, perhaps at a swimming pool, it would be illegal to stop them or even ask them? Would the solution be that any man could go into any women’s changing room if he wished?

[Marie Goldman]

I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general.

It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.

[Tracy Gilbert]

As a lesbian woman, I have often been misgendered. As a young person—a tomboy—that sort of thing did not bother me; I wore it as a badge of honour. I am very worried that we are talking about fitting women into stereotypes. Surely, in this day and age, we are trying to move away from gender stereotypes as women, lesbians and gay people. Does the hon. Member agree that a trans woman can be a trans woman and a trans man can be a trans man—they are not a woman and they are not a man; they are a trans woman or a trans man—and services should be provided on that basis?

[Marie Goldman]

One of the most important things is how we behave towards each other as a society. I do not want women, men or anybody to have fit into stereotypes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we want to live in a society where we accept people for who they are.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marie Goldman]

I will make some more progress.

That requirement is unworkable. There is not one of us here who does not know how stressed our local small businesses are. How could it ever be proportionate to require overstretched staff in these businesses to police gender norms for their own customers to access a facility as basic as a toilet? The business community has already loudly voiced its concerns. In September last year, hundreds of businesses signed a letter opposing the EHRC draft proposals, given the impact they would have on their employees and their costs, as well as the legal risk they would create.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is talking about employers and their preferences, but they oppose gender equal pay—they would rather pay women less than men to make more profits. Just because some company says they disagree with something or they are against it does not make it wrong. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two very different issues. There are deeply upsetting impacts on cisgender women, too, including heartbreaking stories, as I mentioned earlier, of women who have undergone cancer treatment being questioned over which toilet they use because they do not conform with what a woman “ought” to look like.

I am pretty sure that nobody in this Chamber today wants to live in a country where those who have suffered from cancer are worried that they will be challenged on their appearance when trying to use public toilets. Requiring women to use separate facilities, such as disabled toilets, instead of spaces that match their gender is also not a workable solution. I have heard from trans and non-binary individuals who say that it would effectively out them, exposing them to a greater risk of harassment or even violence and depriving them of their right to privacy.

Organisations that want to be inclusive have also been affected. Last year in a statement to the House, in which she welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:

“of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 959WH.]

However, that has not been the case. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government’s position on that point has changed.

Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have regularly called on the Minister for Women and Equalities to take action to solve these serious issues. I therefore cautiously welcome the news that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That will hopefully bring an end to the uncertainty and worry that the trans community, businesses and organisations have been exposed to for too long.

The Minister must ensure, however, that the new guidance is workable and inclusive. The Liberal Democrats will accept nothing less. It must lay out how it will protect the dignity, safety and rights of all, and ensure that trans people are not prevented from participating in public life because there are no facilities that they can safely use. As I think many of us would agree, it is also essential that the guidance is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. It must have a full debate and a free vote.

[Rosie Duffield]

Will the hon. Member clarify, as the Liberal Democrats are opposed to what they see as the interpretation of the law—specifically the Equality Act 2010 —whether they propose a change to that Act? The EHRC is simplify clarifying the Supreme Court’s clarification of that existing law.

[Marie Goldman]

That was a timely intervention because my next paragraph deals exactly with that.

Separately, to deal with the unacceptable legal limbo that many trans people are in, I encourage the Minister to appoint a Joint Committee of MPs and peers, on a cross-party basis, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The Committee should take evidence from affected communities, including trans people, and propose any amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected.

Trans people are worried for good reason. Two thirds of them have experienced harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. It is sadly an all-too-common theme throughout history that vulnerable minorities—in this case a minority that makes up less than 1% of the UK’s population—are scapegoated for society’s ills.

[Tracy Gilbert]

Does the hon. Member recognise that women are a vulnerable group and that we make up half the population, yet we are still subject to more violence than any other group of people in society?

[Marie Goldman]

I do agree with that. The vast majority of women who are attacked are attacked by men, and those are men who they already know. If we are going to focus on protecting women, I would suggest that that would be a very good place to start.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Does the hon. Member accept that, as she says, men are generally the ones who attack women and that, if we do not have single-sex spaces, predatory men will use circumstances that are to their benefit to attack women? That is exactly why we need single-sex spaces.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Lady bring her comments to a close, having answered the hon. Gentleman’s question?

[Marie Goldman]

I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, although I do not have the stats in front of me, a huge proportion of women are, sadly, attacked in their own home and single-sex spaces will not prevent that from happening.

Protecting the rights of women and ensuring dignity and inclusion for trans people are not competing objectives. Both are essential to a fair society. It is basic British decency to afford that. The Liberal Democrats believe as such and that is what we will continue to call for. The Government must now provide leadership and certainty to achieve that balance.

15:38

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, and for her work to support single-sex spaces and nurses such as Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses who have been hounded and harassed for asserting that biological sex is real.

On a personal point, in my interactions with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the NHS trusts, I have had complete disinterest from people in positions of power, and an arrogance that they were right when, actually, the Supreme Court ruling showed that they were in the wrong and that those nurses—those employees who were not in positions of power—were correct. I also pay tribute to the incredible women of For Women Scotland. Without their strength and determination we would not be in the position that we are in today. I thank Trina, Marion and Susan, as well as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for their tireless work because, Lord knows, they have all suffered for it.

The Supreme Court ruling is crystal clear. In the Equality Act 2010, “man” means man, “woman” means woman, and “sex” means sex—no more legal fiction, just simple biological fact. Women and girls breathed a sigh of relief when we saw that ruling, but what have we seen from the Government since? A first-rate lesson in dither and delay and a determined effort to avoid doing their job. This is one of the most important issues on the Secretary of State’s desk. It is utterly disgraceful that she had to be shamed into finally agreeing to meet with For Women Scotland a year after the ruling.

We are suffering from a hierarchy of diversity where unaccountable diversity policy officers get to pick which ethnic, religious or minority groups are more worthy and deserving of special privileges. We just heard a speech that was completely devoid of any trade-offs to understand how the women on the other side of those policies would be impacted. That is not equality; it is deeply destructive and divisive. No matter which way it is cut, it always manages to leave women and girls at the bottom of the pile.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the one-year delay in issuing the guidance has discriminated against 51% of the population, causing stress and potential harm?

[Claire Coutinho]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a meeting with the people who brought the court case was not prioritised shows how far down the list of priorities this has been. Just this week, the teacher of the Southport killer admitted that she was silenced for raising concerns about his behaviour, after she was accused of stereotyping him as

“a black boy with a knife”.

The result was that he went on to kill three young girls. MI6 ran an internship that would hand a place to a private school black boy but turn away a white working-class girl who had grown up in poverty.

To this day, health professionals in this country are excusing harmful cultural practices that affect women and girls, such as female genital mutilation or cousin marriage, in the name of diversity. If anyone complains or argues that women’s rights are important and that women have the right to safety, dignity and privacy in a compassionate society, they are labelled as bigoted. It is not bigoted to have these debates and speak up for the rights of women and girls, or to point out that this religion of diversity is now putting them in harm’s way. That culture has real, harmful consequences: women have lost their jobs; they have been hounded out of public life.

Tragically, we are missing chances to stop men from killing women and girls. It is the same ideological approach that allowed biological men to force their way into female spaces, sports events and even places on public boards. The women who spoke up for their rights were treated brutally, including within the Labour party. Enough is enough. The law is clear: biological sex is real and this madness has to stop now. When it comes to the Supreme Court ruling, Ministers’ adherence to this hierarchy of diversity has left them paralysed, pulled one way by their public statements and another by their own beliefs.

A whole year on from the Supreme Court ruling, the Government are still unwilling and unable to do their job and take the action needed to enforce the Equality Act. Despite the empty words of a written statement conveniently timed to pre-empt this debate, the Secretary of State has still not laid the code of practice before Parliament. Having already waited seven months, we are now sat in publication purgatory: action promised but still not delivered. All the while, out there in the real world, women and girls are paying the price.

Before the Minister tries to fob us off with a can of red herrings about purdah and prorogation, let me say this: the Government made an announcement on potholes yesterday, but they cannot make an announcement on the importance of women’s rights. Women have waited long enough. There is no legitimate reason to delay publishing the code because of the devolved elections. They could have done the work ahead of the elections if that is what they wanted. The Equality Act is a reserved matter and the code is not specific to Scotland or Wales. The Government have made plenty of announcements; this is just another excuse for inaction.

We know why they have been stalling: Labour Ministers are too scared of upsetting the gender activists on their own Back Benches to ensure that women’s rights are protected. While they stall for time, who suffers? It is women such as Sandie Peggie, Jennifer Melle, and the hard-working Darlington nurses who have been put through the wringer by the NHS simply for stating that biological sex is real. It is the women who have been raped and find themselves face to face with a man at a rape crisis centre, and the female prisoners who are forced to share their spaces with biologically male inmates.

Countless organisations are failing to comply with the law, with absolutely no consequences. Women and girls are being denied their legal rights on a daily basis. The former chair of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner, was absolutely right; this is cowardice from a set of Ministers who are entirely captured. To quote her directly:

“You have a Government led by a lawyer…yet he’s unable to uphold it in its most visible form”.

Frankly, women deserve better than seven months of misdirection about over-egged requirements for consultations, impact assessments and purdah for devolved elections—God help us! They deserve better than a Secretary of State refusing to withdraw the outdated and unlawful 2011 code. They deserve better than a year of Government Departments and quangos telling us that they are reviewing policies, with no end in sight. They deserve better than a Government crippled by fear, inaction, obfuscation and delay. All the while, women and girls across this country are put at risk and denied their legal rights.

Hopefully, the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a few questions that might put our minds at rest. Why did it take months for the Government to submit a “narrow set of comments” on the draft code of practice to the EHRC, and what exactly were those comments? Did the Secretary of State, as reported in The Times, instruct the EHRC to tone down the draft guidance?

Will the Minister take personal responsibility for ensuring that all Government Departments are finally compliant with the Supreme Court ruling? What additional resources are the Government providing to the EHRC to help it to enforce the Supreme Court ruling and the new code of practice? Will the Minister finally name the specific day when the Secretary of State will actually lay the draft code—no more excuses, no more misdirection, no more passing the buck?

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate. As Members have outlined, in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms man, woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. That means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of that specific Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. The judgment also reaffirmed that trans people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

This Government have always proudly supported the Equality Act 2010, and we continue to uphold its protections for separate and single-sex spaces and services based on biological sex. As Members from across the House have outlined today, the provision of single-sex spaces is vital for our constituents, and this Government will always protect it.

There has also been reference to the anxiety currently felt by the trans community, many of whom are deeply concerned about how this judgment will impact their daily lives. This Government will always protect trans people’s rights under the law and ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. My remarks today are underpinned by the Supreme Court’s vital reminder that the judgment should not be considered a triumph of one group at the expense of another, because pitting different groups against each other and stoking division hinders our shared endeavour of ensuring dignity and respect for women and trans people.

It has been important to hear contributions from Members in this debate, and I thank them all sincerely. The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me three direct questions at the end of her speech, and the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) also asked me about laying the code. We will lay the code as soon as possible after the local elections, and we have stated our intention to do so in May.

On the question of workplaces, we expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary. That has been a consistent theme in the debate, and the Government have been crystal clear that we expect people to follow the law as per the Supreme Court judgment.

[Claire Coutinho]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would let me make some progress. I am sorry; I have quite a lot of important points to get through.

[Claire Coutinho]

It is a short question.

[Olivia Bailey]

If it is very short, she has twisted my arm.

[Claire Coutinho]

I am very grateful to Minister for giving up a moment of time. If she expects people to follow the law, can she confirm that all Government Departments are doing so?

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that all Government Departments are currently ensuring they comply with the law.

The third question that the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me was on the NHS. Issuing guidance before the EHRC code of practice is published presents a very real risk that guidance may be inconsistent; I am happy to keep her up to date with progress on that matter.

The right hon. Member for East Surrey and others welcomed visitors in the Public Gallery today. I welcome them too, and want to say clearly that everybody should be safe and respected at work. That includes women’s voices, rights and spaces being respected. I think the right hon. Lady was wrong to say that that has not been a priority for the Government—we have been working tirelessly on giving it the due care and attention it needs—and I think she is wrong to say that we are not determined to uphold the law, as I have hopefully just clarified.

I will also clarify that this Government are committed to the rights of women. The last Conservative Government had a terrible record from on women’s rights: victims of rape and sexual assault waiting for years for justice, women waiting years for diagnosis and care in the NHS, women at work suffering stubbornly high gender pay gaps and the Leader of the Opposition even saying that maternity pay had gone too far. This Government are delivering for women and girls. We are halving violence against women and girls in a decade, strengthening women’s rights at work and delivering a new women’s health strategy and cutting waiting lists. We are committed to protecting single-sex spaces and implementing the Supreme Court ruling, which I will come on to discuss.

Debates such as this are important because, in a conversation that is so often deeply polarised we must find ways to work together to move forward. We need more cool heads and constructive contributions, so that we can ensure the vulnerable groups at the heart of this debate—for example, women who have experienced violence and the trans community—are always treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Today my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has tabled a written ministerial statement on progress with assessing the EHRC’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations. That follows the statement issued by the EHRC in which it explained that it has updated the code of practice and shared that with the Government this week. While we are unable to make further comment at this time due to strict pre-election rules, hon. Members should please be assured that we will take urgent action, with the intention of laying the code in May, as soon as practicable after the election period.

I also want to emphasise the importance of getting this code of practice right. It would be catastrophic for single-sex services to follow guidance that was not robust and then be placed in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we have taken the time needed to consider the code in full. When we lay the code, we will follow the process as set out in the Equality Act: namely, if the code is approved by the Minister, it will be laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Minister will then bring the code into force via a commencement order.

Beyond the process of the code itself, I have heard in today’s debate that some Members are concerned about what the Government have been doing to implement the Supreme Court ruling while the code is being considered. I reassure Members that since the judgment was received, the Government have been crystal clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the clarity provided by the judgment and to seek specialist legal advice where necessary.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I will try to come back to the hon. Member at the end if I can. I do apologise.

I can also assure Members that all Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies have been carefully reviewing the ruling’s potential implications in full to ensure that their policies and guidance are legally compliant.

I have also heard concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling for trans people. The Government firmly believe that trans people deserve to live their lives with dignity and respect, and without shame. That is why we will continue to uphold the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and why we are making progress on delivering our manifesto commitments, which will strengthen rights and protections for trans people. We will deliver a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will also improve healthcare for trans people, using the findings of the recent Dr Levy review on adult gender identity services and the forthcoming Dr Brady review on LGBT+ health inequalities.

We are adding sex and gender reassignment to the list of protected characteristics under the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that offences motivated by hostility against someone’s sex, presumed sex or trans identity can be charged as an aggravated offence where the evidence supports that. We are determined to make sure that women, girls and trans people feel safe and secure everywhere—in public spaces, at home, in the workplace and online. I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions, and I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your expert chairship.

15:55

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank all hon. Members for their participation. I want to thank the Minister, but she completely avoided the question about Northern Ireland, so I want her to write to me on that to ensure Northern Ireland women are protected in the same way as women in England, Scotland and Wales.

I especially thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for her efforts. She has often faced significant backlash, and yet she continues with courage. The Government need to realise that we are not going away until we see the change that every biological woman deserves. In Upper Bann and right across this United Kingdom, they deserve protection. We simply want the Government to reflect what the Supreme Court clarified: that “women” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. It should not need law or clarity. It is time that this wokeness and ideology was kicked into touch. A woman is an adult human female, and women across the UK deserve to be protected. I thank everyone for their time today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.

National Suicide Prevention Standard

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. I have received no information that such permission has been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for businesses implementing National Suicide Prevention Standard BS 30480.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This debate is about a risk we often overlook in our workplaces, but which can have a great impact on families, work colleagues and a much wider group of people. We have rigorous standards for fire safety and electrical wiring, and for hard hats on construction sites. We accept those as the cost of doing business safely yet, until now, we have had no such road map for the most complex safety risk of all: the mental health and lives of our employees.

Research shows that one in four adults has contemplated suicide, and one in 13 has attempted it. For every suicide death, at least 135 people, including colleagues, clients and communities alike, are directly or indirectly affected. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. According to the Office for National Statistics, it was the leading cause of death for males and females aged 20 to 34 in the UK for all years observed, accounting for 27.1% of male deaths.

Suicide touches nearly every workplace, yet most organisations lack the tools to address the emotional aftermath.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for introducing the debate; this is a massive issue, absolutely. Does she not agree that, as 90% of businesses are small businesses with no human resources department, it is difficult for employers to be aware of the help for staff, and to be trained? Further, does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government, and particularly the Minister, need to ensure that accessible training is of no or minimal cost to small businesses? The very thing that the hon. Lady wants to happen can happen, but it needs that wee bit of help.

[Liz Twist]

Of course small and medium-sized enterprises are in a difficult position without large resources, but there are lots of things we can do. As the hon. Member suggests, I will ask the Minister what we can do to ensure that SMEs also have the ability to take part in this training.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that BS 30480 will make a real difference only if businesses are actively supported in implementing it, rather than simply being left with a “do your best” approach? In that context, would she support formal a Government endorsement of the standard, including through health and safety guidance on work-related stress and psychological risk?

[Liz Twist]

Indeed, I will be pushing the Government to do all they can to support the implementation of the standard, and to recognise those psychological risks.

As we know, male-dominated industries such as construction face severe historical challenges with work and mental health. Agriculture and farming workers face extreme social isolation and financial pressures, and have access to lethal means. Healthcare workers and emergency responders experience severe trauma alongside having ready access to pharmaceuticals.

The economic impact of suicide is clear. In the UK, it is estimated at nearly £1.46 million per death. Nationally, this costs the UK economy nearly £10 billion per year, factoring in the cost of lost productivity, healthcare and emergency services. Suicide has a profound effect on every workplace it touches, whether through the loss of a colleague, supporting someone in crisis or managing the complex emotional and operational aftermath. Yet organisations are not necessarily equipped to address this issue openly and effectively. For employees without proper support, the trauma and grief of exposure to suicide significantly damages workplace attendance, retention, performance and productivity. Colleagues often experience profound feelings of guilt, inadequacy and confusion.

Because people fear saying the wrong thing, they often do or say nothing, which leads to further distress and emotional toll. This standard, informed by research, data and lived experience, aims to provide organisations with practical, evidence-based recommendations to help plan for, respond to and support people affected by suicide, or those with thoughts of suicide, in the workplace and beyond. The standard is designed to help workplaces support people who might be on the frontline of dealing with the stresses and strains of life.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I also thank her for jointly organising an event in Parliament to which constituents of mine, Anna Scott and Roger Cunliffe, who lost their daughter to suicide, brought the Yorkshire Speak Their Name quilts; we had 19 quilts on display here in the Houses of Parliament.

Will the hon. Member recognise, however, that those in our farming community, working in isolated environments, are of particular concern, with men in farming being twice as likely to lose their lives to suicide as the average man working in any other environment? Will she join me in celebrating the work of the Farming Community Network and others, which do so much to support those working in isolated environments, particularly in the farming community?

[Liz Twist]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I had great pleasure in working with his constituents on the quilt exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall; it was a tremendous experience, and they do tremendous work. Farming is indeed one of the industries most affected by these circumstances. I certainly commend the work being done on the agricultural side, by organisations such as Yellow Wellies, to ensure that those issues are addressed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I really appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend does in this area. I was very moved when a constituent, a police officer, came to me to share the experiences from his force when somebody took their life. The force did not have the tools available to support him, leading to his own mental health challenges, and to those of his colleagues. Therefore, it is really important, as part of this standard, that employers are equipped to identify those pressures—often overwork and stress, or bullying at work and the culture set in the workplace—and to then address the challenges that people face with trauma. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need that holistic approach to people’s wellbeing at work?

[Liz Twist]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Certainly I agree that we must do all that we can. I hope that, in this debate today, we will be able to take steps forward to implement the standard.

I want briefly to touch on the work that the British Standards Institution does. It plays a vital role in workplace standards of all kinds in this country. The BSI is 125 years old this year. I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating the BSI on that achievement, and the enormous contribution it has made to businesses and the everyday life of people throughout the United Kingdom since 1901.

British standards have helped with everything from saving lives with medical devices to air raid shelters during the war, crash helmets and now addressing suicide. I thank colleagues from the BSI for being here in the Public Gallery today to raise awareness of their organisation’s hard work, particularly on the new standard BS 30480: “Suicide and the Workplace”. I know that the BSI has a positive impact on society through its work. As chair of the APPG on suicide and self-harm prevention, I am pleased to have supported work on that standard. I am also delighted that the House has endorsed the standard and is seeking to adopt it following internal consultation.

The publication of the world’s first standard on suicide and the workplace represents a significant milestone in supporting mental health and wellbeing at work across the UK and beyond. The BSI, acting as convenor, brought together many leading individuals and organisations to develop it. The standard itself calls for assigning a named senior leader to take responsibility for the organisation’s suicide prevention strategy and provide targeted training so that line managers are confident in spotting warning signs.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a true champion for mental health and has been quite an inspiration to me since I have been in Parliament. The standard is an amazing step forward for mental health in the workplace and is hugely welcome. It will save lives and help people in their everyday lives who experience suicide happening around them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be proactive and open up channels of communication really early to prevent suicide? We should encourage things such as mental first aid training in the workplace, which is really important.

[Liz Twist]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the whole purpose of this debate is to encourage us to be proactive and work with other organisations and employers to ensure that the standard is implemented and lives are saved.

Additionally, the standard encourages businesses to collaborate with workers to help design individual safety plans that outline coping strategies and emergency contacts at times when they need help or support. I was glad to work with the BSI on the standard. It represents the outcome of a huge amount of work involving employers, and mental health and suicide prevention organisations such as Samaritans, trade unions and BSI staff, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today. I was especially pleased that Mr Speaker granted permission to help launch BS 30480 in Speaker’s House last November.

I pay tribute to Professor Ann John, director of the National Centre for Suicide Prevention, who chaired the BSI committee, and within that, Marcus Long, who led the communications group, and Peter Kelly, who led the drafting panel. I also thank the BSI staff I have worked with over the past few months—Jane Packer, Lachean Humphreys and Robert Jervis-Gibbons—for their leadership on the standard. It has been a great pleasure working with all of them, but now we have to make sure that the standard is rolled out by employers. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm from employers to date, with 11,500 downloads of the standard so far.

How can the Government promote the standard? I believe the standard will help many workplaces across the UK, and I am sure the Government will work with me and the BSI to promote it to businesses. For example, Heathrow airport has publicly spoken about its adoption of the standard, and so has the Inclusion Education, in a recent BSI webinar in which I took part. Can we please encourage more to follow their lead? I believe we need the Government’s help to do this.

As we have heard, the standard offers clear guidance for organisations of all sizes and sectors, including public bodies, charities, social enterprises, businesses and commercial enterprises. I hope the Government can actively promote it, especially within high-risk, male-dominated industries, by leveraging their new and existing partnerships, such as the upcoming three-year collaboration with the Premier League, aimed at improving men’s health, literacy and suicide prevention. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Social Care could work with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that workplace first aid and safety guidance emphasises the importance of managing risks to mental health using the standard. I am pleased the Government mentioned the standard in the men’s health strategy earlier this year, and that was significant. That is a good starting point for ensuring that employers start to implement the standard. The focus of today’s debate is how the Government can help with that task and help BS 30480 contribute to the national suicide prevention strategy.

April is Stress Awareness Month in workplaces, and I hope the Minister will agree to some actions today, maybe on behalf of his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. First, will his Department help to promote this important standard with business, public sector bodies and throughout Government? Secondly, will he commit to jointly organising and attending a roundtable with me, the BSI, the Department for Business and Trade, key UK businesses, SMEs and the unions to discuss the roll-out of the standard across UK workplaces. Thirdly, will he say how the Government will ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can access the trauma-informed training required to implement the standard effectively?

We want to ensure that the standard not only raises awareness, but gives organisations the tools they need to reduce risk, intervene effectively and encourage conversations, breaking down the myths and the stigma that talking about suicide causes people to feel. With help from the Government and colleagues in this place, we can all work together to achieve our ambition of seeing fewer people die by suicide.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate on a topic that is especially close to her heart and for her work more generally to promote action on suicide prevention. I am also grateful to hon. Members across the Chamber for their interventions.

Every suicide is nothing short of a tragedy. It has lasting and devastating impacts on families, friends and communities. Ensuring that the right care and support are available to someone who may be struggling when and where they need it can make all the difference in saving a life. That is why reducing the numbers of lives lost to suicide is a key priority for this Government, and we are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England. The strategy focuses on harnessing efforts across civil society to help identify and support people at risk.

Standards such as the one produced by the British Standards Institution play an important role in raising the profile of suicide prevention in England and in supporting employers to play their part. I take this opportunity to congratulate the BSI on 125 years of tireless work, ensuring quality not only in British society, but across the world. The British Standards Institution is the UK’s national standards body—an independent organisation that develops standards that shape and encourage best practice across myriad professional sectors. The Government’s relationship with the BSI is through a memorandum of understanding, primarily to support the UK standards system, rather than to direct or enforce implementation of standards by businesses.

Decisions on adoption and implementation remain with individual organisations, although the Government may play a role in encouraging awareness of those standards to support best practice. In November last year, as we heard, the BSI launched a new voluntary standard entitled “Suicide and the Workplace”. That standard was particularly notable, given that it was not just the UK’s but the world’s first national standard supporting suicide prevention efforts in the workplace—a truly commendable achievement. My ministerial counterpart, the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health, Baroness Gillian Merron, was particularly pleased to speak at the launch of that standard.

As with other BSI standards, this voluntary British standard is published as guidance; it is designed to support organisations of any size and across all sectors in strengthening their approach to suicide prevention, intervention and bereavement support in the workplace.

On uptake, I was pleased to hear that the standard has been well received so far, with more than 11,000 downloads since its publication in November. It is overwhelming to hear that businesses across the country are putting the standard into practice, including Heathrow airport and Inclusion Education, which have publicly adopted it.

The standard is advisory and is intended to be integrated into existing organisational policies and health, safety and wellbeing arrangements, and therefore to be flexible. In terms of supporting its implementation, decisions on how to use it rest with individual organisations, but the Government recognise that some employers may choose to use it as a reference point or benchmark alongside their existing workplace mental health and wellbeing policies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett knows I am not a Department for Business and Trade Minister, but I am committed to making sure that she is linked in with the appropriate Minister in that Department, particularly around her asks on how smaller and medium-sized enterprises can access and implement the standard and overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles to doing so, and I would be delighted to try to organise that meeting for her.

[Rachael Maskell]

In 2003, the last Labour Government introduced a programme called Dignity at Work. It looked at bullying in the workplace, which we know is significant, and there are a lot of parallels we can draw on. A partnership was formed between trade unions, Government, businesses and public sector bodies to implement a programme of work to address bullying in the workplace, and it was incredibly successful. Will the Minister look at the Government being more interventionist on this standard and perhaps adopting a similar programme of work?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is always knowledgeable about these matters and she tempts me to egress across the confines of my departmental portfolio. I am happy to cite her recommendations in my correspondence with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade when I try and set up a meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett.

The role of employers generally cannot be understated. As the suicide prevention strategy clearly sets out, by improving support practices and conversations employers can and do save lives from suicide. Almost three quarters of people who take their own lives are not in contact with NHS mental health services. That points to the importance of public and private sector organisations—well beyond the confines of what we see as the traditional NHS—that are well placed to reach those vulnerable people most at risk. Workplaces provide the perfect opportunity to signpost people to the support they need. Employers should support practices and conversations that help to prevent suicides—for example, by having employment assistance programmes, line manager training and support networks in place for employees. Every employee should feel supported, and every employer should ensure that support is known of and available to their staff.

As has been highlighted, we know that some sectors are disproportionately affected by suicide. For example, suicide rates in construction are four times higher than in other business sectors. The Construction Leadership Council’s mental health project has focused, through the lens of prevention, on identifying the primary root mental health causes impacting construction workers. The project, in partnership with Mates in Mind and the University of Warwick, held a series of regional focus groups with on-the-ground workers and identified those causes as including late payments, a lack of stable work, and workers having to travel and stay far away from family and loved ones. The Department for Business and Trade consulted on those issues and received around 3,000 responses. An action plan, together with a joint code of practice setting out how employers across the sector can provide a more supportive environment to address and prevent those issues specifically, will be published this summer.

With suicide prevention, we often talk about the importance of meeting people where they are. Ensuring that people are supported by their workplaces is one valuable way of doing that, and the Government are committed to finding more opportunities to ensure that every person requiring support can access it readily. For example, my counterpart Baroness Merron, alongside co-chairs Money and Mental Health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services to discuss the role they could play in supporting people at risk—both their customers and their employees. I understand there was a great appetite in the room to take further action on this matter, and Baroness Merron is working closely with officials to progress this work at pace.

I encourage all workplaces and employers to familiarise themselves, and align their work practices, with the Government’s suicide prevention strategy and to consider how they can best support their staff. I would also encourage them to consider drawing on the BSI standards as an exemplar tool to help embed suicide prevention in working practices.

Finally, as the BSI standard highlights, the importance of community, both inside and outside the workplace, cannot be overstated. That is why so many of the Government’s ambitions surrounding suicide prevention, and indeed wider prevention, hold community at their core. With our 10-year health plan, we are shifting care and support from traditional institutions into the community, and our focus is more firmly on prevention. Through the new community-based mental health centres that are being piloted, people and families can receive care and treatment when they need it, in their community, 24 hours a day, and in a much calmer environment than one finds in traditional A&E departments.

[Liz Twist]

Can I tempt the Minister to go a little further? I specifically requested a roundtable to encourage take up of the standard. Is something that he can look at and mention to the other parties I discussed?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is trying to steal the conclusion of my speech, so I will bring it forward. I am always delighted to meet her, and she knows I am happy to contribute to any roundtable that she feels needs my attendance. I can charge my officials with the task of getting that organised.

Those community-based mental health centres are co-delivered with primary care specialist services that can be drawn on as required. People can receive psychological therapies, medication and other interventions, while also having access to expertise that can help with wider issues that may be impacting on their wellbeing and recovery, such as issues with housing, employment and peer support.

Our suicide prevention support pathfinder programme for middle-aged men will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men within their communities and will create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems.

Today’s discussion has without doubt highlighted that suicide prevention truly is everybody’s business. Every person, organisation and service has a role to play. We can all do more to ensure that we are equipped with the skills that can and will save lives. Our suicide prevention strategy sets out a comprehensive, evidence-driven plan to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide across our country. It highlights the important role that employers and organisations can and should play in supporting their staff to get the support they need. Guidance such as the BSI’s “Suicide and the Workplace” standard brings welcome visibility to just how important that role is. I extend my thanks to everyone who contributed to and was involved in the development of the standard.

In conclusion, I know how personally painful debates such as this can be, but all hon. Members will know that the impact of these discussions goes well beyond the four walls of our Parliament and into the streets. That awareness is so important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett for securing this debate. I would be delighted to meet her and to organise the meetings I outlined.

Question put and agreed to.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of alternatives to ground mounted solar panels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I sensed the people coming into the Chamber in the last couple of minutes and I felt a quickening. It was like energy coming together, which is completely appropriate given what we are here to debate: alternatives to land-based solar panels.

The context in which I wish to couch this debate is twofold. One aspect is local and one slightly more geostrategic. People say that in politics, where you sit defines where you stand. Hon. Members may or may not know that I am the proud Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I sometimes feel the need to remind hon. Members that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is, in fact, everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames.

When I was elected, at the last election, to be the Member for Spelthorne, I looked at a very big map of the constituency—hon. Members will be very surprised to learn that I used to be in the Army, and there used to be a very good saying in the Army: “If you don’t know what’s going on, get a bigger map”—and I identified four enormous blocks of blue. That was half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs. Being a practical man, I thought to myself, “Well, there aren’t many votes in there.” I also thought to myself that we cannot really build many homes there.

I did further research and it turns out that in 2016, on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir in a neighbouring constituency, a large technology demonstrator for floating solar was laid down, and ever since it has produced 6.3 MW of power—enough to power about 2,000 homes. That was at the time the largest one in Europe; back in 2016, we were leading. I looked into the situation further in order to see whether we were world-leading, but it turns out that we were not particularly, and that floating solar has been deployed to a greater extent in China, India, Vietnam and Israel. We will come in due course to the benefits of floating solar as an alternative to land-based systems.

I want now to return to the more national context. Frequently, we are led to believe that alternative sources of energy can be something of a zero-sum game—when someone takes one step forward, someone else has to take one step backwards. As I am sure we will hear, in large parts of the United Kingdom there are proposed large, land-based solar farms, frequently on very good agricultural land, so the zero-sum game between food security and energy security needs unpicking.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward a debate on this massive issue. Is he aware that there are roughly 600,000 acres of unused, south-facing industrial rooftops in the United Kingdom that could be utilised before we industrialise the countryside? The Government must look at those in order to utilise already built heritage and leave our countryside as it is to produce the food that we need.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope other Members will come forward with their own preferred alternatives to land-based systems, because there are others.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically brilliant speech—the jokes get better each time we hear them. Does he agree that there are other types of provision? My area of interest is space-based solar power provision, which could provide the same sorts of solutions without taking up precious agricultural land.

[Lincoln Jopp]

As the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend is only too well placed to talk about that. As his Whip, I can only say that his jokes get better too.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made, I can say that when I was the Minister for Space, I strongly supported space solar, which is a genuinely exciting British breakthrough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is making a really important point about food security. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, I know that we are hugely vulnerable to the geopolitics of the strait of Hormuz and global supply chains more broadly, so we need to do more to support UK agricultural production. In my patch, we have an 8,000-acre solar farm on farmland, which will see good, productive land taken out. This Friday, I am chairing the Central Norfolk Solar Factory Farm Alliance. We are very keen to see solar on reservoirs, motorways, council buildings—on any surfaces we can—but not on good farmland.

[Lincoln Jopp]

And there we see the battle. Without wishing to get into other controversial areas, it is a little like proposals to build on green belt. If everything else were built on first and we protected the green belt, we would be a richer country.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

South Derbyshire has two grid connections and gets a plethora of applications for solar and battery energy storage systems—it is the bane of my life. I am passionate about moving to renewables. I have just got an electric car, and it is helping me keep my energy costs down for the journeys that I need to make, particularly in the light of what is happening with Iran.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on alternatives, but does he agree that it is not quite as straightforward as we think? We need to do this quite speedily. People assume that putting solar panels on industrial sites is easy, but we still need to be able to connect them to the grid, which is being upgraded in my neck of the woods. Does he agree that, much as we desperately want alternatives, there is not a sliver bullet to get us there?

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. One of the massive delays in deploying solar power is the requirement to achieve planning permission, and I am so pleased that she has brought that up. One of the beauties of floating solar is that if the owner of the reservoir or former quarry will use the electricity themselves, there is no requirement for planning permission. In terms of speed to deployment, return on investment and speed to profit, this is to a certain extent an answer to a maiden’s prayer.

We have not yet added in the third element of this battle between food security and energy security: water security. I believe in climate change. I am more sceptical about carbon neutrality within a certain arbitrary timeline, but the fact is that evaporation is a massive issue as the world warms up. One of the stunning and much less vaunted benefits of floating solar is that it reduces evaporation by 70%. Australia is very expensively covering reservoirs in anti-evaporation covers, but those could be floating solar panels.

I can sense the mood of the Chamber—hon. Members are very keen for me to list the other benefits, so I will do just that. The first, which we have talked about, is that floating solar comes with none of the opportunity costs of putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land, so we can move the debate on from whether we have to choose between energy security and food security.

Secondly, because of the effect on evaporation, floating solar also moves the debate on from the need for water security and energy security. Another stunning benefit is that it is twice as efficient as land-based systems. We would need only half the amount of floating solar as we would need solar covering Lincolnshire or Suffolk agricultural land. Hon. Members who remember their O-level physics will know that the evaporative effect on the underside of the floating solar panel makes it self-cooling, whereas land-based and roof-based systems and those in railway sidings simply get hotter through the working day and become less efficient.

“What about the water in these reservoirs? Surely, Lincoln, this can’t be as good as it sounds?” Well, it gets better, especially if the reservoir is to be used for drinking water further downstream. Denuded of heat and light, those things that grow in reservoirs that subsequently have to be filtered out, very expensively, by the water companies cannot grow. It is win-win-win all round.

Let us leave 2016, when we were Europe’s leaders, and fast-forward to last year. If ever there was a way to motivate Members of the House of Commons, it is to suggest that the French are beating us at something. Bear in mind the 6.3 MW—enough to power 2,000 homes—on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir. Last year, a plant on a disused quarry in Perthes, France became fully operational. It generates 75 MW.

I visited a former dock in Barrow-in-Furness where a 45 MW site is planned. It has to go through planning because BAE Systems will take the electricity. I would relax the permitted development right to include third-party use of the electricity, so that we can realise the benefits and improve the business case of floating solar to entertain the sort of investment it would need. I think there are 570 reservoirs in this country, and there is floating solar on one—the Queen Elizabeth. Ten further projects are planned. We also have innumerable former quarries and unused ports such as at Barrow. The opportunity is huge; we are talking terawatts. If it is realised, floating solar could generate 1% of UK baseload.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned space. Clearly, that would be phenomenal. Dare I say that it behoves the Government to look at this in a more strategic way than hitherto? They published their long-awaited solar road map. It has about 94 pages, and about half a page and a photo are dedicated to floating solar, which they describe as a “nascent” technology. I hope that I have shown that it is not nascent at all; it has been with us for quite some time.

Last August I stood on top of the Golan heights, looking down towards Syria, and saw two enormous reservoirs that were almost completely covered with floating solar panels. We should look to hotter and more arid countries for our sense of where we should take our innovation and technology. My plea to the House and the Government is this: look again at the potential for floating solar. When it comes to energy security, food security and water security, it provides a non-ideological, highly practical solution—a NIHPS—without papering over the beautiful parts of England.

By the way, all the reservoirs in my constituency are raised, so this solution comes with none of the visual vandalism of our country being carpeted in solar panels, to which people object so much. The tops of those reservoirs can be seen only by people taking off from or landing at Heathrow. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is quite right: nothing is as simple or as perfect as it might first sound. I do not envy her having two grid plug-in points—she will be one of the most popular Members of Parliament going. But if we can, we must examine floating solar in greater detail, because it could, to a certain extent, produce a valuable alternative diversification of our energy supply in a world that is becoming ever more dangerous and insecure.

16:46

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate. I have heard the statistic that for all the land allocations that have been set aside for housing, for growing food and for renewable energy projects, and for all the other demands on the scarce land mass that we have at our disposal on this small and increasingly crowded island, we would need another two Waleses. Clearly, they are not making land any more, so how can we get better use out of the square mileage that we have at our disposal?

Ground-mounted solar gives a single purpose to land. Yes, it possibly gives some biodiversity gain; yes, it is maybe possible to graze sheep around solar panels, although I have yet to see it in reality; but generally it is a single purpose for that piece of land. How can we make better use of our land? As the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne suggested, we can put solar panels on reservoirs and on rooftops. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will point out that that is a much more expensive way of installing solar panels—we have had that conversation before—but I would like to ask where the profits go. A 2,000-acre solar farm, Lime Down, is planned for my constituency. It is 100% owned by Macquarie. Hon. Members might be aware that Macquarie was the owner of Thames Water during the time that that company was loaded up with debt. It is a financial institution, not a utility-owning institution, so the profits from the solar farm will not go to local people; they will go to Australia.

What does good look like, if we are to meet our large and increasing energy needs while also bringing the public along on our journey towards net zero? It is important to the project that there be public support, not public alienation. Smaller-scale schemes can and do work. In my constituency there are successful schemes in Long Newnton and Corston. The principles are clear: projects that are community-led are more likely to have community buy-in, as are those that are modest in scale, that are sensitively sited and that deliver direct local benefits.

I welcome the Government’s support for community solar, including the funding that has reached groups such as Zero North Wiltshire, but we need to go further. Many communities are willing and able to participate. The local power plan and investment through Great British Energy are welcome steps, but they fall short. The Government are proposing about £1 billion for local and community energy; the Liberal Democrats have set out a plan for £3.3 billion. That difference matters. Our approach would scale up community energy into a core part of the energy system, not just a niche add-on. More than 100 MPs have backed reform through early-day motion 2151, so there is clear cross-party support for the right to local supply.

I would like to see the missing piece put in place: community supply licences, peer-to-peer trading and reformed licence exemptions. Of course, ground-mounted solar has a role in the transition to net zero, but it needs to be done right. The tests are simple: is there genuine consultation, real local benefit and protection of our landscape? If we get this right, solar can power our future. If we get it wrong, it will divide the very communities we need to bring with us.

16:50

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. We are focusing on the concept of floating solar, which I am entirely behind. One of the drivers for that is the proposal in my constituency for the Green Hill solar farm, which will be enormous. It will be 1,200 hectares of agricultural land: the size—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will like this reference—of Heathrow airport. It will be dispersed over nine sites, require 31 km of different cabling, and use up 65% of best and most versatile land. The Government say that food security is national security, but such a scheme flies in the face of that message. Even the national policy framework EN-1 says that we must minimise the impact on BMV, yet such a scheme is going before the Secretary of State in the next few months. I really hope that he considers that, because this is not the best way to be utilising our land.

Green Hill solar farm will also have a battery energy storage system, which will be installed right outside a village called Grendon. Grendon already has a 50 MW battery storage site, and another 50 have been approved by the Reform council—I am surprised about that, given its view on battery energy storage, but there we are. However, this solar farm will require a further 500 MW on top. That will be 600 MW of storage outside a beautiful country village. It is completely inappropriate for the size. The developers have probably cited the existing source as their reason. However, this addition will completely change the nature of the villages, and we still have not been able to get an answer to the question, if there is a fire and there is a risk of thermal runaway, what that will mean for the nearby villages? I have been told that they can simply evacuate a village; that is not practical, it is not pragmatic and it does not give our residents any confidence in the scheme that is going forward.

The beauty of floating solar, as my hon. Friend said, is that there will be no land use change, which is one of the most important parts of this. It is also important that there will be no evaporation of the water, which is excellent. One of the objections is the visual impact of solar. The national policy framework EN-1 says that we have to take account of the heritage of an area. This particular solar farm will be around a series of beautiful English countryside villages with rolling hills. The village of Easton Maudit will be surrounded by solar on three sides. That will completely change the nature and experience of the village. Indeed, Sir Christopher Yelverton, a former Speaker of the House—albeit from the 16th century —is buried in one of the fine churches there; I imagine that he would not be delighted by the prospect of this coming on board. There is an important relationship between maintaining the heritage of our areas and the environment that we are in.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I share her frustration. In my constituency, there is a large area of protected national landscape, the North Wessex downs national park, which is constantly under threat from these kinds of proposals. Does she share my frustration at the lack of imagination shown in the UK? The A303 and the A34 run through my constituency, and there are tens of miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels. That is the approach they take in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere, but we never seem to get over the imagination gap about where we could put these things—floating or whatever—that may not be quite so damaging and intrusive. She probably has parts of the M1 in her constituency, which has endless miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels that could power her constituency and mine without harming any visual amenity whatsoever.

[Sarah Bool]

I entirely agree, and we have been trying to promote that argument. It has unfortunately been claimed that Northamptonshire could become the warehousing capital of the UK, but we should be using the roadsides. We sometimes see airports using the side banks for solar panels. Solar panels should be installed on the covers of petrol stations and on the roofs of warehouses. I know that the last Government were consulting on whether more warehouse space could be used. I know that some people make technical arguments that the roofs are not strong enough and cannot be reinforced, but that is absolute nonsense. We can definitely work to ensure that the roofs are sturdy enough for solar panels.

There is debate about whether it should be the landlord or the tenant who bears the cost of the initial outlay, and about who gets the benefit. All those things are completely surmountable, and we should be able to work on a programme for that going forward. It all goes back to planning, because meaningful requirements could enable solar power generation. I am often concerned that these initiatives end up just being greenwashing and that we are only putting them in place to be able to tick a box. What we want to see is these schemes being meaningfully integrated.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech about the importance of thinking about things strategically. Does she agree that if one was thinking about the strategic placement of ground-mounted solar, one would not put it on the best and most versatile farmland that we have for food security?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. It certainly should not be put there, and the national planning policy framework states we should not be doing that. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that we are still having debates on this issue. There are certainly other alternatives, and they must be explored, so I really do hope that the Government take this issue seriously as it progresses over the years.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I feel that we are slightly misrepresenting the argument. There is no debate about choosing between food security and energy security. The National Farmers Union states that if solar capacity were to increase fivefold by 2035, we would still only see 0.5% of UK agricultural land covered by ground-mounted solar farms. Is it not the case that we are creating a false debate, or does she think that the National Farmers Union is wrong?

[Sarah Bool]

I am not debating the National Farmers Union; I am saying that we should not be putting farmers in this position. I would not blame any farmer trying to make a bit of extra money from solar, particularly since the current environment is very difficult for them. The problem is that ground-mounted solar is not the best use of that land in any event. Agricultural land should be used for exactly that—agriculture.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am afraid to say that I think the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has completely missed the point, because the reality is that this country is about 60% to 63% self-sufficient in terms of food security. This is not just about land being taken out of production; it is also about the long-term degradation of the health of the soil on which the solar is being mounted, because of issues such as shading, reduced rainfall, construction-related compaction issues, reduced organic matter and contamination risks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about taking the land out of production but about the long-term degradation of soil health once the land comes back into agricultural production—if it ever does—after the solar agreement of 40 years or so has elapsed?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely, and that is one of the arguments that we were trying to make in the hearing against the Green Hill proposal, which is for 60 years. We cannot see the justification for that. There will be a renewal right, no doubt, and even within those 60 years, the solar panels will be degraded from rain and we will not know what the run-off will cause. There are so many factors that we do not know about, and I want to ensure that we have good-quality agricultural land for the future.

[Tom Hayes]

I do not want us to keep talking around each other, but the hon. Lady is missing the point again about the quantity of agricultural land that can be taken out of agricultural use. Reference has been made to the idea that the UK would be carpeted with ground-mounted solar panels. That is not going to happen. We can support the goal of food security and we can support the goal of energy security, but we do not need to misrepresent the extent to which agricultural land will be taken out of use for that purpose.

[Sarah Bool]

I think it is about the quality of the land that is being used. It might be a small amount, but if it is very good-quality agricultural land—as 65% of it is, according to what I have here—the hon. Member’s point does not stand up on that front. We just have to be very realistic about it, because there are many different factors. The hon. Member could say that a huge proportion of the country is taken up with golf courses, and say, “Well, we don’t take that away,” but what we are saying is that this is a fix that is very popular.

Solar does not necessarily work all the time. The actual amount of energy generated is a very small proportion. Sometimes it can work only 10% of the time. It does not work during the night, and there are other issues about the transmission of the energy itself, because of the times of the day that can be used. That raises questions about the grid capacity and the grid connections.

[George Freeman]

On the important point that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made about connections, what we are discovering in Norfolk is that the grid connection investment is an open door to much bigger solar applications. We have an 8,000-acre one that I am dealing with today. Land agents tell me that 20,000 acres in Norfolk are now being released because we have the grid connection. Much of that will be good land. The danger is that the connectivity driving the investment means, unfortunately, that the land use argument gets distorted.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think it also speaks to a wider issue about efficiency in the use of land. The EN-1 national policy statement says that we must be efficient in the use of natural resources, including land use itself. I think it is apt that we talk about floating solar, because we are not taking out agricultural land; we are using land that is serving one purpose but can legitimately serve another without disruption.

[Samantha Niblett]

One of the biggest concerns, particularly for my tenant farmers, is that when there is a change of land use for a solar farm, not only is the farmer unable to farm that land, but they do not have a farm—they are losing the farm. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. It completely changes the nature of the relationship. We know that our farmers are already having a challenging time because of Government policies that are coming in; the inheritance tax changes have been devastating for our farming community. This is a point at which we should be supporting them. Part of that support is about saying that actually we need to be building reservoirs. On-farm reservoirs are going to be very important; again, that is a part of the planning system that we need to change and push through.

I do not want farmers to feel that they should or must go for solar applications in this instance, where actually the entirety of their farmland is taken out of use. The devastating thing about this policy is that a farmer whose family has been farming for generations—generations of them are buried at the Easton Maudit church—has had his tenancy ended and is already out, in anticipation of the policy coming in. Hundreds of years of a farming dynasty have been taken away.

This is not what the Government want to be doing, and it is not where we should be going. We should be encouraging farming, keeping our beautiful countryside, and using the alternatives. As I say, there are plenty, whether that is on top of warehousing spaces or on the sides of roofs.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, many of which have appropriate buildings for housing rooftop solar panels, for example. That would meet some of our net zero targets and allow some of the fertile land, which she has already spoken about, to be prioritised, properly and rightly, for food production. Does she agree that we must expand the incentives for our farmers to install rooftop solar panels, including guaranteeing a fair price for electricity that is sold back into the grid?

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for making those points. Yes, all the different incentives matter. In the farming environment, our farmers have struggled with a lack of certainty. With the removal of the sustainable farming incentive and with the capping and closure of all the different funds, there has been no certainty. In an industry that requires certainty, they cannot just suddenly change a crop halfway through. They have to rely on security, and it has not been delivered so far. We need to do whatever we can to put in place long-term guarantees of funding and make sure that they realise that they are secure for the future.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous with her time. Does she have any comment on the scale of some of these proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) talked about an 8,000-acre proposal, and 9,340 acres are currently open to planning in my area. It can be quite difficult to appreciate quite how big that is, so for the Minister’s benefit let me say that the constituency of Rutherglen stands at a total of 10,230 acres. That means that the solar farms planned in my constituency would cover 91% of his area.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Two hon. Members have intervened after coming late to the debate. As a courtesy to the Chair and Members, they really should send a note. I have had a note from another hon. Member who wishes to intervene, who has done things properly and has not yet intervened. I say that to hon. Members for this debate and for future reference.

[Sarah Bool]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

These sizes are huge. As I say, the solar farm in my constituency will be the size of Heathrow airport. If this application goes through, more than 1% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. That is not what we anticipated, and it is not the vision that I have for the future. We have far better alternatives. It is important that we move the debate on, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne has done, to thinking about floating solar.

This is not about our party saying no to renewables or to any other alternatives, because that is not realistic. We need an incredibly good, diverse energy mix. What we are saying is that we should not do that to the detriment of our farms and our farming community and good-quality agricultural land. Solar has many great advantages. I wish I could trade my scheme for the one suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. That would be far better and I am sure it would be much more appreciated by residents, constituents and the British public.

17:06

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate.

I confess that I had prepared to do far more debunking of climate-denying nonsense, given some of the statements by the hon. and gallant Member’s party leader, so I was relieved to hear his very impressive and science-based speech. I support a lot of what he said. The only note that I wrote myself was to say that we do not need to worry that solar panels start to lose efficiency above an ambient air temperature of 25°C, which is a fairly infrequent event in the UK. I totally accept his point about the efficiency of putting solar on water.

If the constituents of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have concerns about battery energy storage systems fires, she should point out to them that there have only been about 30 BESS-linked fires globally in the last 15 years. It is actually incredibly safe.

The point about rooftops is about prefab buildings—the large warehouses. The roofs have an insurable lifespan of about 15 years, whereas solar panels have a 30-year lifespan, so we need to change the building regulations, as has been said.

That is all a long-winded way of saying, that prior to getting elected, I spent 10 years working in the renewable energy sector, so I have a particular passion for this subject. I am also the chair of the ClimateTech all-party parliamentary group and co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I expand a little on the technological options available outside floating solar.

We face a worsening climate crisis, with more frequent extreme weather events affecting communities in West Dorset and across the UK, as well as being in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with families facing high food, fuel and energy bills, compounded by the illegal conflict started by the President of the United States. About 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil, and many do not qualify for the support that has been announced. Petrol and diesel prices are rising. Red diesel for farmers has doubled in price. Fertiliser prices are rising, too, which will feed through to food prices.

As a result, it has never been more important to make renewables work for working families. That is not because they are cleaner and more secure than fossil fuels, although we know that they are, but because they are the cheapest form of energy available. New solar now costs 11% less than the cheapest fossil fuel to generate electricity. Onshore wind is 39% cheaper. Over a decade ago, only 6% of the UK’s electricity came from renewables. Today, it is 42%. On Sunday, renewables generated 62% of the UK’s electricity, of which solar produced 8.8%. We should be enormously proud of that, but while renewables are getting cheaper, people are not seeing the benefit in their bills. Under the current marginal pricing system, the price of electricity is set by the cost of gas. That means that when global gas prices go up, electricity bills go up too, regardless of how much renewable power, or power of any kind, we are generating domestically. That system has left the UK with the fourth highest electricity prices in the world. It is not working for households or for businesses.

Let us be clear that the answer to energy insecurity is not more dependence on oil and gas; it is more cheap British renewable energy. Under the clean power 2030 action plan, the Government want 95% of Britain’s electricity to come from clean sources by 2030—a noble endeavour. To get there, the Government plan to increase solar capacity to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030. That will require doubling our capacity.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

When alternatives are not available, building solar farms, as Leonardo is doing in Yeovil, can be important to strengthening grid capacity for businesses and residents. When the site in Yeovil is working fully, there is not enough power in the grid for other businesses to expand. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that we have alternatives and get more solar out there to power our businesses?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. Wherever possible, we should generate and use on site. The problem so often—I will come to this point in my speech—is that the value of anything that is exported to the grid fundamentally underlines any kind of investment model when we are looking at on-site generation.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I sent a note, which you were kind enough to mention, Mr Stringer, to apologise for entering the debate late, but I am delighted to be able to contribute.

The hon. Gentleman must surely know that renewables need to face the same tests of cost-effectiveness as all other kinds of generation. For example, the concentration of offshore wind, with very large turbines, a single point of connection to the grid and large amounts of energy, contrasts with the peppering of the country with onshore turbines in small numbers and with multiple connections to the grid. Similarly, putting solar on grade 1 land is just not sensible. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Edward Morello]

I can certainly agree with the argument that putting solar on grade 1 land should be avoided wherever possible. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested in the recent report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on our adversaries’ attempts to cut subsea cables, and on the implicit danger of having so few connection points with such concentrated areas of offshore generation, as we have seen with recent Russian activity. I will happily pick up that point with him afterwards.

About two thirds of UK solar capacity is ground-mounted, but there are concerns about where developments are located, particularly those built on high-quality agricultural land. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool): I have never met a farmer, especially in West Dorset, who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels. Farmers want to produce food, but we must acknowledge that after years of pressure on farm incomes and pressure on them by this Government, some see solar as one of the few reliable ways to keep their farm operating.

We are asking more and more of our countryside. We want it to produce food, support biodiversity, generate renewable energy, capture carbon, provide housing, and support tourism and recreation. We need guidance to identify where solar is most appropriate, steer it away from the best agricultural land wherever possible, and encourage dual-use schemes that allow land to generate energy while still supporting farmers and nature—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

17:13

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate and for setting out, with his inimitable style and élan, a persuasive argument about how we balance energy generation with the protection of the countryside and the benefits of floating solar, which is a subject close to his heart and about which he is incredibly passionate.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on speaking or intervening in the debate. I was, however, going to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) of inadvertently misleading the House when he suggested that the jokes of our hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne were getting better every time he heard them.

This debate is not about whether solar should be built in the UK. His Majesty’s official Opposition are absolutely clear that solar does have a role to play. The question is where solar belongs and whether the Government are making sensible choices about how much to rely on that method of electricity generation. Under this Government, we are seeing a rapid expansion of large-scale ground-mounted solar developments on productive agricultural land. Tens of thousands of acres are being removed from food production, often with limited local benefit and little regard for the impact on land use and food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire set out so eloquently.

Good agricultural land is a finite national asset, and the foundation of our food security and rural economy. Once it is taken out of use and industrialised, it is rarely, if ever, returned to productive farming. At a time of global uncertainty and rising food costs, it is profoundly short-sighted to undermine domestic food production and the livelihoods it supports in pursuit of energy targets that could be achieved in less damaging, more efficient ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who is more knowledgeable about issues pertaining to agriculture than I could ever be, set out.

The push to install solar panels on farmland is yet another blow to farmers and rural communities. Labour’s promises to protect rural life have proven empty, with new measures making it harder for family farms to survive and plan for the future. The result is a weakening of our rural economy, and a threat to the future of British farming and our food security.

Rural businesses and communities are raising serious objections, not because they oppose clean energy but because they are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden on their shoulders. In one of her last actions in government, the now shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), changed planning guidance to make sure that the cumulative effects of lots of applications in one rural area were considered together, not just waved through the planning system, and that food security held as much importance as energy security when it came to those decisions. Since coming into government, however, Labour has been approving every single application wherever it can, no matter the impact on local communities, and it has watered down the community benefit scheme that we put in place to make sure that communities are rewarded for hosting this energy infrastructure.

There are also serious questions about efficiency and value for money. Just this week, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—has warned that solar panels could produce more electricity in the summer months than the public could consume. To combat that, one of NESO’s suggestions is for consumers to increase their electricity use, with NESO even rewarding them for doing so through a demand flexibility service. Our electricity system should suit the needs of the people, not require consumers to change their behaviour to suit the energy system.

This situation exposes the limitations of relying too heavily on intermittent sources of energy such as solar and wind. Those technologies can play a limited supporting role, but true energy security requires a balanced portfolio that includes sources that deliver reliable, year-round baseload power. NESO has rightly advised that we need a flexible system that matches supply to demand and protects against volatility.

[Sarah Bool]

I want to make a point about volatility. With the unpredictable way in which solar is adopted, there is a danger that we will end up making compensation payments. When the sun is not shining, we may have to turn off panels and give huge amounts in compensation. That is another dynamic that we have to think about: it is an unreliable and unpredictable source of energy.

[Andrew Bowie]

As ever, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.

Britain is an island nation with more than 40,000 lakes, lochs and reservoirs. We have led the world in offshore energy for decades, be that oil and gas or offshore wind. Floating solar, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggests, should be explored to see how it might contribute to a future system without displacing food production or industrialising the great British countryside.

Despite the potential of such exciting technologies, the Government are going hell for leather towards onshore wind at the expense of all else, and greenfield solar is being waved through planning systems with alarming speed against the wishes of local communities across the country. The Conservative party continues to support solar on people’s rooftops and on top of warehouses, car parks, brownfield sites and other common-sense locations that do not harm our countryside, food production or rural livelihoods. What we oppose is the Government’s apparent willingness to sacrifice productive farmland.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the Minister starts his speech, I remind him to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

17:18

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing it, particularly because I unfortunately missed his Adjournment debate, which I heard was one of the most enthusiastic Adjournment debates we have ever had on this topic. I was delighted to hear him repeat much of that same speech, because I did of course read it in Hansard. The map joke was there in the Adjournment debate, and it was there again today. We appreciated it all the same, and it was great to hear it in person. I thank him for securing the debate, and I genuinely thank him for the enthusiasm he has shown for floating solar. I will come back to that in a moment.

I was also pleased to hear the hon. and gallant Member say that he believes in climate change. That should not be breaking news to anyone, but when we hear Conservative Members stand up and confirm that science is in fact science, it is none the less a relief to me. I was delighted to hear that. However, the challenge—and I will come back to this point—is that, as much as there is a recognition that climate change is a threat, there is also a distancing from any of the actions that would help us to tackle it, and that is simply not a sustainable position for anyone to hold.

If we think about food security, water security and national security, all of them would be put at huge risk by not tackling the climate crisis. This is a very real challenge for us to deal with at the moment. That more dangerous and insecure world is exactly why we are embarking on the clean power mission.

[Sir John Hayes]

While the Minister is on the subject of science, would he turn his attention to agronomy? He will know that only around 15% of the land in the United Kingdom is grade 1 and 2. Much of that is in the east of England and, indeed, in my constituency in Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has been targeted by solar developers, with countless large solar plans in the offing. Will the Minister recognise that those two things cannot be squared? We cannot have the most productive and versatile land being used up for solar at the cost of our food security.

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to come to the trading of statistics later in my speech, but let me do it now, because there is a fundamental point around the disingenuous trading of statistics on land use. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a valiant effort at trying to correct that, but let me give Members some sense of this. At the end of 2024, ground-mounted solar panels covered an estimated 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. Even if we achieve the ambitious targets that we have set out in the clean power action plan, they will be expected to cover 0.4% of the total land area and 0.6% of agricultural land. That is if we achieve our hugely ambitious targets.

The arguments that I will make in this speech are exactly those that the previous Government made when they spoke from the Dispatch Box. There was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Energy Minister who spoke about the dramatic rise in global energy prices following the invasion of Ukraine, the urgency of building a renewables-based system, and how critical it is for us to meet our 70 GW target for solar in the UK by 2025— the previous Government’s target was a fivefold increase.

The now shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), pretends that that was not the Conservatives policy for 14 years, and we now hear a litany of ideas—roadside solar, rail solar, floating solar—but none of them was driven forward in the 14 years that they were in government. Forgive me if I think that it is a little bit rich for them to be oppositionist, not having driven any of it forward when they were in government.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The Minister is talking about using a very small proportion of the United Kingdom. I understand his point, but when all of that small proportion falls on the best bits of agricultural land, that is not sensible. If one were looking at a strategic framework and desiring to use 0.1% or 0.2% of the country for solar, one would look at the least useful land for food security for doing that, not the best.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come on to that point.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) suggests that we should utilise the least useful land going. My understanding, according to the numbers I have looked at, is that at least 2% of the UK is covered in golf courses, which are ecological wastelands. At the risk of alienating all the golfing voters out there, I wonder whether the Minister would like to use that land.

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on golf course membership, because I do not know how many of my constituents are members of golf courses; I can imagine how many Conservative Members are.

I come back to the point about land use, because we absolutely recognise the importance of having a framework for how we use land across the country. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the first-ever land use framework in March— I recommend a read of it. It is a vision for all of England’s land use, using the latest data on how much we need for housing, energy and all sorts of things to ensure that we are making the best use of land. Both that and the strategic spatial approach to planning the energy system could have been done in those 14 years, but they were not. That is why we have ended up with a haphazard approach to strategic planning, and why we are now building the grid to connect the renewables that were built all over the country without that spatial plan. It is important that we strategically plan that, and it was not done previously, so we are moving forward to do it.

[Robbie Moore]

I have read the land use framework. The Minister has hit the nail on the head, because its sole beneficiary is his Department—the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and not our farmers or our food security. Can he specifically address the issue of land quality? If we are putting ground-mounted solar on agricultural land, will he at least recognise that that will degrade the quality of the soil health, given the amount of time that those solar panels will be in situ?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be able to go into the detail of everyone’s points, but the hon. Member is wrong about the land use framework. Perhaps he should read it again, because it details quite clearly the different land uses across the country. There is always tension about land use—of course there is. That has been true throughout history, and that is why we are strategically planning it.

We are clear that the planning system recognises best use. Every application is considered on its merits; I am not going to be drawn on individual applications, but we have clearly said that ground-mounted solar should be used, wherever possible, not on the best-used land.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady again because I want to come to floating solar, which the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne eloquently made the case for. I completely agree that it is a hugely exciting technology that we should be expanding, and I also agree that there are none of the trade-offs that there often are in other deployments and that there are huge benefits. He and I have both visited the project at the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir near his constituency. It is a fantastic example of floating solar, which has the benefits of generating clean electricity and retaining water in the reservoir. We want to see how we can also utilise that power to reduce the local demand so that there are some real benefits for local communities.

We are taking forward a number of actions. I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Member thinks that floating solar was not given a prominent enough position in the solar road map, but I assure him it has a prominent enough position on my to-do list. We are driving those key actions forward because there is no reason why we should not be doing that more quickly. There are projects in the pipeline that we will try to support wherever we can.

On the argument that there is a trade-off between that and covering rooftops, reservoirs, motorways or any other space that people can come up with, I am open to all of those ideas. I agree that we should be doing much more on rooftops. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made the point about some of the complexities with landlords and tenants. It is complex, but it is not impossible and we need to work our way through dealing with that.

It is important that we recognise the scale of the challenge. The scale of our electricity demand means that we need to see more ground-mounted solar as well; it is not either/or. Rooftop solar is important in our mission, and floating solar will be important, but the deployment of ground-mounted solar will also be important in communities across the country. We want those communities to get a genuine a benefit from it, so the points around locally owned power are critical.

In closing, I recognise that at this moment in particular, the lessons we have to take from the crisis in the middle east is that we need to move further and faster away from reliance on fossil fuels, but we have to take communities with us on that journey as well. That is why I want to see communities owning more of this infrastructure and benefiting from it. We also need to make the argument to everyone in our constituencies that the reason they have been exposed time and again to sky-high energy bills is because of our exposure to a fossil fuel market that we cannot control. There is no shortcut to building a system that protects us from that and there is no option to simply build another system somewhere else. At some point, infrastructure has to be built somewhere, and it is simply not a reasonable argument to say, “I’m in favour of this, but please don’t build it anywhere near me.” We will not embark on that.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire kindly referenced the size of my constituency—I do not think I have ever heard the exact number of hectares. The previous Government built one of the biggest onshore wind farms right next to my constituency. I support that; it is the right thing to do for our energy security. If it was right under that Government, it is also right that we build the infrastructure that we need now, bringing communities with us but also being clear that it is the right path for the country and our energy security.

17:28

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have made such powerful contributions. I love the image of the Minister under his bed clothes with a torch reading the Hansard report of my Adjournment debate.

I can see the turning point where floating solar went from a nascent technology to one that the Minister wants to drive further and faster. He made a crucial point about how it is all very well to will the ends, but we need to will the ways and means, and not say, “Not in my back yard”. Floating solar is exactly my way of saying to the farmers in Lincolnshire and hon. Members from great agricultural land, “Yes, in my back yard. In fact, on half of London’s drinking water in the four raised reservoirs in Spelthorne, and in across other raised reservoirs across the country.” We can unpick this constant battle between food, water and energy security, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to highlight that.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:29

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).