House of Commons
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Wednesday 22 April.
City of London (Markets) Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoter of the City of London (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session on 22 January 2025, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current Session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Wednesday 22 April.
Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoter of the Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords on 23 January 2023 in the 2022-23 session, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to remind Members of the continuing need to follow the conventions and courtesies of the House as we approach the local elections. Members must inform colleagues in advance if they plan to table questions that specifically affect a colleague’s constituency, or if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency, except for private purposes. I also stress that the Deputy Speakers have no opportunities to raise issues relating to these conventions, or wider issues from their constituency, in the Chamber, so I urge colleagues to be particularly mindful of any activity in their constituencies that might be deemed discourteous—and I do not think it would help the Member’s career in this Chamber, either. All colleagues across the House should take care and treat each other with respect.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Tackling child poverty is fundamental to the work of this Labour Government. In December, we published our ambitious and comprehensive UK-wide child poverty strategy. It sets out the steps we are taking to reduce child poverty in the short term, as well as putting in place the building blocks we need to create long-term change across the United Kingdom. On its own, our decision to lift the two-child cap, which came into effect just last week, will benefit 95,000 children in Scotland.
Pamela Nash
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish National party has failed Scotland’s children over the past two decades, leaving thousands in poverty, including one in four in my constituency, and that it is only Labour that will prioritise our children, as we have shown by lifting the two-child cap, which is now benefiting over 13,000 children in Lanarkshire?
Mr Alexander
First, on the conduct of the Government: the Conservatives in government pushed kids into poverty; Labour in government lifts kids out of poverty. We would have hoped for a better approach from the Scottish Government, but the fact is that there are 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own. At the same time, the challenge that was set by the previous First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was to close the educational attainment gap in Scotland—of course, education, along with employment, is the best route out of poverty—but that gap has got wider rather than narrower. What a damning indictment of the Scottish Government.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Obviously I do not agree with the Secretary of State’s analysis, but I think we can agree that child poverty and the other challenges that face real people in Scotland should be the focus of this Scottish Parliament election campaign, and not independence, for which, incredibly, the Reform UK candidate in Dumfriesshire voted. Does the Secretary of State agree that anybody in Scotland who does not want to see Scotland spend five more years in a constitutional cul-de-sac should use their vote wisely to stop an SNP majority?
Mr Alexander
It is always important for the electorate to use their votes wisely, but the fact is that there are two parties that are deeply threatened by Scottish Labour’s emergence as the credible alternative to the SNP. They are, on the one hand, the Scottish National party and, on the other hand, Reform. If we think about it, their interests are completely aligned, in talking Reform up and talking Scottish Labour down. I certainly hope that people act wisely and make sure that this Scottish election is about Scotland.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Through our ambitious Pride in Place programme, we are empowering local people to shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Pride in Place impact fund is investing £12 million across Scotland over two years, including £1.5 million in North Ayrshire. We will invest up to £480 million in 24 Scottish communities over the next decade, including £20 million each for the Irvine and Three Towns neighbourhoods in North Ayrshire, and for the Fauldhouse, Whitburn and Blackburn neighbourhood in West Lothian. This locally led funding can be used to directly support regeneration, high streets and heritage. Best of all, decisions will be made by local people—those who know and love the places the most.
Irene Campbell
I am pleased to say that after a huge amount of hard work was put into a Pride in Place application, investment has been successfully allocated to the three towns of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the £20 million of UK Government Pride in Place funding will provide great opportunities for community projects that can improve our town centres and regenerate our shorefront areas?
Kirsty McNeill
Huge congratulations to my hon. Friend and her constituents. These three towns have tremendous untapped potential that has been long neglected and underutilised. Our coastal towns are a huge part of our identity on these islands, and I look forward to working with her to champion the pride that people rightly feel about living in this beautiful part of Ayrshire.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Years of under-investment and the loss of major employers have left Whitburn and Blackburn facing deep economic and health inequalities, weakened high streets and people generally feeling left behind, yet the strength of local organisations and businesses shows great ambition for renewal. With £20 million of Pride in Place funding from this Labour Government, local people are finally at the heart of decisions on local regeneration. How does the Minister see this programme rebuilding community cohesion and inclusion so that people feel valued and that their contribution matters?
Kirsty McNeill
The communities of Fauldhouse, Blackburn and Whitburn all face long-standing economic challenges, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is also so much pride and passion locally, and she is a great champion of that. Our Pride in Place programme is there to ensure that all local people have a stake and a say, and that they can work together for a future that is truly worthy of their ambitions for the places they love.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Minister share my disappointment that my constituency of Edinburgh West was the only one in Edinburgh that was not considered for a Pride in Place programme, including areas like Drylaw and Stenhouse which have particular problems that could have been helped by this programme?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Member and I have had a chance to discuss this matter previously and, as I have indicated, these are Labour priorities guided by Labour values. We have committed to targeting funding at the places that need it most, based on a double deprivation index, and I am afraid her constituency simply did not qualify.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister accept that if Pride in Place in Scotland is to mean anything, as with elsewhere in the UK, it must include targeted funding for high streets and town centres to bring long-term vacant premises back into productive use?
Kirsty McNeill
That is precisely one of the focuses of the Pride in Place programme. Our high streets have been neglected for far too long and are at the real heart of community pride. I am delighted that so many of the Pride in Place bids are focused on exactly that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government stand ready to provide the support needed by families in response to recent events in the middle east. The Prime Minister has set out our plan to deal with the immediate impact of the conflict on the cost of living, which includes cutting energy bills by an average of £117 per household, extending the fuel duty cut until September while closely monitoring prices at the pumps, providing £4.6 million for low-income families in Scotland who heat their homes with oil to tackle surging prices and, of course, continuing to push for de-escalation of the conflict itself.
Wendy Chamberlain
I welcome what the Minister has said, but the challenge is that the Government have yet to correct the challenges from the ECO4 scheme, which in North East Fife has blighted houses with not only a lack of insulation but poor installation of inappropriate heat pumps and so on. Can the Secretary of State advise me when the Government will start inspecting these properties and consider a compensation scheme for constituents such as mine?
Mr Alexander
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), is on the Front Bench with me. I will write to the hon. Lady on exactly that matter.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My constituents welcomed the fall in energy prices at the beginning of this month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce energy prices in Scotland is not to pursue more constitutional divides but to secure our energy independence by progressing the Government’s clean power mission as quickly as possible?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Global instability, including the recent events in Iran, has exposed the risks of relying on fossil fuel markets that the United Kingdom inevitably does not control. We are delivering on work to ensure our energy independence and thereby bring down bills for the British people for good. What we absolutely do not need right now is the added distraction of political point scoring at the expense of our national security in what is a dangerous and troubled world.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Conservatives are clear that we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the potential of the North sea, cutting bills, saving Scottish jobs and making us more energy secure. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is running the election campaign for the leader of the Scottish Labour party, so he presumably agrees with the leader, who said,
“The balanced approach that we need to take is supporting our oil and gas sector.”
That also presumably means that the Secretary of State disagrees with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Prime Minister. Who is right: the Prime Minister or the leader of the Scottish Labour party? It cannot be both.
Mr Alexander
The difficulty with the point that the Scottish Conservatives are making is that they are in denial of their record. We lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea when the hon. Gentleman was in office. The fact is that the challenge for the North sea did not emerge in July 2024; in fact, it reflects the complete absence of a plan from the previous Government. The reality is that oil and gas will be central part of our energy mix for many years to come, and this Government recognise and understand that.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Scotland is an energy-rich exporter of electricity, hydrocarbons and renewables, so why are so many Scots struggling to pay what are among the highest bills in Europe?
Mr Alexander
Economic illiteracy is not limited to the Benches of the House of Commons; it extends to the First Minister. Let us take the example of Berwick Bank, the largest offshore wind farm in Europe, which was paid for in no small measure thanks to the actions of a UK Government. The fact is that when the First Minister and the hon. Gentleman make their claim that the affordability of renewables is somehow determined by the Scottish taxpayer, they ignore the contribution paid by UK bill payers. The level of investment in renewables in Scotland is a direct consequence of its being part of the UK energy market.
Stephen Gethins
Right there, we see the alignment of Labour and Reform. Labour’s Brexit isolationism has taken us away from Europe and away from our key markets. Independent Ireland—European Ireland—has announced a €700 million support package, yet Scotland, which has given £350 billion to the Treasury, got £35 per household in heating oil support. As the fuel crisis spirals, we see little or no action from the Labour Government. Will they turn their back on that alignment and turn towards the taxpayer?
Mr Alexander
There goes the SNP talking up Reform again. When will SNP Members learn that it is possible to be anti-nationalist without being anti-Scottish? That party promised a publicly owned energy company almost a decade ago. Maybe when the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, he can tell us where that energy company went.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Tragically, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in Scotland. I want Scots to benefit from the very best research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research works in partnership with the Scottish Government to support and enhance health and social care research across the UK, even though healthcare is devolved. Researchers in Scotland can now apply for funding, which has, for example, allowed the outstanding researchers at the University of Dundee to identify a newer, simpler type of mammogram that can reliably show how breast cancer responds to chemotherapy before surgery.
Clive Jones
Cancer Research UK’s manifesto for cancer research and care in Scotland recommends that the Government should increase
“strategic institutional research and innovation funding…investing in and supporting the delivery of a new Scottish Health and Biomedicine Institute (SHBI) to deliver new innovations that will benefit people and the economy in Scotland.”
What is the Minister doing to support that manifesto?
Kirsty McNeill
I commend my hon. Friend for his ongoing and dogged advocacy for this cause. As he will know, the UK Government are committed to ensuring a partnership approach between the health services of Scotland and the rest of the UK, and we are focused on ensuring that higher education, and other forms of innovation, are part of our work on cancer.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s industrial strategy set out how we will grow our economy by doubling down on our national strengths, despite the global uncertainty we are living through. That includes investing in Scotland’s huge contribution to the UK economy. Our free trade agreements with India and the EU will have huge benefits for Scottish businesses, and of course Scotland will benefit hugely from the defence dividend created by our increased investment in our national security. This is a Government backing growth and jobs in Scotland.
Euan Stainbank
Given the state of our economy, taxpayer money must be used far more strategically. Phase 3 of the SNP’s Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund granted the majority of a taxpayer-funded subsidy to Chinese bus manufacturers, which directly contributed six days later to 115 jobs being put at risk in Falkirk. With demand for ZEBs rising but domestic market share reducing, Scottish manufacturing jobs are being lost with the assistance of taxpayer money, and something must change. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that future taxpayer-funded orders are met by manufacturers and workers in Scotland and across the UK?
Mr Alexander
This is an incredibly difficult time for the Alexander Dennis workers and their families, many of whom face an uncertain future through no fault of their own. It is, alas, yet another example of failure on the part of the Scottish Government, who sent the majority of a £45 million funding pot for zero emission buses to China, blocking comparative bids to build and invest in Falkirk. While Labour mayors have shown what is possible across the rest of the UK, stepping forward with bus orders and backing British manufacturing when it mattered, that is an example not so much of being “stronger for Scotland”, as of being stronger for China.
John Grady
Good transport is essential for economic growth, be it ferries to our wonderful islands, or their links from the west coast of Scotland to our airport, but after almost 20 years of the SNP, Glasgow is in gridlock. Workers worry about getting to work on time, which holds back business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Glasgow needs change, and that only Anas Sarwar can get Glasgow moving?
Mr Alexander
Unsurprisingly, I find myself wholeheartedly in agreement with my hon. Friend. Glasgow is the city of my birth, and it has been badly neglected on any objective measure by the Scottish Government in recent years. Scottish local authorities have been starved of cash over decades by the SNP-led Scottish Government, who have hoarded powers and resources at the centre in Edinburgh, to the detriment of Scotland’s local authorities and cities. People make Glasgow, and Glasgow and its people deserve a whole lot better.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
A strong job and business market is key for economic growth, but Labour’s huge rise in national insurance is a direct jobs tax, and the SNP’s huge increase in business rates is a direct tax on our businesses. Scottish Conservatives have a plan to revitalise our high streets, support jobs and get businesses investing. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government’s decisions since coming to power have cost jobs, businesses and investment in Scotland?
Mr Alexander
Before we get to the Conservatives’ plan, perhaps we could start with their apology. What about the £22 billion black hole that was left in the public finances by the Conservatives? We are still waiting for the apology.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
In a Westminster Hall debate on heating oil support this morning, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) suggested that the Scottish Government should be supporting businesses with energy costs. I agree that powers over energy should be totally devolved to the Scottish Government—does the Secretary of State agree with that?
Mr Alexander
If SNP Members want guidance on how to deal with energy costs, they could look at the £100 million emergency package that was announced by Scottish Labour only a few days ago. I must express concern, however, because if they are serious about energy, perhaps they could tell the House what happened to the publicly owned energy company that was promised so long ago by Nicola Sturgeon, because the Scottish public are still waiting.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In a long litany of failures, surely the most egregious of all that the Scottish National party has inflicted on Scotland is the lack of any discernible growth whatsoever. Indeed, had Scotland’s economy grown at the same rate as the rest of the UK’s from 2010, Scotland could be up to £10 billion a year richer. At the same time, its benefits bill is set to soar to £9 billion by 2030. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that Scotland needs change?
Mr Alexander
I certainly agree that Scotland needs change. There has been an industrial level of waste by the Scottish Government in relation to money. Half a billion pounds has been spent on ferries; the First Minister went to Stornoway last week, but this week the boat that he travelled on broke down. A third of the CalMac fleet was out of commission over Easter. Whether it is the Scottish Government’s waste of resources, their failure on public services or their abject failure on economic growth, Scotland needs and deserves change.
Andrew Bowie
I could not agree more, but change will not come from a weak and feeble Labour party that over the last five years has nodded through and supported every single one of the SNP’s mad-cap schemes, including, though Labour Members will not admit it now, the dangerous gender recognition reforms stopped by us. The SNP has failed Scotland and Scotland now has the worst of both worlds: two economically illiterate socialist Governments engaged in a staggeringly depressing game of Top Trumps in a desperate race to the bottom. National insurance, the family farm tax, the North sea, business rates—Labour and the SNP are strangling economic growth in Scotland.
Mr Alexander
The last time I checked, it was actually Scottish Conservative votes in Holyrood that sustained Alex Salmond’s Government in power, so we are not going to take any lectures from the Conservatives about somehow being the SNP’s little helpers. The reality is that Reform is the SNP’s little helper in this election, and after the comments made last night, it is pretty clear that the SNP is Reform’s little helper too.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The SNP is willing to support the Chinese economy by buying buses from China that raise serious security concerns, but when it comes to supporting defence jobs at the British-owned Rolls-Royce site in Glasgow, it pulled the funding. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP is failing Scotland both on jobs and on security?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady’s question tells us everything we need to know about the base politics of the SNP, which suggest that those who are pro national security are somehow anti-Scottish. That helps to explain why the SNP Government were not willing to fund the welding centre on the Clyde, which would have delivered hundreds of apprenticeships and secure jobs for decades to come. It explains why they were are weak on our own defence, supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament notwithstanding the arrival of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions on the international stage. If Scotland wants to benefit from being part of a strong and secure United Kingdom, I hope that we will decisively reject the SNP on 7 May.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Last month, alongside the Chancellor, I met oil and gas industry leaders to discuss the impact of geopolitical volatility on energy prices. The Chancellor reaffirmed her commitment to backing Britain’s oil and gas industry, recognising its pivotal role in supporting growth and jobs, especially in Scotland. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants the energy profits levy to come to an end, but the crisis in the middle east has had real-time consequences on oil and gas prices, as we can all see, and it is right that we respond to that robustly.
Rebecca Paul
The oil and gas sector is a vital industry, not just in Scotland but for the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State share the disappointment of the Conservatives that the Chancellor deterred a reported £17.5 billion of private investment into the oil and gas sector by choosing to retain the energy profits levy last month? That money would have supported thousands of Scottish jobs, and delivered growth and energy security for the UK.
Mr Alexander
I respectfully point out that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the EPL. Why did they do so? They did it in order to deal with excess profits generated by a geopolitical crisis. The conflict in the middle east that we are living through at the moment makes the case for dealing with excess profits from some of the largest energy companies in the world.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran in my constituency has now ceased production, after the company said last year that it had not made a profit for five years. News that our UK Labour Government have made £9 million available to support the affected workforce and find a future for the site has been warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially in Cowdenbeath. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the interests of the people of Fife for the Scottish and UK Governments to work together to utilise all available funding and find a viable future that brings jobs back to the site?
Mr Alexander
May I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless efforts on behalf of her constituents in relation to the challenge faced by the Mossmorran workforce? She has been a powerful and consistent advocate for the workforce and for the changes that we needed to see. That is why I am proud that the UK Government have been actively marketing the site to potential investors and stand ready, as she says, to invest up to £9 million to secure a successful future for the site and support the local economy.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that we did not get to John Lamont’s question. He is 50 today, and I believe that his parents are watching him!
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The Southport inquiry report is truly harrowing, and I cannot imagine the pain that it will cause the families of all those affected. We will make the changes needed to honour the victims, the injured and the families, and our thoughts remain with the loved ones of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, and with all those impacted.
Today marks 37 years since the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 men, women and children went to a football match and never returned. My promise remains that, working with families, we will deliver a Hillsborough law to end the injustice that they have suffered and ensure that the state will always act for the people it serves.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lauren Edwards
The Prime Minister was right to resist us being drawn into an ill-conceived war in the middle east with apparently no clear plan for how it may end. Despite the welcome cost of living support that he referenced in his statement on Monday, we are all rightly angry that our constituents will feel the impact of this war in their pockets and in their daily lives. Will he outline what steps he is taking both to support our armed forces and plan for all future contingencies? We all hope for a swift resolution and progress at the summit later this week, but we must be prepared for all potential scenarios.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, the Royal Engineers in her constituency, and all those serving our country at home and abroad. We are proud to be investing a record £9 billion to deliver the quality homes that they deserve. We are turning around Army recruitment after the Conservatives missed targets for 14 years, but the foremost responsibility to our armed forces is in the decisions we take on military actions. My principles are clear. That is a sharp contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to jump into the war with both feet without thinking through the consequences.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that I respect Lord Robertson, and I thank him again for carrying out the strategic review. My responsibility is to keep the British people safe, and that is a duty I take seriously. That is why I do not agree with his comments.
Last February—seven months after taking office—I took the decision to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%, which was paid for by a difficult decision on overseas aid. Last June at the NATO summit, I committed to raising core defence spending to 3.5%. Last November, the Budget committed record funding to defence. I reaffirm those commitments now.
The strategic defence review is a 10-year blueprint for national security. The defence investment plan will put that into effect, and it will be published as soon as possible. We need to get it right. We inherited plans that were uncosted and undeliverable, and we are not going to repeat those mistakes.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said:
“We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.”
He said—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it looks good to shout somebody down at the Dispatch Box.
Mrs Badenoch
Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?
The Prime Minister
I remind the House that we have put in place the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. Let me spell that out: that means we are spending £270 billion over this Parliament. That is £5 billion more this year, with defence funding increasing every year. These are record amounts—decisions of a Labour Prime Minister, a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government.
What a contrast: when the Conservatives came into office, defence spending was 2.5%; when they left, it was 2.3%. When they came into office, the Army numbered 100,000; when they left, it was 72,000. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that our defence is the “weakest in 400 years.” That is what they left behind.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?
The Prime Minister
I have set out my position. The defence investment plan is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets for 18 years. The Leader of the Opposition talks about talking; if you are going to support your country and make it safe, you have to make the right calls on the big issues. She called for us to jump into the war. The Conservatives can pretend otherwise, but I remember walking into this Chamber, standing at the Dispatch Box for the first time on the matter and saying that we would not get drawn into the war and would not join the offensive, and they all shouted, “Shame!” They remember it. I remember it. They are just embarrassed by it now.
A week later, when the Leader of the Opposition realised that she had made a massive error of judgment, she attempted the mother of all U-turns. That did not work, so this weekend, she said that when she said we should jump into the war, she was talking about “verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, it is Prime Minister’s questions. We have got to concentrate. I call Kemi Badenoch.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition was clear in what she was saying. She said we should give “verbal support”; I suppose that is standing on the sidelines and saying, “Get in there. Good luck, mate. You’ve got this.” That is her approach. We are reforming welfare and spending more on defence; the Conservatives did neither. The welfare bill rose by £88 billion on their watch. It soared by £33 billion on the shadow Chancellor’s watch. We are fixing it—what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. They voted to keep the broken system. Taking advice from the Conservative party on reforming welfare and defence spending is like asking Liz Truss how to keep your mortgage down.
Mrs Badenoch
This is so poor from the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [Interruption.] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker.
Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?
The Prime Minister
We are spending more on defence—record amounts—with £270 billion in this Parliament, and £5 billion extra. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Chancellor. It is because of the decisions of this Chancellor that we have the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war. We have also got the biggest pay rise for our armed forces for over 20 years. We have also got the biggest investment in military housing for more than half a century. What did the Conservatives do at the Budget? They voted against all of that.
Mrs Badenoch
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?
The Prime Minister
HMS Dragon was commissioned by a Labour Government, as it happens. The Leader of the Opposition stands there and says, “Please forget the fact that we hollowed out the armed forces. Please clear up our mess.” I went to the Gulf last week and thanked our armed forces for protecting British lives. She said that we should have jumped into the war, without thinking about the consequences, and then said the next week, “Oh no, we shouldn’t be in the war.” [Interruption.] Now she says, “What I meant was that we should give verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to be quiet. It is the same people: if this carries on, I suspect that next week you will not be at Prime Minister’s questions.
The Prime Minister
In addition to the Leader of the Opposition saying that her position is that we should just say to the Americans, “Get in there”, she insulted our armed forces, saying that they were just “hanging around”. These are pilots who within two hours of this conflict starting were up, risking their lives, taking missiles out of the sky. She insulted them and she has never apologised for that. She said a few weeks ago:
“Serious times call for serious people.”
She is not one of them.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that—as my hon. Friend has just said—he himself was at Hillsborough, and I thank him for his decades of campaigning for justice. I am personally committed to working with the families to get this Bill right. It is integral that their views are heard. We are discussing this precise issue with them, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is fully updated. I reaffirm my commitment to delivering the legislation, and to ensuring that the duty of candour applies to all public servants.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words about the Southport inquiry, and also about the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy. Our thoughts are with all the families affected and with the survivors, and I hope that the Prime Minister will deliver on the Hillsborough law. Today also marks the third anniversary of the start of the devastating civil war in Sudan, and I hope that the Prime Minister will recommit himself to real action in the face of the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe.
In a phone call with Sky News last night, President Trump threatened to rip up his trade deal with the UK as a punishment for our not joining his idiotic war in Iran. This must be the last straw. Surely the Prime Minister cannot send our King to meet a man who treats our country like a Mafia boss running a protection racket.
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about Sudan. We often overlook the fact that that is the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the world at the moment.
My position on the Iran war has been clear from the start. We are not going to get dragged into this war. It is not our war. A lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course, and that pressure includes what happened last night. I am not going to change my mind. I am not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so. I know where I stand.
The purpose of the King’s visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of relations with and the independence of the United States. The monarchy is an important reminder of the long-standing bonds and the enduring relationship between our two countries, which are far greater than anyone who occupies any particular office at any particular time.
Ed Davey
President Trump is one of the most unpredictable people we have seen on the world stage, and I hope that he does not embarrass our monarch.
Moving on, last year the Prime Minister claimed that he had done some special deal so that Brits would be able to “sail through” e-gates at EU airports, but that was not the experience of families returning from holiday this week. Long queues at borders and passport controls are the latest symbol of the Brexit disaster, but they are also a symbol of this Government’s failure to repair that damage. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading British travellers, and can he tell them when they will be able to “sail through” passport control?
The Prime Minister
I have made it very clear that I think our national interest lies in close relations with the EU on defence, security, energy and the economy. I was very pleased that at last year’s summit we did negotiate an agreement on e-gates, and we are pushing hard on that. We have another summit this year, where I intend not just to make good on what we have already agreed, but to go closer to the EU in the relations that we have.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated campaigning on this important issue. I have met Michael Thomas and heard his experiences, and I share her concern about young, predominantly working-class people being exploited. I do want to make progress as quickly as possible: I have asked the Chief Secretary to meet the V11 group to discuss what further steps the Government can take to support those affected, and I will ensure that that is reported back to my hon. Friend so that she is fully updated on what is going on.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Two years ago, people voted for change, but what have they got? More of the same. But it is not they who have let down their end of the bargain. My constituents are working themselves to the bone, and let us be absolutely clear: they are working and still having to claim benefits. Whether it is farmers, care workers or students—you name it—there is not a single section of society that has not been let down, and I do not want that to be the case. We need to show that this House works for them, because actors will step into that space—people who would love nothing more than for our democracy to be toppled because we cannot show our people a better way of life. We used to say to people, “If you work hard, you’ll get on in life.” That has not been the case for years. Will this Government change economic and fiscal course and deliver for people in the worst cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative party being in power. We took the decision at the Budget to cut energy bills across the country. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago to make the announcement about heating oil, which is obviously of huge concern in Northern Ireland. I heard what people had to say, and we have put in place £53 million. The authorities in Northern Ireland will administer that, but we are looking more widely at what we can do.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: violence against our NHS staff is despicable, and we are introducing a new offence to protect emergency workers from harassment. I congratulate and thank all our NHS staff for their hard work. They have delivered 5 million extra appointments in our first year in government.
We are going further. This week, we have announced 36 new and expanded community diagnostic centres across the country, including expanded services in Nuneaton. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all of those in Northern Ireland are concerned about the impact that the war in Iran is having on them. I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago, where I spoke directly to party leaders and we announced what we are doing on heating oil. Obviously, fuel duty is frozen until September and energy bills have been reduced. We have also made it clear that we will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, which was a particular concern raised with me when I was over in Northern Ireland. The most important thing we can do is to de-escalate the conflict and get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why I am co-hosting the summit on Friday in order to make progress on both those fronts.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Having sat with my hon. Friend and the families of those impacted in Southport in his constituency a number of times, I thank him for everything that he did and is continuing to do in response to that awful attack. I agree with him wholeheartedly that Southport cannot be defined by what happened in that awful, tragic incident; he is right to have pride in his community. I am delighted we are investing in reopening the iconic Southport pier. We are investing £5.8 billion through our Pride in Place fund to put power and resources into the hands of nearly 300 communities. Only a Labour Government will deliver that kind of change.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I tell them that they were let down very badly by the last Government for 14 years, and we are clearing up the mess.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on this issue, and I thank her for that. We launched a major programme of reform of the UK’s product safety regulation. This will help tackle unsafe products being sold online, including non-compliant e-bikes and the batteries that power them. We are also giving the police new powers to take unsafe e-bikes off the roads and destroy them without issuing a warning beforehand.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member. We are providing the West of England combined authority with over £750 million to invest in its priorities. That could include improving services and station facilities at Yate, and I know she will make her voice heard in relation to that. I am pleased that construction is already under way at new stations at Charfield and North Filton, and we have upgraded the Filton bank line as well, enabling more frequent, reliable services in the region.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery. He obviously speaks with great authority and experience on our NHS, and he is right to point out that waiting lists are at their lowest for three years, A&E waiting times are the best for four years and ambulance response times are the fastest for five years. That is because of the investment that we put in and the Conservatives opposed. I wonder how much my hon. Friend would have been charged if he had arrived at a Reform hospital under an insurance-based scheme. That would turn the clock back. The NHS is on the road to recovery: do not risk it with Reform.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country.
Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I was robust with the Conservatives about the record they left, but it is also worth noting that when the Liberal Democrats were last in power, they cut defence spending, despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014. I understand his seriousness and where he is coming from, but I hope he has some humility about his record.
The hon. Member is absolutely right, though, that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what we are doing. We will hit 2.5% of GDP on core defence spending in April 2027; 3% in the next Parliament; and 3.5%—the NATO standard—in 2035, but we are not waiting for the DIP to get contracts announced. Only a month ago, I announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo in Yeovil, which will support jobs there—I recognise that sitting behind the hon. Member is the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance)—and across the supply chain. We are improving on a deal that we inherited from the Conservatives. Under that deal, there was insufficient UK content in helicopter exports, there was no security guarantee that autonomy would be based in Yeovil, and Yeovil was not a centre for helicopter exports. This is Labour delivering—and making the Lib Dem hon. Member for Yeovil quite happy in the process.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I genuinely respect my friend the shadow Minister, but seriously, defence was hollowed out in his party’s time in government. Our safety is the primary responsibility of any Government, and more must be spent on our defence. However, that should not come at the expense of pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare. There are always other ways, such as scrapping digital identification, looking at some of our net zero policies, and rethinking some of the fiscal rules. Will the Minister confirm that all future funding options are being seriously considered?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have £5 billion extra in our budget this year, which we are using to address the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces that we inherited. We have used part of that to give our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years. That is helping to address the below-inflation “pay rises”, if we can call them that, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of defence spending. I encourage colleagues to still make that case, because we need to increase defence spending—we are increasing it. I would welcome a national conversation about the threats we face, and how we match those threats with increased capability. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the SDR that we have that debate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?
Luke Pollard
There is a marked change in the approach that this Government are taking to the Ministry of Defence: we want to do more with the Defence Committee, bring it into decision making even more, and give it an understanding of situations, including by providing more secret briefings; they previously might not have been available in the number that we are now providing. I want to continue doing that, so I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I recognise the case for increased defence spending; I am glad he said what he did about it, especially as the Conservatives hollowed out and underfunded our forces for 14 years. I entirely understand that he is having a change of heart about his party’s record in government, and wants to increase that spending. We will continue to increase defence spending, as we have set out.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government’s increased investment in our armed forces and the defence investment plan will offer huge opportunities for the defence sector in Scotland, not least at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by Labour Ministers? That will build on the huge successes of the sector in Scotland, including the £10 billion deal with Norway, which secures 2,000 jobs on the Clyde for the long term.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for the Methil yard. He and I meet often to discuss that, and it is good to see the investment that Navantia is putting into it. In Scotland, we are building the Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and the Type 31 frigates in Rosyth, where I was pleased to be only a few weeks ago for the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active. As a result of work that we have commissioned—the first fleet solid support ship is being built by Navantia, and I was present to see the steel cut in Appledore in North Devon at the end of last year—there is a bright future ahead for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am happy to continue my conversations with my hon. Friend about Methil.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have every sympathy with patriotic Defence Ministers who are being sent out to try to put a brave face on the fact that they are being undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that someone as collegiate, experienced and patriotic as Lord Robertson would never have spoken out as he did if he did not recognise that his party’s Defence team was being undermined in this way? If the threat from Russia is so great that NATO has moved to 3.5% of GDP as its target, why do the Government think that waiting another nine years to achieve it is an appropriate way to deal with the killer in the Kremlin?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right; we have agreed the NATO target of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on national security by 2035. We have agreed that—an important part of it. He will also know what the Defence Secretary revealed last week about covert Russian activities. It is precisely because we can see more threats from Russia and other adversaries, and not just against our undersea cables, that we are increasing defence spending and trying to renew our armed forces. We are dealing with the hollowing out. As a patriotic Back Bencher, he shares many of my views about the last Government’s effect on our armed forces, and their hollowing out under the Conservatives. I am very happy to continue my conversation with him about how we can make the case for further defence investment.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must understand that we inherited an MOD procurement system in disarray, unfunded defence programmes, an Air Force without enough aircraft or helicopters, a Navy without enough ships, and an Army with a low—Napoleonic—number of troops? We face wars in the middle east and Ukraine. We are working with an exceptionally challenging situation, and we must get this right. Please do not allow the Opposition to rewrite history.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to the country. The fact that he has served gives renewed credibility to what he has said. I certainly find it curious that many of the people who delighted in cutting our armed forces over the last 14 years now say, without a hint of humility, that they want to increase defence spending. I would have much more respect for the Conservatives’ argument if they apologised—first, for their cuts to our armed forces, and secondly, for their leader, who described our brave pilots in the middle east as “just hanging around”. I think our forces deserve better than the Conservatives, and they have it with this Labour Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?
Luke Pollard
As a Devon neighbour, I know the hon. Gentleman’s passion for our armed forces, and it is good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie—an institution of which I am also proud to be a graduate. He knows that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. I would much prefer to get it right than to publish a document that is not right, and that is what we will do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country. It is interesting that he mentioned recruitment, because the shadow Minister, who sat on the Government Benches during the last Parliament, was scathing about his own Government’s record on recruitment, scathing about their performance, and scathing about their lack of action against the contractor they brought in. I am pleased to report that under a Labour Government, inflow is up and outflow is down. We have replaced the contractor, and not only are we delivering the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years—a second above-inflation pay rise—but we have ended the privatisation of military homes, and the military homes scandal that we inherited. Nine in 10 military homes are being refitted in the next decade. We are also putting effort into valuing our people by legislating for a new armed forces commissioner, so our forces and their families can raise concerns outside the chain of command with someone independent. This is a Government who are delivering for those who serve in uniform.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing? He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.
Luke Pollard
I really like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a very jovial chap—and he raises some good points. The defence investment plan is needed. It is being worked on by our Department. We will deliver it when it is ready, but we are not waiting for the defence investment plan to make announcements. I have spoken about the £879 million contract I announced this morning in Andover for our Apache and Chinook fleets. I also point to the announcement we made on Friday about a multimillion-pound deal with the veteran-led start-up Cambridge Aerospace to provide new missiles to intercept drones, not just for our forces but for our allies in the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should look to the future; we are doing exactly that. The defence investment plan will set out the kit and capabilities that we need and will buy for the next 10 years, but also the upgrades that we are making to the kit that we have, to give our fighting forces the edge. Importantly, it also talks about how we value our people; for far too long, that has not been spoken about enough in defence. That is something else that we are addressing.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We have heard terrible testimony about the state of military housing, but we have also heard that it is already improving. Does the Minister agree that the £9 billion investment that we are making in military housing to deal with the botched privatisation can only be a good thing, and will raise the morale of our troops?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on the armed forces housing issues that she raises; she is also a thorough champion for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Many of its ships are in her Truro and Falmouth constituency. She is right to talk about the £9 billion commitment that we have made to deliver an improvement in armed forces housing. I see that Opposition Front Benchers are chattering. They had an option to deal with that when in power. They could have dealt with the black mould—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! I am trying to hear, and the noise is not helpful.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Relevant Ministers are happy to discuss with the hon. Member the specific site she mentions in greater depth, and I can reassure her that we are committed to protecting our countryside. Our land use framework balances restoring nature with meeting the demands of homes and energy. We have just announced £60 million—a record amount—to support nature and threatened species.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by congratulating Luton Town on winning at Wembley—having been coached, of course, by Jack Wilshere, a great ex-Arsenal star? I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from a new youth hub, one of the 80 additional hubs that we are launching across the country. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited: over 1,000 youth centres were closed under the Tories and spending on youth services was slashed by 73%. Labour is bringing youth clubs back, and we are proud to do so, building a better future for our young people.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am concerned to hear about those examples. We have put in place support for small businesses and I will ensure that it is available to the hon. Gentleman to pass on to his constituents.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and it is shocking that they have been waiting for over a decade for that practice. I agree with him, but sadly Reform’s leadership in Staffordshire is an absolute mess. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) says “Rubbish.” Reform has had three leaders in three months, one of whom was forced to step down for appalling racist comments, and they are simply not getting on with the job. He is obviously proud of that. All that we can count on from Reform is chaos and division.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I do not know the particular details of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, but I will ensure that they are looked into. We have put record investment into the NHS, but now that he has raised it, I will ensure we look into the specific case he has raised here in this House.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to fund the recommendations of the strategic defence review.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We are in a new era of threat and demands on defence are rising. The strategic defence review sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. The Government have accepted all 62 of the review’s recommendations, and its implementation is being delivered through a whole of UK Government effort. The defence investment plan will deliver on the vision of the strategic defence review and put right a programme that we inherited from the Conservatives that was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we face. It is a 10-year plan and we must get it right.
We are not waiting on the DIP to deliver. We have established the defence cyber and electromagnetic command; launched the Military Intelligence Services and the defence counter-intelligence unit; announced that the UK will purchase 12 new F-35A jets; and launched UK Defence Innovation to streamline our innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget.
This Labour Government have done more. We have reasserted Britain’s place in the world with a rebooted Lancaster House treaty with France, signed the Lunna House treaty with Norway and published the defence diplomacy strategy. We have brought back defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, with 2025 being the highest year of defence exports in 40 years, including landmark deals with Norway and Türkiye. We have published the defence industrial strategy with nearly £800 million to make defence an engine for growth in every corner of the United Kingdom and we have unveiled the groundbreaking Atlantic Bastion programme to make Britain more secure from Russian undersea threats in the north Atlantic. We have also reversed the Tory privatisation that failed our armed forces, with our forces living in appalling accommodation—that is 40,000 forces families—with a £9 billion programme that can upgrade nine in 10 defence houses. This is a Labour Government delivering for Britain and delivering for defence.
Mr Francois
Labour’s strategic defence review had three co-authors. I would like to ask the Minister a question about each of them in turn. Does he agree with Dr Fiona Hill that there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning?
Does he agree with General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the SDR, that there is
“an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”?
Or does he agree with Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and distinguished former NATO Secretary-General, that the Prime Minister has shown a “corrosive complacency” towards defence?
All of those strong words have been spoken in the past 48 hours. This is no coincidence: the authors obviously understand the principles of combined arms manoeuvre. The truth is that Labour’s rhetoric on defence simply does not match the financial reality. We know that in the last financial year the Ministry of Defence was forced to make £2.6 billion of crippling in-year cuts. It has now been reported that in this financial year it will be asked to find a further £3.5 billion on top. That would be catastrophic for our armed forces. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be no in-year savings exercise this year?
Finally, Labour’s SDR, published last June, promised us a comprehensive 10-year defence investment plan, which is still nowhere to be seen. One Labour peer told me prior to Easter that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot, except that Godot finally turned up. Can the Minister now tell the House in what month and what year Labour’s much-vaunted defence investment plan is actually going to be published, or is Labour’s Chancellor, who is adamantly refusing to sign it, still going to hold our armed forces to ransom? Is that not why our Prime Minister, who resolutely refuses to overrule her, is all mouth and no trousers on defence?
Luke Pollard
Deary me, I see the armchair general is out in full force today. Let me personally place on record again my thanks to Richard Barrons, George Robertson and Fiona Hill for the superb work they did in authoring the strategic defence review. They know more than many the mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left our defence in, with hollowed-out and underfunded defences—not my words, but those of a Tory Defence Secretary from this Dispatch Box, admitting the failures they made with our armed forces.
In our first year, Labour has boosted defence spending by over £5 billion. We are now spending more on defence this year than the previous Conservative Government spent in any year. We will hit 2.6% in 2027, 3% in the next Parliament, and 3.5% in 2035. That level of spending was not seen in any of the 14 years that the right hon. Member and his colleagues were in government. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion and did long-term damage to our military. They cut the number of our warships by 25% and mine-hunting ships by half. They delayed the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. In their 14 years, they never once hit the 2.5% of GDP spending that we left them with when we were last in power. They cut troop numbers to the lowest level since Napoleon, and drove down military morale with low pay and appalling military housing.
We are working flat out to deliver the DIP, and we will publish it when it is ready. We are doing something that was never done under the Tories: we are doing a line-by-line review of defence budgets, publishing not just an equipment plan but a plan covering housing, personnel and infrastructure all in one. This is a Labour Government who are delivering for defence.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The public intervention by Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General is sobering. For a man of his stature to make such an assessment shows the gravity of the situation. Indeed, he was the person tasked by the Government to head up the strategic defence review. His comments align with what the Defence Committee has been highlighting for several months now: we as a nation are ill-prepared to face the threats in this more volatile world. That is why the Government’s rhetoric must align with reality. We must ensure that we get to 3% of GDP spend on defence in this Parliament. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road to the next Parliament.
When the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, he said that the defence investment plan was on his desk and would be delivered very soon. Any further delay to the DIP would cause further damage to our defence industrial base, not to mention send the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries. Will the Minister please confirm when the defence investment plan finally be published?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend does a superb job on the Defence Committee, and he is right to be asking questions of defence. It is precisely because I share many of his views that we commissioned the strategic defence review in the first place. We adopted all 62 recommendations, including the recommendation to move our nation’s military to warfighting readiness, ending the hollowing-out and underfunding that we inherited from the Conservative party. That is why there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year already. The shadow Minister’s Government cut defence when they had their first budget, and we increased defence funding—that is the difference between our two parties.
We are not waiting for the defence investment plan. I entirely understand the seriousness with which the Defence Committee Chair raises these issues. We are announcing defence contracts—not a day goes by without me signing off on a new one. Indeed, this morning I was in Andover announcing the £879 million contract for maintenance of our Apache and Chinook helicopters with Boeing. It is a 1,200-job contract that supports our efforts to make defence an engine for growth and give our fighting forces the very best equipment they can have.
Luke Pollard
They could have dealt with the black mould in our armed forces kids’ bedrooms. They could have dealt with the broken boilers and the leaky roofs. We have dealt with it as a Labour Government, and I am proud of that record. I am also proud that we have refitted the 1,000 worst homes, delivering those improvements so that our military families could be in a decent home by Christmas 2025. We are now starting work on the next tranche of the worst homes so that our people can live in a decent home if they serve. That is the minimum we should offer those brave men and women who serve our forces.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Following the comments by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), may I make a plea that we put this political blame game to one side? The fleet halved under the previous Labour Government. We all have our fingerprints on the current state of the UK military. It is unedifying for us, for this House and for the state that we are in as a nation.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, which I recently set up with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is longer in his place, as well as with Field Marshal Lord David Richards in the other place. Our aim is to highlight not only the scale of the threat that we face but the parlous current state of the British military. Does the Minister share that aim with us? Talking about both is necessary for the national conversation that was highlighted in the strategic defence review but has not happened. Will he join us in talking about the threat, and also give an honest depiction of the state of the UK military so that our public can be informed and can tell us what they would like us to do?
Luke Pollard
I follow the hon. Gentleman on Twitter, so I will be very keen to see the end of the political blame game of his tweets. I look forward to seeing what he tweets next. It might be the embodiment of that spirit that we have just heard here.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the munitions and stockpiles that we inherited, which were far too low for the threat that we are facing. That is the reason why we have already made announcements about increasing the amount of munitions that we are buying for our armed forces. He is also right to talk about the threat. The Defence Secretary has spoken from this Dispatch Box about the increasing threat that Russia, in particular, poses to the United Kingdom and our allies, and we will continue to do that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his new all-party group to have that conversation, which is an important one about how we address the underfunding and hollowing out of our forces that we inherited. I will also be able to help him understand the progress that we are now making under this Labour Government to restock and to rearm: a lot of work done, but a lot of work still to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister look at the sorry tale of Glenart Castle Mess in Longbridge, Birmingham? This is armed forces accommodation not from decades ago; it opened in 2017 at a cost to the taxpayer of £36 million. It was built with 95% flammable external cladding, and the fire defects within the accommodation have now been judged to be so severe that the facility will be closed for up to a year at further great cost to the taxpayer. This was hopelessly mismanaged by the previous Government. The armed forces personnel who work at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham do an essential job, and they deserve better.
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I know he has been assiduous in asking detailed parliamentary questions about the refurbishment and refit of the Longbridge mess, and I am very happy to meet him to hear directly about his and his constituents’ concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Well-placed sources are suggesting that the number of Type 26 hulls on the order book may be reduced or transferred to our Norwegian allies. I appreciate that Labour has a track record of reducing the number of frigate and destroyer hulls, but can the Minister nevertheless confirm that there are no such plans and that we will proceed with a minimum of eight Type 26 frigates, particularly given the increase in Russian submarine activity discussed by his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on Monday?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a Defence Minister in the last Government, the state of the forces that he passed over to this Government. When it comes to frigates—I could bore the House on this; it is one of my favourite subjects—he will also know that the incredible deal we have signed with Norway sustains Type 26 production on the Clyde for many years to come and involves not only the eight British Royal Navy Type 26s but five Norwegian ones. We are currently working with Norway on build slots. That will create a combined force—a truly interoperable, interchangeable force. Indeed, the only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs. That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway, and part of an agreement about how we can work more closely with our joint expeditionary force allies in northern Europe, which I hope can be expanded to other nations as we look to sell the Type 31 frigates to more of our partners.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he asked his questions. I notice that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was agreeing with every word that he said in relation to the cuts and the lack of increase in defence spending. I recommend to my hon. Friend and all colleagues in the House the report produced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when he was in charge of the Defence Committee, called “Shifting the Goalposts”. It sets out the amount of GDP spend on defence going back a number of Governments. It shows that the last Labour Government left defence spending at 2.5% of GDP in 2010, a figure sadly never matched in the following 14 years. We are getting back to 2.5% of GDP. April 2027 is when we will hit that, and we will set out how we will be spending that in the defence investment plan that will be published shortly.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Successive UK Governments have spent years cutting defence spending, reducing the size of our armed forces to record lows, dismantling our Navy, slashing Scottish regiments and hollowing out investment in essential equipment and training. There is a continued refusal to join SAFE— Security Action for Europe—even when Canada is joining. There are delays to the strategic defence review, no certainty as to when the defence investment plan will be released and no urgency from the Prime Minister to act on the recommendations that make it clear that there is a £28 billion black hole in the existing plan. What is the plan to deal with the Prime Minister’s “corrosive complacency”, and how are Scottish voters supposed to trust this Labour Government when, according to the SDR’s authors, they are failing so categorically to keep us safe and threatening the security of Scotland?
Luke Pollard
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at our record, which includes a Type 26 deal that sustains shipbuilding on the Clyde and investment in a welding school in Scotland that we had to step in and fund because the SNP Government chose not to. It is good that the SNP Government have now finally realised that the defence of the realm is important, but I would ask him to pass on to the SNP Government that I am still waiting for a proper reply to our offer to match-fund a second defence technical excellence college in Scotland. We want to have two in Scotland. We have provided the funding for one, and I hope his Government will match-fund the second. I am still waiting for a reply on that, and while this goes on, we are moving further and further away from more young Scots being able to access the courses that they could be doing from September onwards if the Scottish Government would agree to this.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a Government who are building ships in Scotland, whereas our Scottish Government colleagues are building ferries in Poland, Turkey and now China. Quite incredible.
Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I always use security guards at my surgeries, and a young chap who attended my surgery last year in Oxgangs library had just left 3 Rifles. He said he had left because he had joined some years ago on the promise of travel and excitement but spent a lot of time in barracks because of the lack of funding in our armed services. The last time I visited 3 Rifles, they had just come back from Finland, and some were about to go back there to serve alongside our allies. Some were due to go to Iraq, but I understand that that trip might not have happened. They are all now better paid. Outside the barracks site, people can see their homes getting renovated, and I have to say that there is a bit of jealousy about the quality of the kitchens.
Recently, just before the recess, I was able to give a tour to a young apprentice from one of our defence primes who lives in Balerno in Edinburgh South West. She was very clear that this was not an apprenticeship or a job; it was a whole career that she had before her, because of the scale of what is happening in the sector. When the Minister goes around our defence establishments and our defence contractors, what is the mood? Do they trust us to deliver against this budget commitment?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and the armed forces personnel he spoke to and about in his question. We have a British Army that is currently globally deployed. I am incredibly proud, as I imagine the whole House is, of our forces that are deployed in Estonia as part of our forward land force and in Cyprus and across the middle east in support of our allies, and those that are training and have been in support of our High North allies on various exercises. I do not ask our forces to comment on party political matters because they are there to serve the Government of the day, but I do know that having them and their families living in homes without damp, mould, leaky roofs or broken boilers greatly improves their mood. That is precisely why this Government are delivering an upgrade to nine in 10 service family accommodation units in the next 10 years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the challenges of tying defence expenditure to GDP is that the economy fluctuates. When Labour crashed the economy in 2008, defence spending in GDP terms went up. The reality is that as the economy fluctuates over the course of this Parliament and the next, there could be a challenge for actual defence spending. As the Minister looks at the defence investment plan, can he ensure that the level of expenditure continues to rise so that we actually get the investment in defence that we need?
Luke Pollard
It is a Liz Truss klaxon moment, isn’t it? The hon. Member’s memory is so brief that he has forgotten about what Liz Truss and the Conservatives did to our economy only a few years ago. I agree that we need to increase defence spending. Let me say to him clearly: not a single person in uniform today—not an admiral, general or anyone of any rank who has served in the UK armed forces—has had a decade ahead of increasing defence spending. It is such a sizeable change when it comes to our armed forces spending. [Interruption.] I notice more chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Members are grumpy that it is a Labour Government who are increasing defence spending when their Government cut it, but I will continue happily working cross-party in support of our armed forces.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When this Government took office, they inherited an armed forces on its knees and responded to that challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and a bold 10-year strategic defence review to ensure that we have an armed forces that once again is able to protect our nation. That is why it is so important that we get a defence investment plan as quickly as possible. I have heard today from my hon. Friend that he is keen to get that out as quickly as possible and also that it should be the right plan. May I simply take this opportunity to urge him to keep going so we can get that plan as soon we can?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for not only his question, but the work he does. He is a quiet and determined champion for Sandhurst and people who train in his constituency. There is a real opportunity with the increasing defence investment that we are making to renew the facilities not just in Sandhurst, but in military accommodation and bases across the United Kingdom and further afield. It is not just infrastructure that we are increasing. I am especially proud to be part of a Government, and a ministerial team with the Defence Secretary, that are increasing support for childcare for those who serve, because it is our people, not just our equipment, that we should focus on, and that is what the defence investment plan will do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Minister accept and agree with the mood of the majority of the British people, and I think the mood of this House, which is to accelerate defence spending to 3% of GDP in this Parliament, not the next Parliament? Can the Minister confirm that the year-long delayed defence investment plan will arrive before the summer holidays?
Luke Pollard
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would like to give some of the money that his former Reform leader in Wales got from Russia to the defence budget, we would have a wee bit more than we have today.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Thales employs over 800 people, including 66 apprentices, on its site in Templecombe in my constituency. There it develops world-leading sonar systems for the Royal Navy’s Astute and Dreadnought submarines, as well as delivering critical systems to enhance UK security and defence. Given the training capability gap identified in the strategic defence review, how will the Secretary of State increase funding for apprenticeships to ensure that we address skills shortages?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her question and for calling out and celebrating the work of Thales in her constituency. I have visited a number of Thales sites recently and have been impressed not just by the management, but in particular by the apprentices, who feel that there is a bright future ahead of them. She will know that we have announced that Yeovil will be one of five new defence technical excellence colleges, which is not too far from her constituency. That is a £10 million investment in each DTEC, designed to increase the number of places available for young people to take defence and defence-adjacent courses supporting not just defence primes, but, importantly, the wider ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprises. By increasing defence spending, we do not want only to bolster those large defence companies; there is a huge opportunity to grow smaller defence SMEs as well, and addressing the skills challenges they have is a key part of that.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have served on operations under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and I can tell horror stories of how I was treated, which led to 15-plus years of complex PTSD. When I finally rebuilt my life, I wanted to ensure that nobody ever had to go through what I went through. As soon as I got here six years ago, I worked cross-party to say that anything under 3% on defence spending—this was in the last Parliament, when my Government were in charge—was unacceptable. There is not a serious professional in the defence industry who thinks the current level of spending is adequate to meet the world’s needs. Does the Minister think that it is a serious investment that we are making at the moment?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for being honest about the consequences of his time in service. It is so important that when any veteran who has served in our forces needs to access help, they know that it is available. It is platforming those experiences and being honest about them that enables more people to come forward, so I thank him for that.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to increase defence spending. I want to increase defence spending, we have already increased defence spending, and we will be spending 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. However, I entirely appreciate how he made his remarks, and the Minister for Veterans and I are happy to talk to him about his experiences to see if we can learn from them and help others in a similar situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
National security depends on more than conventional defence spend, because our democracies can be brought down by methods other than weapons. There are concerns that the public are not yet sufficiently aware of the risk and reality of foreign information manipulation and interference. How does tackling this aspect of hybrid warfare feature in a cross-departmental way within the Government?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to go beyond conventional defence. That is why we have conventional and nuclear deterrence as part of our armed forces posture. She will also have heard in my opening remarks about the investment we are making in cyber. This is not just a Ministry of Defence effort; increasingly, if we are to deliver the national security we need, we need a whole-of-Government approach. That means the MOD working with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and the devolved Governments to be able to tackle the deliberate misinformation that we see our adversaries trying to pump into our newsfeeds. Let me be very clear that we do not accept in any way Russian interference or any interference in our democracy or our way of life, but across Government we are having a national conversation that enables people to be better equipped to identify and challenge it, as well as putting more pressure on social media companies to remove it and not have it on their platforms in the first place.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My question follows on perfectly from that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Lord Robertson said that we are ill prepared for the threats of today, never mind tomorrow. While Britain may not be under daily attack from missiles and tanks—not yet, anyway—we are under daily assault by misinformation and disinformation from hostile actors who are targeting our institutions, democracy and social cohesion. The Minister has referred to the investments and operational changes that have been put into cyber and electromagnetic security. Given the foundational nature of the challenge to our democracy, is he convinced that the Chancellor is convinced of the urgent need to make huge investments in this area? This is a challenge we have never experienced before—a challenge that collapses the traditional idea of the frontline with the home front.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for the way that he posed his question. There was much in it that I agree with him on. He is certainly right that we are not at war but nor are we at peace. We can look at a number of domains where we see UK forces and infrastructure being attacked, the cyber domain being the most obvious. The Defence Secretary revealed only last week the threats to our undersea infrastructure from covert Russian activity, and we must be able to call it out and say to Putin, “We see what you are doing. You will not have deniability.” In fact, the military call it “denying deniability”, which is a typical military phrase, but I think we all know what that means. There is more to be done here, including the national conversation about the threats that we face and how all of us can, in our own way, take actions—just updating the operating system on our phones makes us and the country safer. There is lots more that we can do, especially in this House, to further support that, and I am happy to have a conversation with him about how we do that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the key recommendation of a national conversation to build support and understanding among the population, it is all very well having debates here or in Whitehall, but what conversations are the Government having with the Departments for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport, the BBC and social media providers about the issues that are faced and about communication with the public to build support for funding and increase understanding of the challenges we face?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very fair question. My colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Coaker, is the Minister leading on the national conversation. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that Lord Coaker recently published the defence diplomacy strategy. Although it deals with more traditional diplomacy, it also deals with the necessity of speaking to our own people and to the wider population about how to respond to the threats we face. We are still in the early stages of forming the proposal for that formal national conversation, but, again, it must be a cross-Government effort that includes the Cabinet Office and Departments beyond the Ministry of Defence. The way we defend our nation in the 21st century is not just about the brilliant men and women in uniform; it is a whole-of-Government and whole-of-nation effort. That is why we are trying to kick-start that conversation. A debate about defence spending certainly contributes to that.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Have the Government considered issuing defence bonds, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, to ringfence capital for defence spending? If not, why not?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Lib Dem proposal. I would be interested to see the detail on who ultimately pays for it. He will know we have made a commitment that, following the publication of the defence investment plan, we will publish the defence finance and investment strategy, which will set out how we can support businesses large and small and bring further investment into the sector. It will deal with everything from preventing small defence businesses from being debanked—a real scandal and problem for small businesses as they seek to grow—to leveraging patient and venture capital with a potential interest in defence, in order to expand UK businesses and support the development of capabilities. That will renew our own capabilities and provide export opportunities. We are doing more work in that regard.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Often, most of the focus is on munition and defence systems, but what are the Government doing to boost defence numbers and ensure that our military personnel are properly paid for their vital role? For too long, our junior non-commissioned officer ranks have been poorly paid and had poor living and working conditions. A defence network with adequate numbers and good morale is a necessary complement to a well-equipped military.
Luke Pollard
I look forward to being in Northern Ireland next week for the announcement of the Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is the fifth of our five defence growth deals. I am not allowed to say the total amount of investment, but we have announced £200 million of a £250 million pot, so the maths will hopefully give some reassurance that a big announcement for the hon. Lady’s part of the world is coming shortly. She is absolutely right to talk about the numbers. We have not only addressed the problems in the recruitment system—especially the time of flight between someone applying and getting to a training establishment, which took far too long—but introduced novel forms of entry. The direct cyber entry, through which we recruit people for their cyber skills, not for their skill in running around a muddy field with a heavy backpack on, is a good example. It is one new way in which we are getting the skills and talent that we need into our armed forces.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced. I would recommend a little caution in blaming previous Governments for their defence inadequacies; I do not think that any of the parties that have been in government in recent years have clean hands when it comes to the scrutiny of those decisions.
I want to ask about defence financing. The Minister has announced a £5 billion uplift for this year. Why, then, is there an exercise to excise £3.5 billion through in-year savings? How much of that is carried forward from last year’s exercise to excise £2.6 billion through in-year savings?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Defence spending is rising rapidly in China, Russia, the UK, the US and all over Europe. In every country in the world, there is pressure on welfare budgets and there are increasing levels of human and social inequality. A global environmental disaster is on the horizon. At the same time, the agencies for peace—such as the UN and its agencies—and overseas aid budgets are being cut. Global inequality is getting worse, and the conditions for future wars are being created. What plans do the Government have to put some energy into a UN-led peace process to bring a cessation to the dreadful conflicts going on around the world? Where is the investment for peace in the future, or are we going to continue down the road of spending more on arms and less on people’s human needs?
Luke Pollard
I might spend more of my time in secure rooms at the Ministry of Defence without my mobile phone, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time in this Chamber hearing from Foreign Office Ministers about our work to call for a lasting peace, not just in Gaza but in the wider middle east. We continue to do that; we continue to invest in that. The world is a more dangerous place every single day. That is why we are increasing defence spending to deter aggression. The point of our armed forces is to deter aggression, and then—and only then—to defeat it if necessary. He is right to say that the consequences of conflict are frequently felt by the most vulnerable. That is precisely why we are continuing to call for peace, not just to end Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine—a free and independent sovereign nation—but to bring a lasting peace, with a two-state solution, for Gaza and Israel in the middle east.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Thanks to the tireless work by many in Leonardo in Yeovil, in the Government and beyond, the new medium helicopter contract was awarded and there is more investment in Yeovil, so thank you. However, without the defence investment plan, investment across the country is still being held up. I know that the Minister is working hard to get the plan right, and I thank him for that, but will he set out what lessons have been learned from the delays to the new medium helicopter and the DIP, to ensure that we fund defence procurement more effectively?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed not just the signing of the new medium helicopter contract, but the improvements that we secured to it. It was shocking, frankly, that the Conservative deal that we inherited had only 8% UK content in the exports—we have increased that. He will also know that we have awarded Yeovil a defence technical excellence college to support the skills needs not just of Leonardo, but of the wider ecosystem. He will also know, because I texted him yesterday, that the Boeing deal we have announced today—£149 million for Chinook and Apache helicopters—also includes investment in, and support for, jobs in his Yeovil constituency. We are continuing to invest in defence and in Yeovil.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, said that we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget, so will the Minister explain to my constituents why this Government can set out their welfare spending plans until 2031, but cannot publish their defence investment plan for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I do not think Britain gets stronger by pushing kids into poverty. That is the fundamental difference, as I see it, between the welfare policies of our two parties. I am absolutely clear that we should address the high levels of child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—that is exactly the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have said it a number of times, that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will be published when it is ready. I think he would, in hindsight, much prefer a plan that is ready to be published over one that is not. That is why we are working to deliver our defence investment plan, which will set out spending for the next 10 years, up to 2036 or so.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I entered this House months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and I was struck at the time that the debates on Ukraine were solemn, dutiful and not party political. The contrast with the debate over defence spending is stark. The Leader of the Opposition has decided to use it as a foil for her party, while the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was on the radio last night saying that the Labour party will not be helped electorally by an increase in defence spending. With Trump making threats about US commitment to NATO, does the Minister share my view that we need to link armed forces capabilities to the external threat, rather than indulge in this party political navel gazing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to the nation. He is absolutely right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. It benefits not just the United Kingdom but every NATO member state, including the United States, and we are stronger when we stand together. That is why we are delivering against the NATO target and delivering new NATO regional plans, and it is why a debate that looks at how we can develop the latest capabilities, and bring forward more skills into the sector and more private sector investment into our defence companies, is good for us. We do this because it is in the national interest to support our national security. I stand at the Dispatch Box not for party politics but for our national security. In darker times, I hope that is what we would all be doing.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?
Luke Pollard
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for most of this urgent question. I have been very clear, but he is trying to put words in my mouth; I appreciate him giving it a good go, but I am afraid he is not going to get away with that. We live in a new era of threat—I think he knows that too—and we are dealing with hollowed out and underfunded forces. He might not be able to put that in a soundbite, but privately I think he can concede, with hindsight, that the state of the forces the Conservative Government passed to this Labour Government was perhaps not as he would have liked. We have to invest in our forces, and in new stockpiles and technologies; we have to retire old kit and equipment that would not work in Ukraine and is unsuited to modern combat; and we have to do all that at the same time as addressing the defence housing crisis, the recruitment crisis and ever-falling morale. We have now stabilised morale in the armed forces. We have a plan to increase defence spending, with an extra £5 billion, moving to 2.5%, 3% and 3.5%, as I have set out. We also plan to invest in the latest technologies. I hope that with hindsight the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment, but I entirely understand why he has to have an attack-y soundbite for his socials in the meantime.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Nothing is more important to our national security than our nuclear deterrent, and we in Westmorland and Furness are not only massively proud to provide the home for the Trident submarine programme; we also recognise it is a grave responsibility, just as it is in the constituency of my neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), where it is built.
Our ability to build those submarines and defend our country depends on us being able to recruit and retain brilliant staff from around the country and beyond, and the role of the local authority in providing housing and services is crucial. Does the Minister agree that there has been a complete disconnect, given that the local government settlement leaves Westmorland and Furness council with a 31% cut, massively hampering the ability of Barrow, Kendal and Penrith to do the things that it needs to do to attract the people to keep our country safe? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and put that right?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for our independent nuclear deterrent. It was a shame that when the Liberal Democrats were in power, the decision to renew the deterrent was delayed—I know he had strong views on that at the time. As the MP for Devonport, where our Vanguard-class submarines are refitted, I am also really proud of the people I represent who make a material difference to the defence of our nation every day through their hard work in Devonport dockyard.
I met representatives of Team Barrow on Monday, when I was in Blackpool talking about the new defence technical excellence college that we have announced. That will support not only Blackpool and the Fylde, but Barrow, Blackburn, Lancashire and a number of colleges, including Wirral Met college. I recognise that defence is making the argument for skills and putting money where our policy is by investing in them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, his question about local government funding is for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I reassure him that the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to Team Barrow is strong, and I am happy to brief him further on that if it would be useful.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have listened carefully. The Minister knows full well that committing to spend 3% or 3.5% tomorrow does not mean that the Government cannot commit to commissioning that expenditure now. He is aware that the delivery pipeline can often take five to 10 years in any case, and therefore the defence investment plan becomes vitally important. He has evaded answering the question of when, but surely he can put to us a deadline date by which the defence investment plan can be delivered. In doing so, can he commit to ensuring that RNAS Culdrose and the national drone hub in my constituency will see growth as a result?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is a wily Member, trying to ask the same question from a different angle; I appreciate his effort. He will know that we are working flat-out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. As a fellow south-west MP, let me say how important it is that we support not just the capabilities we have, but new capabilities: the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth and the incredible aerial drone facilities across the peninsula, including in Cornwall. There is real opportunity to deliver that. The defence growth deal for Plymouth certainly includes wider knock-on effects for the entire peninsula, and the local innovation partnerships fund bid that was secured from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology for our part of the world provides support for the entire peninsula in the development of new autonomous and drone technologies, which I hope will be accelerated even further in the years ahead.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As I said earlier in the week, Northern Ireland’s geographical position means that it increasingly occupies a key geo-security location, particularly in the light of the threat to our transatlantic underground cables. In that context, will the strategic review deal with the situation that was revealed in a parliamentary answer: that there are only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland, and only 70 RAF personnel? Surely if we are to deal with threats that are increasingly evident, we need a proper distribution and balance of personnel across the United Kingdom. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, maybe he will bring news in that regard.
Luke Pollard
I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the numbers for the Army, which are considerably higher than those he suggested for the Navy and the Air Force. It is right that we distribute and allocate our forces personnel against the mission taskings they are given, but he is also right to talk about the key importance of protecting our undersea cables, including in his part of the world. It is precisely for that reason that we are seeing more investment in technologies that enable us to defend, monitor and protect those undersea cables. As he will know—we have met a number of times to talk about this—I want to see more investment in every part of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and I hope to bring him good news on that next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am looking forward to the good news. I thank the Minister for his answers today and for his positive TV interview this morning, which encouraged us all, but will he also announce the next stage of the defence growth fund? No one doubts his commitment or interest, and he has made regular visits to the defence sector in Northern Ireland. It is so important that Northern Ireland can gain from the defence growth fund incentive and that it completes its own specific growth deal. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, can we expect the balance of the defence growth fund to be announced officially? I think we all know what figure is. It would do no harm to announce it today, Minister.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman tempts me. The opportunity for our defence industries in Northern Ireland is considerable, not just in supporting large defence businesses like Thales, which produces the lightweight multi-role missile in Belfast, but particularly in supporting the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are based in Northern Ireland. I was with Boeing this morning, announcing the new helicopter maintenance contract, and indeed Boeing has made a large investment in Northern Ireland.
There is a huge opportunity to make the case that a career in defence—whether in uniform or in a civilian role backing our forces—is not just a good job, but a good, well-paid, decent job that can provide an entire career of opportunities. The more that we can make a positive case for investment in the core defence industries and in the industries that sit alongside defence—such as digital technologies, which could have defence applications—the more that we will be able to keep us all safe and provide young people with good opportunities. I look forward to speaking to the hon. Gentleman and Northern Ireland colleagues further about that opportunity very soon.
Bills presented
Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) (Payment of Fines) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Freddie van Mierlo, supported by Layla Moran, Charlie Maynard, Calum Miller, Olly Glover, Dr Danny Chambers, Pippa Heylings, Mr Will Forster, Vikki Slade, Martin Wrigley, Manuela Perteghella and Rachel Gilmour, presented a Bill to omit from the Water Industry Act 1991 provision enabling water companies to make an application for a change to the date by which a penalty or portion of a penalty must be paid or to appeal to the High Court in respect of such a date; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 420).
Food Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke, supported by Tim Farron, presented a Bill to make provision about a national food strategy; to make provision about certain duties relating to the implementation of that strategy; to make provision about procurement of British fruit and vegetable produce by certain public bodies; to make provision about resilience of UK-farmed food supply; to place a duty on certain public authorities to promote access to healthy and affordable food; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 421).
Creative Arts and Culture (Broadcasting Requirements)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regular broadcast of news about creative arts and culture; to make provision about duties on the Secretary of State, Ofcom and certain broadcasters in relation to such broadcasts; and for connected purposes.
First let me declare an interest: I am a classically trained violinist who learnt at Beauchamp Music Group and benefited from a brilliant musical provision at Newent community school. I am also a guitarist, keyboardist and singer-songwriter who played in rock bands including Eyes of Eden, Never Home Club, Ten Second Star and the New Loafers, but unless hon. Members were going to gigs in Gloucestershire in the late 1990s or they were listening to Radio 1 at one particular moment on one particular evening, they will not have heard of those bands.
I want to ask Members of the House: when was the last time you heard or saw news dedicated to culture or our brilliant creative arts? Of course, we will all have seen dedicated coverage of a singular creative news story, but what about a bulletin that brings regular, updated coverage of cultural events that are happening both locally and nationally: art exhibitions, concerts, orchestras, dance classes, art groups and choirs? So many great events are happening that we just do not hear about, due in part to irregular and fragmented news coverage, yet we all know when the local football club down the road is relegated or—hopefully—promoted.
People might instinctively think that sport has an enormous audience; of course it does, but millions of people attend theatres, galleries, concerts and cinemas every week as spectators. This is not a niche interest. It is a massive, underserved audience. Regular creative arts bulletins would serve that audience in the same way that sports bulletins serve sports fans. But there is another audience beyond the spectators: the participants, young and old, in all genres, at all levels, professional and amateur, elite and—perhaps most importantly—ordinary. Ordinary people participating in the creative arts are doing something extraordinary for themselves, their community and far beyond.
A refrain heard all too often following the regular news programmes is, “And now for the sports and weather.” But what if we added one extra word? I hope that my Bill might lead to the following phrase: “And now for the sports, culture and weather.” It would be a small but important alteration to how we receive news and to the value that we place on cultural events.
In practice, my Bill would instruct Ministers and responsible bodies such as Ofcom to engage with and ultimately, if necessary, require broadcasters who run regular news programmes to complement their sports news bulletins with a dedicated culture bulletin highlighting creative arts events and activities. By no means would this replace sports coverage or seek to replicate it, since of course sports have more competitions and leagues, and thereby generate a certain type of interest and news; it would simply level the playing field—excuse the pun—or, to put it another way, bring things into harmony, ensuring that everyone is playing in the same key. [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for laughing.
I love sport. Indeed, I represent the constituency of Rugby—probably the only place in the world where a sport was both born in and named after a town. It is important that sports news is broadcast. It is an important part of people’s lives, and promotes healthy lifestyles and much more. Regular sports bulletins in broadcast news normalise sport as an important part of community life, but there is no objective reason why the same should not be done for the creative arts. I would argue that cultural news items are just as important a fixture in people’s lives. After all, who does not listen to music, watch films, or appreciate artwork or poetry?
Cultural institutions, including theatres, cinemas, galleries and local venues, as well as institutions without physical venues, including numerous music groups, such as brass bands, artists’ groups and creative clubs in schools, colleges, universities and civil society, host newsworthy events every day, yet there is no consistent, recognisable broadcast space where audiences can receive up-to-date creative arts news. That represents a clear gap in current provision.
Cultural events and the creative arts are a massive contributor to our economy. According the House of Commons Library, in 2024, the latest year available, the creative industries generated £145.8 billion in gross value added, accounting for 5.5% of total UK GVA. In comparison, the sports industry generated £20.6 billion, or 0.8% of total UK GVA. Exports in 2021 included £9.1 billion in goods and £45.6 billion in services. The economic contribution is undeniable, but the benefits of promoting cultural news items go far beyond the economic.
Creative arts engagement improves physical and mental health, cognitive function, recovery and social connection. A report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found grade-A evidence that arts engagement reduces depression, improves early years development, enhances mood and life satisfaction, and supports older people’s cognitive and, importantly, physical health. Social prescribing schemes show a return of approximately £3 for every £1 invested.
We often hear how sports participation improves discipline, teamwork and confidence—in essence, some important hard skills. People often have the misconception that the creative arts are all about soft skills or, as I like to put it, sitting around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”. I have done that—
John Slinger
I am not going to do it now. It is lovely, but it is not the only part.
To learn an instrument or create a painting takes massive amounts of hard work; to play in an orchestra or act in a play takes discipline, so the creative arts are about both soft and hard skills. We are told that in this age of artificial intelligence we need creative thinkers, as well as those with hard skills. Increasing the visibility of cultural news would stimulate interest among the public in becoming a spectator, a participant or both. It would inspire people, especially young people, to engage in the right kind of AI—actual involvement. It would broaden the reach of creative arts to new and more diverse audiences. It would help stimulate local high streets and local economies, and drive job creation, particularly in a sector where it is often too hard for artists to make a living, despite their talent and hard work. It would help the creative arts to strengthen community cohesion.
How would this work in practice? My Bill would legislate for a central pool of news items that organisations can submit to, from which regional and national broadcasters could source their stories. Ofcom would have a duty to amend the broadcasting code, and all public service broadcasters and others deemed by the Secretary of State to have a significant audience would be required to include regular cultural news bulletins.
As part of my campaign, I have launched an online petition to gather support from the creative world, the creative industries and the general public. Members should not just take my word for this: more than 250 organisations and individuals already back my idea.
Creative arts bulletins featuring in all news broadcasts will elevate and normalise the creative arts, stimulate interest in schools, promote activities at both national and local levels, boost engagement and participation, and support town centre regeneration and economic growth. The Bill does not require Government spending. It does not subsidise the arts, although I obviously welcome more funding for the arts under this Labour Government. It does not displace or denigrate sport. It simply ensures that creative arts and culture are given the visibility that they so deserve in our national conversation.
We have the best creative arts in the world and one of the most vibrant scenes at all levels of society, particularly in my constituency.
John Slinger
And in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
It is time that more people heard about this—heard about what is going on nationally, regionally and locally. Creative arts bulletins would help to bring about the mind shift needed throughout society to normalise, celebrate and promote participation in the creative arts and help to embed them ever more deeply in our national consciousness.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Slinger, Adam Jogee, Jess Brown-Fuller, Cat Eccles, Bambos Charalambous, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Dr Beccy Cooper and Jonathan Davies present the Bill.
John Slinger accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 June, and to be printed (Bill 419).
Pension Schemes Bill: Ways and Means (No. 2)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision in connection with—
(a) the transfer by virtue of the Act of any property, rights or liabilities of the AWE pension scheme, or
(b) the tax treatment of persons in relation to such a transfer, that scheme or any pension scheme established under provision made under the Act for persons who are or have been members of the AWE pension scheme.—(Torsten Bell.)
Pension Schemes Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 July 2025 (Pension Schemes Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 103 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 155 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 95 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Lords amendments 68 to 76, 78, 80, 84 and 86 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 2
Asset management
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.
Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.
Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.
Torsten Bell
Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.
This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.
A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.
First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.
Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.
Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.
Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.
Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a pensioner. The pensioners who come to me are a wee tad unsure about what is on offer for them. They are perhaps confused, because they get advice from people here to move in one direction, and then somebody else will give them advice to move in another direction. What can the Minister and the Government do to provide the correct support and advice to people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time when it is really important? We have seen many scams, and we hear about much happening in relation to this issue. I want to ensure that pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very much.
Torsten Bell
As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents.
On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are leaving too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone. That is why the default pensions parts of the Bill, which I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. People can do what they want, but they will not end up with a bad outcome just because they are faced with a confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that for those individuals.
Let me come back to small pots. I will make one specific point, which was raised in the other place, regarding worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave, and have a dormant pot for a period of time. I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously sees contributions into pension pots continue, rather than those pots becoming dormant, and there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated. That safeguard covers exactly this kind of eventuality, even though it would be only a very small number of cases.
Torsten Bell
I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not.
We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.
The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.
Jim Shannon
I have just been sent a question from a person back home, which I will ask directly as it has been put to me. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s revised investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? That is the question I have been asked, and I need to ask it of the Minister.
Torsten Bell
If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.
It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.
I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.
Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.
Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.
Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.
I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.
Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. [Interruption.] The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place.
The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line.
Returning to Lords amendment 1, which the Government are seeking to eject from this Bill, relates to the mandation powers. I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen. That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it.
The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, “It’s all fine, nothing to see here”; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings. Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place. I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For many people, a pension is their second largest investment, after their home, but we must bear in mind that many others can only dream of having a private pension, as they face the challenges of the cost of living crisis. We Liberal Democrats want to make sure that pensions work effectively for those who invest in them, and there is much to be welcomed in the Bill.
I want to share a personal reflection with the House. My father, who was a lorry driver, feared poverty in his pensionable age, and saved massively because he had seen that poverty with his own father, but sadly he was perhaps not as financially literate as some other people. He kept his savings in shares; then the stock market crashed in 2008, and his savings for his pension were virtually wiped out. With today’s greater safeguards, that might not have happened; there might not have been the mis-selling that he felt had taken place, or the poor advice that he received from advisers. In that regard, the Bill takes significant steps in the right direction.
We Liberal Democrats, however, want to see our economy working well, and that means a lack of state interference, in the form of direction of investment. It is right that the state should encourage investors, suggest where they should go, and have appropriate schemes to guide them, but the idea of direction is anathema to us. We have repeatedly seen what is almost a nervous twitch, whether through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 or the introduction of facial ID on our streets, as the Government give more and more powers to Ministers, and that disturbs us. We Liberal Democrats plan to vote against the Government amendments relating to Lords amendments 1 and 15 and specifically to mandation, because mandation is the dead hand of Government on growth, particularly when it comes to people’s pensions, and it goes against our free-economy approach.
The Minister may be a reasonable individual—who knows?—but we have spent many hours on this, and the clock is ticking for the Government. In two or three years’ time, we may have a new Government, and we need only look at the other side of the Atlantic to see what democracy can throw up. We could be giving a future Government whose colour we do not know a challenging approach to mandation. Any reassurances that the Minister gives would not be worth the candle then. We fear that going ahead with mandation would be feckless, and dangerous for our pensioners.
Another area, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) will touch on later, is pension scandals. The Government missed an opportunity to address pension scandals as part of this behemoth of a Bill, but Lords amendment 78, which they are sadly opposing, applies to the AEA Technology pensioners. That is a small step in the right direction to address the injustice that these pensioners have suffered. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee drew on a report by the National Audit Office that highlighted that civil servants were poorly advised by the Government on transferring the scheme to the private sector. Many of the AEAT pensioners have significantly lost out financially. I call on the Government to reflect on that and to take a small step in the right direction. We will vote against the Government motion to disagree to Lords amendment 78.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I would like to focus my remarks on Lords amendments 1 and 27, which I believe limit the Government’s ability to direct pension schemes away from what I regard as high-risk assets with an uncertain future. Ministers will recall that I put forward a series of proposals as the Bill passed through this House, including on divestment from fossil fuels, which is what I will focus on this afternoon.
The local government pension scheme currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, so we can see quite clearly that the voluntary approach to divestment has failed. Even now, ordinary working people’s wages—their hard-earned savings—are being channelled into accelerating a climate crisis that hits the global working class the hardest. Lords amendments 1 and 27 prevent the Government from setting down binding targets on certain investments, which makes it politically harder to bring down investments in fossil fuels. We know there is no retirement for any of us without a liveable environment. It sounds obvious, but that reality is not reflected in how pensions are currently managed, and the Government know this. Ministers in the other place acknowledge that investments in thermal coal—one of the most harmful fossil fuels—are high risk from both a climate and financial viewpoint. They are bad for the planet and bad for pension holders, who need stable, long-term investments.
This country removed thermal coal from the grid in 2024, because it has no future. Alarmingly, however, we know from written questions that neither the Government nor the Pensions Regulator have a clear picture of how much is still invested in this soon-to-be stranded asset. Even funds that are held up as leaders on climate, such as Border to Coast and the universities superannuation scheme, have hundreds of millions of pounds invested in thermal coal. That is why we need to get a grip on this issue. There are no existing requirements on schemes to report on any fossil fuel investment, and hardly any do so voluntarily. The first step is to provide full transparency on such investments, followed by decisive action to phase them out. Will the Minister commit to writing to the biggest 50 pension schemes to get more detail on their level of thermal coal exposure, and will he follow it up by setting a time-bound expectation for schemes to exit such assets, starting with thermal coal? That may seem like a distant issue, but if workers are left exposed to stranded assets in their pensions, they will not forget the politicians who chose to look the other way.
This Bill was a major opportunity to redirect billions of pounds in workers’ pensions away from arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants, and into investments that benefit the very people who are paying in. That means green energy.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent and serious speech. Does he agree that, in addition to fossil fuels, local government pension schemes are exposed to industries and assets that our constituents rightly consider deeply unethical? They include tobacco companies, arms producers that are complicit in genocide, and other companies that are exploiting nature or our constituents for profit. Does he agree that there should be an ethical investment policy that covers all unethical investments?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
In fact, I raised something very similar when the Bill passed through this House.
The investments that we could make through our pension funds could go into green energy, which is the growth engine of the future, as well as into affordable and social housing, which is so needed in this country. That should be underpinned by greater democracy in our pension funds, so that workers have a say in where their money is invested. I believe that if that was the case, they would certainly choose to put it not into arms manufacturers or fossil fuels, but into decent homes for them and their communities.
The crisis in the middle east has exposed the fragility of our dependence on fossil fuels. A break in the supply chain thousands of miles away has a catastrophic cascading effect here, driving up costs and deepening the cost of living for our constituents.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Okay.
We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, even though some Members on the other side of the House seem to disagree with that. We must deliver long-term energy security and bring down bills through domestic green energy, but not only that. In this moment of deep crisis, the Government must pull every lever they can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, and that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today.
The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients.
If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here.
The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims.
I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for opening this debate. I was not expecting it to be quite so lively, so I will try to add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me. [Interruption.] That is hard to believe, I know, but I promise that I will mention pensioners in Harlow at least half a dozen times to make up for it.
I rise to speak in opposition to Lords amendments 6 and 77, but before I do so, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. It is one of the many things this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency of Harlow—that is one mention—with rising living costs. That can be coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension—that means the new state pension is increasing by £575 this year and the basic state pension by about £440—and launching the largest pension credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important.
Lords amendment 6, which I am sure is well-intentioned, would require the Government to carry out an interim review of employer contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Lords amendment is redundant, because the Government have already committed to that and will do so later in the year.
I am going to make the next bit, about Lords amendment 77, a little more racy just to entertain Members. Let me take them back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine—I will not mention his name—who turned around and said to me, “You’ve got gold-plated pensions, you teachers.” I am not saying this is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it is something it could do, and it always frustrates me when we create a divide between people receiving public sector pensions and people receiving private sector pensions. I would say that public sector workers, including teachers, and I used to be a teacher—the Chris Vince bingo card is going well today—work incredibly hard and contribute a huge amount to their pensions.
This does not mean that it is not right to review public sector pensions—we have to do that as a Government, as the right and proper thing to do—but it is worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords amendment 6, that we are already doing so. I am sure Lords amendment 77 is well-intentioned, but again it is redundant. In general, I say to people tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions that the duty of a Government should not be to make public sector pensions worse, but to make private pensions better, so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement.
I want to make a few cheeky requests of the Minister while he is in his place. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), is chuntering, but I am going to be nice to him because he has fantastic hair. The last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said that I had made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake, but who knows?
I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that he will continue to work with the Secretary of State for Health. The No. 1 thing pensioners in my constituency of Harlow talk to me about—I think I have mentioned them only twice in this speech—is the importance of our NHS. Given the wait times that pensioners have had to face at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, I am delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down, because we want our pensioners not only to have saved and be financially stable in their retirement, but to be healthy.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Sadly, it reflects the interests of Members that so few of us are here for a debate about one of the most important elements affecting the future of our constituents, friends, neighbours and, in fact, ourselves. Pensions are rather more than just a savings scheme; they are the thread that binds generations. They are the remarkable invention of our ancestors, who found a way to make sure that the energy, innovation and force of the young could be tied to the assets, education and experience of the old. It is that bond between generations that makes pension saving so special.
While I welcome much of what this Bill does, I fully align myself with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about mandation. In that one small area, this Bill repeats an error that was made nearly 30 years ago when the Government, for very understandable reasons—it was a very tense moment in pension savings, just after the Mirror Group Newspapers scandal and the Equitable Life scandal—took upon themselves powers, which were entirely reasonable at the time, to de-risk some of the private pension market. That de-risking was about moving savings, very gently at the beginning, from equities into bonds.
In the early days, that did not make much of a difference. It took the percentage of bonds in investment portfolios from 19.1% to 19.3%, and so on. However, although the intention was to de-risk very slightly, the accumulation of time means that the bond element of pensions has grown, so that in the UK the figure is now roughly 60%, whereas in Australia or Canada, which are similar economies, it is roughly 20%. That is a real problem not just because it means pensioners are getting a lower return—they are getting a return based on the debt of the country, not on the energy of young people—but because young people are not getting the energy or the lifeblood they so vitally need when they are starting their lives.
Let us look at the difference between equities and bonds. The truth is that bonds are fundamentally dead money: they are money taken or held by the state in ways that pay back over five, 10, 15, 20 or more years—in fact, a couple of times, over 100 years. Equities are fundamentally different. It is true that they are not predictable and it is also true that they do have risk, but they are a bet on the energy of the young people in our community. They are that bond or ligature between generations that fundamentally makes a community strong, rather than tearing it apart.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen those bonds erode. What is the result? A slower growing economy. Why? Because there are no assets to invest. There is no water for the crops, if you like; there is no fertiliser for the soil. What else have we seen? Young people have been moving away because they do not have the opportunity to start their business, or when they do start their business, they do not then have the opportunity to go to the next stage. We see an amazing start-up culture here in the UK, but immediately they hit series A and B, people go to America—they go to California or to a Delaware corp and get foreign money. Again and again, that is happening because the state, for very understandable and entirely principled reasons, made a decision to take authority off savers in order to protect them, and I am afraid that that is what the Minister is doing again today.
I understand the Minister’s point. I understand why he feels he needs to take that power. He feels that the Government have a role in ensuring that pensioners get a better deal. I get that. He also feels that the best way to do that is for the state to exercise its authority over a market system. Again, I understand that. But the problem he has is a fundamental one: the only way we achieve the connection between generations and communities, and the only way we get that life flow of the living blood of an economy— the equities market—rather than the dead hand of the state through the bonds, is in a free market. By putting his hand on the tiller and his finger on the scales, he is changing that, and that incremental change over time will do much greater damage than he fully appreciates today, despite his best intentions and despite the intentions of the Bill. That is why I will not be supporting the Government today.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
First, may I express my support for the words of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) with regard to pre-1997 pensions and that long-standing scandal? It is a great injustice and it feels like successive Governments—including this one, sadly—are just waiting for the problem to literally die away.
I would like to speak to Lords amendment 79, which aims to ensure that pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of the new regulatory landscape the Bill creates. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to ensuring that the Bill works for individual savers. Of course, it must work for our economy and for industry, but it must, first and foremost, help the “little and less” saver. That requires ensuring that savers have access to decent relevant guidance on their pensions, because without guidance choice does not translate into good outcomes.
The reality is that engagement with pension guidance for the average person is, to put it simply, woeful and worsening. Around 90% of defined-contribution pots are accessed without any engagement with Pension Wise. Uptake of the service has fallen by about 4% since 2018, despite the fact that Pension Wise is demonstrably successful—nine out of 10 users say that they would recommend it to others. That context matters, because in 2015 the introduction of pension freedoms represented a significant opportunity to ensure that guidance could be offered to far more people. Individuals were given the responsibility for spending their pension savings, but that was often without a clear understanding of the tax implications or the consequences for later life. Since then, from 2015 to 2025, many, including the Work and Pensions Committee, have argued that this was precisely the period when an auto-enrolment-style trial for guidance should also have taken place.
The Government recognised the scale of the problem in 2022, when they introduced a stronger nudge towards Pension Wise. That followed a Department for Work and Pensions report that showed a marked increase, rising from 5% to 30%, in drawdown products being accessed without guidance. Over half of transfers were out of pension products, often driven by mistrust, and lower income savers were disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared with higher earners. Yet even then, the opportunity to trial the automatic booking of guidance appointments, which was backed by the Work and Pensions Committee and Age UK, was not taken.
Now, the landscape has changed again. The Bill reshapes the regulatory framework in a significant way, including through the introduction of defaults for pot holders. That makes this moment another opportunity to ensure that as many savers as possible receive good quality guidance, but that chance will be missed if guidance is not properly embedded alongside these reforms. Defaults will fundamentally affect how savers interact with their pensions. That means the Government must provide urgent clarity not just for savers, but for schemes and trustees. Schemes need clear and concise guidance on how defaults operate, and on what advice and guidance they can lawfully provide so that they are protected from future legal challenge, ambulance chasing or scandal.
Equally, savers themselves will need support to navigate what is often a collection of multiple pots with multiple defaults and varying outcomes. What should not happen is for a default system to be put in place without updated and clearly defined guidance alongside it. That would risk encouraging passive defaulting while alternatives are not properly explained or understood, which might act to supercharge the existing problem of disengagement rather than solve it. At the very least, we must ensure that people are given the opportunity to engage. The dashboard’s imminent introduction might address some of these problems, but it is not a silver bullet.
The Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister have set out a road map for reform, but the big glaring hole in that road map is access to guidance. I ask the Government to ensure that guidance is explicitly part of the plan, to set out clearly what role the Money and Pensions Service and free and impartial guidance will play for savers who want it, and to consider whether, alongside the necessary secondary legislation, the Department could publish a clear statement on the role of guidance in both the default and savings journey of pension savers.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 15 and, ultimately, what it still fails to address: the long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners.
The Chancellor’s decision last year diverted attention, with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF. While 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not. In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of those pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the AEA Technology and Carillion public sector pension schemes, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country’s Government and then ignored when you plead your case. Finally, 750,000 people in private defined-benefit schemes, the pre-1997 pensioners, have also lost out. We are talking about 979,000 people—almost 1 million pensioners—who have lost out on the regular increase for part, or for the whole part, of their pension.
The Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre-1997 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined-benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases—in some cases, for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half the real value of the pensions they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone, and who knows what will happen with energy costs.
What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the Government’s approach. They have been entirely willing to mandate how defined-contribution schemes invest, yet they remain unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendment would return us to a Bill that would make it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre-1997 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat. In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employers’ decisions. The imbalance is clear: employers decide, trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre-1997 pensioners. What is the value of a trustee? Surely it is not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based inthe USA.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I appreciate that the hon. Member is very learned on this subject, as are many Members on both sides of the House. Is he saying that the Bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any surplus from defined benefit schemes?
Clive Jones
For the pre-1997 pensioners in companies such as Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board, usually in the USA, says, “No, we are not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustees say you should have it.”
To ease surplus extraction without first addressing that injustice risks locking it in permanently. It is the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre-1997 pensioners. There will not be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the Minister’s blessing. The Minister said, during the Adjournment debate on 19 March, that there was a need to build the evidence base, but decades have already passed. Why has that not been done before? Pensioners are dying at a rate of 15 a week. Delay at this point is not neutral: it is a choice to delay, deny and wait until they die.
Those pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If the House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion.
I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre-1997 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre-1997 pensioners?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers. If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land.
The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?
The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.
Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level.
Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.
They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister, if he is ready.
Torsten Bell
I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made.
The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market.
I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.
Debbie Abrahams
Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?
Torsten Bell
I thank the Select Committee Chair for her intervention. The organisation she mentions has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench about the work of that organisation in these debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. It is an important thing to think about. Some of it reflects increasing international cross-border investments, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias among the UK’s defined contribution schemes.
Tom Tugendhat
One of the challenges with defined contribution schemes is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than one would like, and when one compares them with, for example, Canada or Australia, we see superfunds in certain countries and not in the UK. While the Minister is correct that this means slightly lower bias, it also means significantly less growth in the UK market, because there is less capital flowing. This is an argument for both young and old people. I know that the Minister understand this, but it is worth making that link. Pensions are just as much about funding youth as sustaining age.
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the last point that the right hon. Member made. I am planning an extensive discursion on his wider point about investment in equities versus gilts shortly, so I ask him to bear with me, but it is an important point to raise. We may not agree on it, but it is important to make sure that we have aired it properly.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) started his speech with a powerful story about his father, which I am sure will have resonated with many hon. Members. The point he made actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself aims to drive. That may not have been the intention of the hon. Member’s argument, but that is the point it makes. It also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way to make sure that we support everybody. We should allow people to make their own choices while ensuring that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement.
The hon. Member for Torbay also talked about mandation. I am not going to lie; his words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. He said that what is being proposed in the Bill is anathema to him. In that case, he is will be absolutely horrified to read the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems’ attempt to sit on a fence, and then fall off it.
More importantly, and usefully, the hon. Member for Torbay raised the case of AEAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument that he made. That particular case and the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and the PPF are exactly why this Government have acted in a way that previous Governments, including the coalition Government, chose not to act.
That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who also touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre-1997 indexation insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation. I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis. I have met many of the pensioners who have been affected; I have gone out of my way to meet them locally and nationally, along with many other MPs. All of us would feel the same in their situation.
I am less pessimistic than the hon. Member and, specifically, I think that he underestimates the role of trustees. He is right to say that there is nothing in the Bill that gives trustees the power to override employers—that is true. What is does do is give trustees a veto over any release of surplus. Trustees who want to put at the top of their priorities progress on discretionary pre-1997 indexation in those schemes but who have not done so will now have the potential to do so under this Bill. I recognise the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I think he underestimates the change that the Bill can bring to some schemes. It is important to remember that there are some schemes that are not paying pre-1997 indexation that are not in surplus, but I absolutely recognise that those are different situations.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
In my speech I asked the Minister a very specific question: whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal. I wonder if he might consider that.
Torsten Bell
I am not going to commit from the Dispatch Box to writing 50 letters, but I will happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always do.
Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I was going to welcome his speech, but unfortunately he spent most of his remarks praising the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, showing both questionable judgment and—[Laughter.] Obviously I am joking; it is some of the finest hair in Parliament, as we all appreciate. When he got passed praising the hon. Member’s hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. It is an important one to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. He rightly made the case that the priority should be making private pensions better. That is what we should be focused on, and that is what we need to see.
That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) did not quite touch on. She was focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas we want to be able to level up and make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones who are invested in our defined-contribution system, can be confident that it is delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree on that.
That is why the Bill is increasing the returns that are available within the defined-contribution system. It is also why we have the Pensions Commission, which I think is part of the cross-party consensus that we should look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century and return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle earners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if that is not of huge relevance to this Bill. If we are honest, the biggest betrayal of today’s pensioners, not tomorrow’s pensioners, is the state of our NHS, and that is what the Government are in the business of turning around. We debate in this House the tax rises that the Conservatives would not like to see, but it is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country.
I promised a discursion on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I particularly liked his opening point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we all plan to draw our pensions—if we are not already doing so—for as long as we possibly can.
Torsten Bell
There are Members of this House who are drawing several pensions, and they are to be encouraged to do so, working past the state pension age and contributing with their valuable expertise.
The right hon. Member then focused on how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in investment behaviours. We have discussed that on a number of occasions, and it is important to distinguish between a number of points. The regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government, which, as he said, were motivated by good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme members, introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point—that will have had an effect over time. When we look at the defined-benefit market—the biggest by asset values at the moment—it is important to recognise that that is not what is driving it today. What is driving it is the maturity of defined-benefit schemes and the fact that the vast majority of them are closed, so they are investing in a different way, and they would not want to be as exposed to equities as I am sure he is.
The question is therefore about the defined-contribution market, which is the future of not the entirety of our pension system but the majority of it. There the story is not the same: none of the regulations that flow from the 1990s Acts relate to the defined-contribution system today. That is why it is important to have had the debates we were able to have—until we heard recently some of the slightly over-the-top views of Conservative Front-Bench Members—about what would be the right thing in savers’ interests. The right hon. Member is absolutely right that this debate is about what is the right investment strategy for savers’ interests for the longer term. I therefore completely endorse what he said on that.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the Minister for his words; it seems that we rather agree. I agree with him that the problem with the defined-benefits system is that it is addressing—let us be frank—an ageing demographic. There is, however, a challenge: because of those changes and the influence that has had on defined benefits, there has also been some influence—I would not overstate it—in the culture that has affected defined contributions, which are therefore overly bond asset-heavy, if you see what I mean, in comparison to Australian and Canadian markets. That is not to the degree that I was talking about earlier of 60%—clearly, that is different—but it does mean that we have got a pensions economy more geared to an ageing demographic and then over-geared in other areas to follow the lead of the defined benefits. That means we see that that removing or strangling, if you like, of live money—turning live money into dead money—which is a net burden on the whole economy. I appreciate that it is not quite as black-and-white as I have painted it, but it is a challenge that is affecting the entire economy.
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s focus on the generational challenges, but I have a slightly different view on what the biggest challenge is. The biggest issue for younger generations is if they do not have faith in a pensions system because they do not believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes. That is the most important thing. That is why this Bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, and it is also why the Pensions Commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures. I think that will help with some of the issues he raised.
I agree a bit less with the right hon. Member on the defined-contribution side. What stands out in the defined-contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities—we see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined-contribution systems—and more the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But there is a question about whether, if we do not have what we are trying to put in place with default pensions, we see some people in defined-contribution pensions lifestyling down, which means moving cash from equities into bonds.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the Minister, because this is actually becoming a debate in the Chamber, which is so rare. The Minister is absolutely right, but the reason why I link the two is that the nature of defined-benefit removing assets from UK equity markets has led to much slower growth in the UK stock exchange. That means that the levels of return for UK equities are lower, so defined-contribution trustees do not invest so heavily in shares. We then have a knock-on effect: when pensions need to have UK asset allocations—they want to have their savings in pounds, for understandable reasons—they cannot get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, so they end up being tied into Government bonds. We therefore get that draw in a slightly different way.
Torsten Bell
Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises.
I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [Interruption.] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words.
There are just two problems with those words. First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, you are making a very passionate speech, but you said “you” and I do not think I was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point.
Torsten Bell
As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time.
The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that
“the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.]
Well, that was nice.
Torsten Bell
No, we have got some more. That was before Conservative Front-Bench Members—then in a less bonkers phase of life—nodded through the Bill, which they now claim is some kind of end-of-days Armageddon. Let us be reasonable.
Torsten Bell
No, I am going to finish.
Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that
“there is a lot in it that we do welcome”,
as it will
“help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.”
She went on,
“so we will not be voting against the Bill”—[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.]
We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my
“effort to hold back from mandation”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.]
What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister gave a very passionate speech, but when one mentions colleagues in the Chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has happened.
Torsten Bell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The appropriate thing to do will be to drop him a note very quickly.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Torsten Bell.)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, I understand that the Minister for Pensions made specific reference to me. I was elsewhere at the Treasury Committee, but I am told that he referred to a Westminster Hall debate on 25 November, and depicted me as arguing for the mandation of pension investments. In that debate, I explicitly said that mandation would be an “overreach”. I went on to say:
“I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 122WH.]
I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I could avoid being inadvertently misquoted by the Minister in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches in the Chamber—if only we were. However, the Minister is in his place and will have heard what the right hon. Member has said. If an error has been made, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.
Torsten Bell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the Back-Bench Member and the Minister have put their points on the record.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.
That Torsten Bell, Gen Kitchen, Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Mr Will Forster be members of the Committee;
That Torsten Bell be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 4)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provision shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 9 March 2026 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 3)):
Consideration of Lords Message on 15 April 2026
The Lords Amendments and Reasons shall be considered in the following order: 17B, 38, 41B, 102, 106 and 105B.
Question agreed to.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 144 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 259 / Noes: 136 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 139 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 38 and 105 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 9
Sibling contact with children in care
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.
Olivia Bailey
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school, drive high and rising standards in our schools, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. This Labour Government are ambitious for every single child in this country. This Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and make our children safer, both in and out of school, online and offline.
Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, both in the Commons and the Lords. In response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two Government amendments made in the House of Lords.
Government amendment 17B, on sibling contact, strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings. It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I also thank others who have campaigned on the issue, including Baroness Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely important topic.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome Government amendment 17B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children have. I pay tribute to the Family Rights Group and Become, as well as the campaigners she mentioned, for their important work in this area. The Education Committee recommended that the Government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area. As part of the implementation of amendment 17B, will the Minister commit to data collection, so that we can be certain that this measure is having the intended effect?
Olivia Bailey
I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to other campaigners, including Become. On her point about data collection, my the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is sitting next to me, is happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As well as being a member of the Education Committee, which has done sterling work on this point, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on human rights in the care system. We held a powerful roundtable with care-experienced young people, and that point was powerfully made to us. We have not yet reached the end of our inquiry and do not yet have recommendations, but I want to put on record my gratitude to those young people for sharing their experiences, and to the Government for making this really important change; I know that it will make so many lives better.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his important work, both on the Education Committee and for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet the Chair of the Committee soon, and we commit to working with it.
Let me turn to Government amendment 105B, on allergies in schools. I thank everybody who has worked so hard campaigning on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and other Members from both Houses. I particularly thank the fantastic Helen Blythe, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and the wide range of allergy safety charities that have engaged with the Government on this matter.
As I promised when the Bill was last before this House, we have introduced a Government amendment to place allergy safety on a statutory footing for all schools. It requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, to review them regularly, and to publicise and publish them. Schools must have regard to the statutory guidance, which we have co-produced with expert stakeholders. Through regulations, we will put in place duties covering the content of allergy safety policies, stocking adrenalin devices, securing allergy awareness training, and incident reporting. Benedict’s law, named in memory of Helen Blythe’s son Benedict, is intended to ensure that every child with allergies can attend school safely.
Let me turn to Lords amendments 38 and 106, which relate to social media and phones in schools. Protecting children online is a priority for this Government, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have made it clear that it is a matter of how, not if, the Government will act to deliver further protections for children and young people.
Whereas the amendment proposed in the House of Lords is narrow, our consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of services and features. It will also allow us to consider different views on the way forward. It is crucial that we do not pre-empt the Government’s consultation, which will close next month.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the consultation that the Minister is holding on this important issue. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Education Committee—that seems to be something we should mention—and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Will she ensure that as this consultation progresses, the voices of young carers are heard? That is really important.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his work supporting young carers. I can give him that promise, and I am happy to arrange any meetings that he would like with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The Government amendments to the Bill will allow us to act quickly and respond directly to the consultation. There will not be endless rounds of consultation; the Government will act. We have listened to the concerns raised in both Houses regarding a desire for swift action, a more specific power and appropriate scrutiny.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Will the Minister confirm that the consultation is targeted at young people, parents and consumers of social media, and that the Government will not take input from social media companies?
Olivia Bailey
I can confirm that the consultation is targeted widely, at everybody with an interest in, or affected by, this issue. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail, setting out how the consultation is taking place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Olivia Bailey
I will make some progress, if hon. Members do not mind. I am happy to come back to them in a bit.
We have tabled an amendment in lieu that commits the Secretary of State to reporting to Parliament on progress within six months of the Bill passing. We will also share future draft regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023 with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople prior to laying those regulations before the House. Finally, we have made several amendments to our power, which specify how it will be used; for example, they stipulate that it can be exercised only to protect children from harms. The Government are committed to taking swift action to protect children online.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister has said that she wishes to take swift action. Surely the swiftest action she could take is to use this Bill to ban smartphones from schools, and to ban children under 16 from using social media. What extra information does she need to take those steps?
Olivia Bailey
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will address smartphones in schools in a moment. Our consultation allows us to act at real speed. Through the additions we are making to the Bill today, we are committing to report back to the House within six months, if we have not acted before then. The range of options that we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options in the amendments from the other place that we are debating. The consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical ones, such as addictive design.
Olivia Bailey
I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.
I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.
Olivia Bailey
I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.
I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.
Olivia Bailey
We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided, and will keep that guidance under review. As the legislation requires, we will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of that review.
Olivia Bailey
I am just concluding this section of my remarks, but the right hon. Member is very persistent.
I have previously been clear on our concerns about a cost cap. A numerical limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.
Graham Stuart
I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.
Olivia Bailey
The right hon. Gentleman’s opinion on the quality of the argument I have made is his opinion, and I happen to disagree with it.
Turning to Lords amendment 102, we have already committed to tighter regulations to make it clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on published admission numbers. Our amendment in lieu reflects that and will help ensure that decisions on PAN give parents a choice of high-quality school places close to home. In this age of declining rolls, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I know the Minister wants the best for children and is working hard to achieve that goal, but the Government’s guidance makes it clear that non-statutory guidance is not to be
“taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation.”
The fact is that the evidence is damning about smartphone usage and children. Why will she therefore not take the step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools?
Olivia Bailey
I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that on this point our objectives are the same. Phones should not be in schools at any point during the day from start to finish. I say in all good faith that I have looked at this issue—
Several hon. Members rose—
Olivia Bailey
I am in the middle of responding to the previous intervention; Members might just want to wait one moment. In all good faith, I have looked in great detail at the problem with why these policies in schools were not being enforced properly. It was a question of weak guidance, and the schools therefore not enforcing that guidance properly. Ofsted is now enforcing that, and teams of people are supporting schools to implement it. I have been clear that if the consultation says that a statutory ban is the silver bullet that will solve the problem, then of course we will do it, but in my honest view, we have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools.
Olivia Bailey
I will make some progress.
This Bill is something that only a Labour Government—[Interruption.] I will give way because the right hon. Gentleman is looking so aggrieved.
Damian Hinds
I think I just heard the Minister say, “We have already solved this problem.” I do not know if any other colleagues heard that. She said that she has written to every headteacher in the country, and it is absolutely the right thing to be in contact with them. Has she heard back from any headteachers or headteacher representative bodies, who say that this ban would be so much more straightforward if it were written into law, because of the difficulties that arise with a minority of parents? Headteachers say how much easier it would be for their school and their authority in their school if this ban were written into law.
Olivia Bailey
It seems to me that the Conservatives have just had their fingers in their ears and have been ignoring the wide range of steps that this Government have taken to address this issue. [Interruption.] We have recently changed your weak guidance—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers have made it clear that not only Back Benchers but Ministers perhaps need to raise their game when they are thinking about the courtesies of this Chamber.
Olivia Bailey
I sincerely apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Opposition. I was simply trying to point out that we have taken every step necessary to solve the problem of why phone bans were not being enforced properly in schools. I have been clear that should the consultation tell us that this guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis, because our objective is the same: there should be no phones in schools from the start until the end of the day. I share that objective.
This Bill is something that only a Labour Government could deliver—a Bill that will break the link between background and success, a Bill that will provide opportunity for every child in this country and a Bill that will lift thousands of children out of poverty. I urge Members across the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and get this vital Bill on to the statute book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House.
That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Laura Trott
As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The evidence is still more profound, is it not? Screen time is now a profound problem across the board. This is not just about phones; it is about all kinds of devices. We now know not only that it affects children’s confidence in communicating, but that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time.
I hope that during the consultation the Government will look more broadly at the issue of screen time, because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State most certainly does—and the Minister is gradually coming to terms with it. I hope that the Government will seize the initiative, and send the very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows and we really must return to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference.
Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children.
If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them.
I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children.
Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.
Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income.
In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.
When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual.
Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with.
I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt.
Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”.
The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is making the profound point—and this should concern every Member of this House across the normal party divides—that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy and moving from childhood to adulthood is always a challenge, but when someone’s sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are an inevitable part of maturing, and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all—far too long—over successive Governments, but now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it.
I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift:
“You want a fight? You found it”.
Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation, by extending the requirement for a looked-after child’s reasonable contact with their parents to contact with their siblings or half-siblings. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters—so many letters. Every single time, I was advised that there was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed—until now. Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings and denies them contact with each other.
When I heard my noble Friends in the other place carry unopposed Lords amendment 17B—the same amendment that I moved in 2016—I was for once completely lost for words. This may seem like a very small change to legislation, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children, including children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend.
Like everything that happens in this place, it was not a solo endeavour. If the Chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all the MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change; my right hon. and hon. Friends in our Education team; Cathy Ashley and the team at the Family Rights Group who, way back, helped me craft the amendment; and my friend the broadcaster and journalist Ashley John-Baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system, in which he grew up never knowing that he had siblings, to help press for this change.
That leads me to who I want to thank most of all: the children I worked with in my former career. I promised them that if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.
Graham Stuart
I just want to say thank you to the hon. Lady for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by persisting, keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough.
Emma Lewell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention—possibly one of the nicest interventions I have ever had in this place.
I hope that if those children I worked with are listening now, they will know that I have honoured my word to them. It may have taken me a decade and they will now be adults, but I sincerely hope they know that this is for them and it is they who have made sure that other little ones will never ever have to go through what they had to go through.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make.
I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17.
The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue.
The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements.
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?”
Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school.
However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction.
I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers?
It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap.
The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review.
On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will.
The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. She is right that age classifications that tackle the social media companies, rather than going after children and their rights, are what matters. Recent research by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—on seven internet activities by 15-year-olds in 47 countries found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower at higher rates of social media use by 15-year-olds. Does that not make acting on this issue now even more urgent?
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that we have to act, and we have to act now. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not committing to doing something soon.
Going back to the US court cases, one document revealed that Meta executives claimed:
“If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
That is my 11-year-old daughter that Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments and support the live consultation on these matters. Social media has unfortunately become central to childhood, and the negatives are massively outweighing any positives.
Even when social media is at its most benign, children are spending 40, 50 or maybe 60 hours a week on it. It is intentionally addictive—of course, since we last debated these amendments, a US court has made that determination—and affecting children’s sleep, concentration and wellbeing. Of course, it is much worse than that, with relentless bullying; the promotion of self-harm, eating disorders and suicide; sextortion; misinformation and disinformation; envy and comparison; as well as a significant dose of misogyny and porn. It is therefore not a surprise that there has been a 118% rise in children and young people accessing mental health services in England just in the last decade.
In all child-related matters, we need to listen to the voice of the child. In a recent Harris poll, 39% of Gen Z respondents said they wished that social media had never been invented. There is a significant rise in three to five-year-olds using social media, with 37% doing so, according to Ofcom.
A group called Big Tech’s Little Victims, in association with the National Education Union, recently conducted a social media experiment. It created accounts for four fictional 13-year-olds, signed them up to the main platforms and had a researcher scroll the accounts for 30 minutes a day for a week. The results were staggering: those fictional 13-year-olds were receiving, on average, one piece of concerning content a minute. To reinforce the point, the group put together a reel of the worst bits so that I and other Members could see the racism, sexual violence and misogyny that children are witnessing. We will never stop violence against women and girls until we stop feeding this hate to our children.
Parents up and down the country are in the impossible position of exposing their children to that content or having their child be the one who is missing out. I therefore support the Government’s ambition to act. It is right that laws keep pace with technology; it is right that we consider whether stronger protections for under-16s are needed; it is right that phones should play no part in school life; and it is right that the Government ensure that any legislative changes are legally robust, compatible with existing law, and capable of standing up to scrutiny in the courts.
I welcome Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 38, which will require a statement on progress within six months if no regulations have been made. We need to get on with it. I urge everyone to complete the consultation and I urge the Government to act with haste following the consultation’s closure on 26 May.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive.
That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it.
We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.
Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with.
Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils. Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.
In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity.
I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect. If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.”
The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on. If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?
Graham Stuart
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area.
Helen Hayes
I believe that there is a consensus across this House, both about the harms of social media and smartphones for our young people and about the urgent need for action. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members but have heard no acknowledgment that, on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders—including bereaved parents—on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Government’s consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, to the Education Committee to undertake some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion. That will help the Government get to the right and effective approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it?
Graham Stuart
Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is.
Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution. If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.
Helen Hayes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday next week, which will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in the field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping the Government get to the right and implementable solutions during the consultation process. I encourage him to tune in to that.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this.
The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning.
We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I believe we are talking about two different things. On banning social media for under-16s, there is a complication there. We have seen what they have done in Australia, and what other countries are doing. We believe that our solution is the right one, because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform, every game and every piece of tech, but the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the Government to act on this; doing so would be simple, straightforward and quick. It could be done through this Bill, right now.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.
Iqbal Mohamed
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?
Graham Stuart
That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces.
The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.
Graham Stuart
I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.
Graham Stuart
Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice.
Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people.
The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate.
There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is making an informed speech. Would he agree that the priority for any Government, and any legislator, is to protect citizens from harm? This amendment would protect children from harm. The technical implementation—how we control access—should not be a consideration, given that harm. As he rightly said, that should be the responsibility of the platform owners, who have access to technology that they refuse to use.
Peter Prinsley
I agree that we must hold the tech companies to account; they are the ones in control of the situation.
The amendment proposes a higher standard—not simply “reasonable steps”, but highly effective age assurance, and that is meaningfully different. We have heard about movement internationally. France and Spain are taking similar steps, and others are following. We ought to be part of the broader shift in how Governments are approaching online safety for children. Also, this cannot just be about restrictions; of course, there is a role for education. Children need to understand the online environment that they are engaging with, particularly when it comes to the algorithms, data and content driven by artificial intelligence.
We have heard about the consultation, and I support it in principle, but the scale of the issue is already well evidenced. There is a question about what additional insights small trials would realistically add, given the body of research that already exists.
Damian Hinds
There are unanswered questions about definitions, what should be in and what should be out, and exactly where the boundary lines are. Parents sometimes talk about social media in a way that professionals might not; parents might exclude certain messaging apps, for example. There are questions to be resolved, but the Government consultation is not just about that; it is about the “whether”, as well as the “how”. By all means, let us consult to get those technical points right, so that the measures are bullet-proof and future-proof, but today is the day that we could say, like those other countries did, “We are doing this. We are going to protect our children—and yes, there is still work to be done on exactly how that will fall out.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Peter Prinsley
I understand exactly what the hon. Member says.
My position is this: I support the Government, and I support the Bill, but I think the House should take very seriously what the Lords have asked us to consider. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment as it stands, I believe there is a strong case for them to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this is about setting the right boundaries for children in a digital world that is evolving quickly. There is a clear expectation, inside and outside this House, that we must act.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it.
My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years.
The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now.
I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.
Iqbal Mohamed
Earlier I asked the Minister whether tech giants and providers of social media have access to the consultation, and she will be writing to me with those details. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that those companies have billions of pounds of lobbying power, lots of bots and lots of volunteers who they could recruit to rig the consultation, and that is why they should not be allowed to participate?
Monica Harding
I absolutely agree. Tech companies have billions of pounds, and the consultation also asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? Meanwhile, the world is moving faster than the Government. Even if people think that we should wait, watch and learn from Australia, as others have pointed out, in the United States they do things differently to us and sue. Juries in the United States returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google. In New Mexico the case against Meta for misleading the public about the safety of its platform, and enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulted in a penalty that covered 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products, and a further 2,000 cases are pending in California alone.
Evidence in those cases included internal documents that were disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children’s mental health, and that the design features driving those behaviours—endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, slot-machine tactics—were made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. That is outrageous, yet the Government are letting them get away with it every day.
What more evidence do the Government need before they act quickly? They are letting down our young people, and parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton are demanding action, not down the line but now. If children cannot resist this content, through no fault of their own, the Government must act for them so that they are not able to access it. Time is not on our side, so for once will the Government please act boldly and quickly, and use powers in the Bill to protect all our children?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised.
The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children.
That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.
Caroline Voaden
I have spoken to lots of headteachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. They say that if all the secondary schools in an area were to ban phones, children would not get smartphones at 11, when they transfer into year 7, and the age at which they would get a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents would not be under pressure to buy a smartphone for their children when they are 10 or 11, so we would be gaining two or three really valuable years, when those children would not own a smartphone. Banning smartphones is not just about having an impact on school hours; it is about gaining that precious time so that children get phones when they are older. I beg the Minister to listen to that point.
Aphra Brandreth
I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban.
Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do.
Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so.
Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15-year-old son, Chrisopher, was an active and outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him.
One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop-up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family. Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger, threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed, these sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt that he was being watched constantly, and felt that he could not tell his mum or his dad what was going on, fearing for their safety. Tragically, the challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life.
Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I have been taken aback by their resilience and determination to ensure that this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christoforos Charity Foundation sets up and has been doing events and activities for kids where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real-life connections.
As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. That is why we should act swiftly to protect children online. Will the Government stop all the reviews and get on and act now by banning phones in schools and bringing in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?
Iqbal Mohamed
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I rise to call on the Government to support Lords amendments 38 and 106, which would raise the age of access to harmful social media platforms to 16 and ban mobile phones from schools. A broad range of extremely well-informed speeches has already been made in the House, so I will focus on the recent and not-so-recent scientific research that shows the harms of mobile phones and social media in particular.
Social media and access to mobile phones for children reduce attention spans and weaken executive function. Screen time, especially from smartphones, fast-paced videos and multitasking apps, is linked to poorer executive functions, including sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory. Neurocognitive explanations suggest that highly stimulating screens promote rapid attentional shifting, weakening a child’s ability to concentrate in less stimulating real-world environments such as classrooms.
Screen time also creates language issues and verbal delays in early childhood, infancy and toddlerhood. Studies reportedly show that higher screen exposure before the age of three is associated with smaller expressive vocabularies, delayed language milestones and reduced conversational turn-taking. That effect is largely explained by displacement. Screen time displaces direct adult-child verbal interaction, which is essential for language development. Importantly, passive consumption and videos and scrolling are significantly more harmful than interactive co-used media. That increases the demand on our education system to support the children who are behind in their development, so banning phones will not only protect children, but allow them to learn at the rate that human beings are able to learn.
Access to mobile phones and social media also alters brain development. MRI studies provide biological evidence supporting behavioural findings. Higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and higher-order cognition, as well as altered maturation of visual and executive control networks, and reduced structural integrity in the frontal and temporal regions linked to self-regulation.
In our society, we have an increase in the number of children with neurodiverse conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of mobile phones and social media and fast, short-clip videos increases ADHD-like symptoms and attention dysregulation. Multiple longitudinal studies, including analyses of more than 10,000 children, link higher screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity and ADHD symptom severity.
Let me turn to the cognitive effects of screen multitasking in adolescence. Frequent mobile phone use, particularly media multitasking, is associated with lower working memory capacity, poorer sustained attention and reduced cognitive control efficiency. The scientific consensus shows that well-supported adverse cognitive effects from the use of mobile phones and social media include weaker attention and executive function, language delays in early childhood, reduced learning efficiency, ADHD-related symptoms and atypical brain development patterns.
Earlier in the week, I was in the Chamber for the Government’s statement on their intention to halve the use of knives in our society and among young people over the next 10 years. I welcome those kinds of approaches, which protect our children and wider society. We have heard about the recent court cases in the US, and we know from leaked internal tech company documents that the social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing. They were designing in the addictive nature of their platforms, and they know that children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to do so because of their addictive nature. I would class those companies as virtual drug dealers. When people—particularly children—are exposed to the platforms they are providing, they become addicted to those platforms and unable to wean themselves off them.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman speaks to the language delays that are created by these apps. Does he agree that the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system on top of reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system—which parents are already worried about—will create extra anxiety and extra pressures, and is going to store up problems for the future if they are not tackled now?
Iqbal Mohamed
I do agree with the hon. Member. I sympathise with the Government—there are huge pressures in all policy areas, particularly children’s services, education and healthcare, and now they have to deal with the tech giants. The Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites so that people under the age of 18 could not access them. That was absolutely the right thing to do; despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that age-gating, it does project the majority of children from exposure to pornography. Now, the Government must deal with the virtual drug dealers. They must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws to obligate them to change and redesign their platforms in order to design out those harms.
Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases such as that of the 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Rose Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures; we need this Government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and platforms, and not to implement anything that aims at damage limitation. We need this Government to listen to our citizens, not to the tech giants. As such, I once again join right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House in calling on the Government to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems that are causing irreversible and unnecessary harm.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he is trying his luck. However, it is worth reminding Members—everyone has been here for the best part of two years at a bare minimum—that the guidance is very clear that, if they wish to contribute to a debate, they are under an obligation, not a gentle request, to turn up in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I call the Minister.
Olivia Bailey
With the leave of the House, I thank all Members for the contributions they have made to today’s debate. It has been a really useful, wide-ranging conversation, and I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. Important contributions have been made about safety and opportunity for all of our children.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) made a powerful speech, and I join her in thanking Ashley John-Baptiste. My hon. Friend has truly honoured her word to the children she worked with.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made a wide-ranging speech, and in response to her points on uniforms, I repeat again that we will monitor the impact of the change and conduct a post-implementation review.
On the question of our intention to act on social media, let me be clear—I think I will be repeating this lots in the course of my summation this evening—that it is not a question of whether we will act, but how we act. The Government have been clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) is a passionate campaigner on tackling hate online, and he made a characteristically erudite speech. He demanded haste following our consultation, and I can give him that guarantee. We are clear that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month’s time.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made an engaging speech, and both his speech and the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) reminded me of the broad consensus across this House about the need to act. However, he does not seem to accept the need to take the time necessary to get this right and to hear a wide range of perspectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) made compelling arguments about the dangers of the online world. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) reminded us of the challenge faced by parents when tackling these challenges—I identify with that—and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) made a powerful speech. I welcome George and Areti to the Gallery, and I thank them for their bravery and strength in campaigning in memory of their son, Christopher.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a wide-ranging speech, but he talked in particular about early childhood. I share his concerns. The research that the Department has published and the guidance we have recently published warn that too much time online and on screens can have a detrimental impact on key measures for our youngest children. That is why we have acted by issuing clear guidance to give parents the support they need to navigate that challenge.
Olivia Bailey
I will not, I am afraid.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made a moving speech that reminds us of the urgency of action. I, too, have met bereaved parents and those are the toughest meetings. I thank them for their bravery and courage. The question we have debated today is not whether we act, but how we act. I gently say to the right hon. Member that, instead of rushing to the narrow ban proposed by the other place, we need sufficient information. This Government are determined to take action to keep our children safe online, but we need to consider all perspectives and a much wider range of services and features.
I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions this evening. The Bill we have before us today will lift children out of poverty, break down the barriers to opportunity and tackle the cost of living for families. I urge Members across the House who share Labour’s ambitions for our children to support this landmark legislation.
Lords amendment 17B agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 38, but does not insist on its amendments 38A to 38D and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)
Business without Debate
Baldies Field
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that Baldies Field—a green space adjacent to Hoon Avenue and Milehouse Lane—has been used by local people for generations, and is valued by residents as an accessible open space used for walking, recreation and wellbeing; further declares that proposals affecting the site have generated significant concern across the community and that residents have raised issues relating to traffic congestion in the surrounding area and have questioned how additional development could be accommodated safely within an already pressured road network; further declares that there are concerns about flooding and drainage in the area, including existing problems following heavy rainfall; further declares that questions remain about how further development would affect the local drainage system and whether the implications have been fully addressed; and further declares that the potential loss of Baldies Field itself is a major concern as, for many people nearby, it represents one of the few remaining accessible green spaces, relied upon by individuals and families for everyday recreation and for the mental and physical wellbeing that open spaces support.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Staffordshire County Council to ensure that the concerns that have been raised are listened to carefully, to ensure full transparency about the future of the site, and to take all possible steps to protect Baldies Field for the benefit of the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003185]
Regulation of the Marmalade Market
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
At the end of October 2013, I led a debate on the regulation of jam, which caused a bit of a stir. It rightly warned of the end of the British breakfast as we know it. Thirteen years later, I have returned to discuss marmalade.
Last July, a lady called Vivien Lloyd, who inspired the debate about jam, returned to see me at one of my constituency surgeries—hopefully, she is in the Public Gallery this evening. She told me of her alarm about the arrangements being made for marmalade. This debate is particularly timely. Members may have seen that “Marmalade Madness!” was the headline of the Daily Express just a few days ago. I wondered whether it had earned a double-page spread. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Great, isn’t it?
I understand that “Paddington: The Musical” won seven Olivier awards this weekend—Paddington is the most well-known lover of marmalade in sandwiches and enjoys stratospheric popularity—but Members and the Minister will be delighted to know that I will not be breaking into song. I looked forward to welcoming interventions from hon. Members on the “Conserve-ative” Benches, but they are not here. What a disappointment! Anyway, that pun does not work very well, not just because it is a particularly corny pun, but because marmalade is in fact a preserve rather than a conserve. That is exactly the issue I wish to speak about: the enormous inaccuracy in the classification of jams, spreads and, importantly, marmalade.
Stories explaining the origins of marmalade are full of inaccuracies. One account says that Mary, Queen of Scots, was ill and requested a remedy made of oranges and sugar. Her maid supposedly whispered, “Ma’am est malade”, leading to the name of the preserve. Another story credits marmalade to Dundee, where a ship full of oranges is supposed to have sunk in the port. Resourceful Dundonians supposedly devised a way of preserving the cargo to make it last. Unfortunately, both stories are untrue. Quince jams existed throughout Europe much earlier than the dates of those stories. The French and Portuguese took their word for quince jelly from the Greek “melimēlon”, meaning sweet apple.
It seems that that lack of care for heritage can still be seen in the approach that we take to regulating our marmalade market today. As a consequence, preservers and food retailers are selling marmalades that do not comply with regulations on total sugar and fruit content, as specified in the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003. Marmalade should be 60% sugar. There are rules for the percentage of a product’s total sugar content, and for marmalade it is 60% or more. The sugar content for reduced-sugar marmalade is anything from 25% to 50%. Statisticians and mathematicians among us will have noticed that that leaves products with a total sugar content of 50% to 59% completely uncategorised, and that loophole has been exploited by many marmalade manufacturers. However, recent regulatory changes shift the nature of the problem, and the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will come into effect in the next few months and make some welcome changes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I spoke to her this morning to ascertain her thoughts on this matter. We were brought up on marmalade back in Ballywalter. My mum made marmalade. She is now 94 and not making marmalade any more, but although I am no Paddington Bear, I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast. When I say that I enjoy it, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam. Does the hon. Lady agree that my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the same consideration as her constituents, and that labelling must reflect the hard-won distinction of marmalade, and not fruit jam or jam, just for the ease of the EU?
Tessa Munt
I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades.
While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display
“energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.”
Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations.
This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed.
The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product.
The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand.
Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I confess to the House that I prefer English strawberry jam to marmalade, but my wife is an assiduous and loyal orange marmalade fan—
Adam Jogee
It must be a Northern Irish thing. She often purchases marmalade at one of the excellent shops in Newcastle-under-Lyme. May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent and interesting speech, and on giving voice to the sweet, sweet tastes of Paddington Bear himself?
Tessa Munt
I am trying so hard to avoid more references to Paddington, but you are quite right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I made the point earlier in the debate. We have had a scattering of “yous” from Ministers, Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Hon. Members have been in this place for long enough to know that they must not do it and it will not be tolerated by the Chair.
Tessa Munt
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the commitment shown by the wife of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) to marmalade. The critical thing is that it is made from citrus. I have been to Fortnum & Mason—I will probably have to apologise to them tomorrow morning—and seen strawberry marmalade, pear marmalade and all sorts of other flavours. That is rubbish—there is no such thing.
Some manufacturers use the weight of sugar in the recipe to calculate the percentage of sugar instead of testing the end product in the jar with a refractometer. To summarise, consumers are getting a lower-quality, higher-sugar product that can be made more cheaply than proper marmalade, but can be disguised as the same thing. To avoid that, I ask the Minister to ensure that marmalades have total sugar content of 60% or above, as measured with a refractometer. That way, we can protect the heritage of British marmalade.
Another concern in the marmalade market is the definition of marmalade itself. That is being flaunted in cases where producers are developing creative new preserves. Only these additional ingredients can be used in true marmalade: spirits, wine, liqueur wine, nuts, aromatic herbs, spices, vanilla, vanilla extracts and vanilline. Every year, Penrith holds the world marmalade awards. Recent winners include Nordic fusion blackcurrant and vodka marmalade, coffee heaven marmalade and yuzu, passionfruit and apricot marmalade—I had to check what the last one was, as I had no idea.
Without clear and enforced regulation, those differences are obscured. Products that fall short of the standards are still presented to consumers as marmalade, trading on the reputation of a product that they do not in truth match. That is not innovation; it is misrepresentation.
Recent regulatory changes attempt to address that by tightening definitions. Marmalade will quite rightly be more clearly defined as a citrus product, and combinations of citrus with non-citrus ingredients will no longer be permitted to use the term. That is a welcome step towards greater clarity for consumers and towards protecting the integrity of the product itself. The vast majority of marmalades are already labelled as Seville marmalade or orange marmalade, but this measure would ensure that that applies to all marmalades.
Predictably, colleagues in the Conservative party and the Reform party have leapt on the bandwagon and claimed that, due to heavy-handed EU regulation, we may no longer call marmalade marmalade. While that claim is overstated, it reflects a misunderstanding of what is actually changing. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the banana-straightening nonsense spouted in the lead-up to the EU referendum in 2016. We are not losing the word “marmalade” but refining it.
The changes ensure that what is called marmalade is, in fact, made from citrus fruit. In a post-2016 referendum context—a post-Brexit context—that takes on an added significance and irony. We were told by some that we would now have the opportunity to define, protect and champion our own food standards, rooted in our own scientific and culinary heritage. There is a real risk that by drifting towards looser definitions adopted elsewhere, we could lose just over a century of British tradition.
Accurate regulation is not about pedantry; it is about protecting consumers and quality and maintaining trust. It is about ensuring that when something is labelled as marmalade, it meets the standards that generations of Britons would expect. If we fail to uphold those standards, we risk not just eroding a definition, but failing to preserve a meaningful part of our national food heritage.
These are my requests of the Minister. First, it is still unclear what will happen to the 50% to 59% sugar marmalades. Maybe we should have three categories: reduced sugar marmalade, which is 25% to 49% sugar; preserve, which is not marmalade but has 50% to 59% sugar; and marmalade, which has 60% sugar and above. Secondly, legislation should require that sugar content be measured with a refractometer. Thirdly, I request that we have a defined list of permitted additional marmalade ingredients, as I have mentioned, and that that should be enforced.
Fourthly, we have removed the requirement to label the sugar content, with an understanding that that will be expressed in the nutritional values information. That is doubly problematic for marmalade, because it is often made by artisan producers, who sometimes do not label their nutritional values, and, as I discussed in my speech, the 60% sugar content is so critical to producing something that is actually marmalade. My penultimate point is that legislation should require that, at a minimum, the sugar content is made clear, either as part of the nutritional values or just by having the sugar content on a separate label.
Finally, the new rules require that marmalade be labelled “citric marmalade” or “Seville orange marmalade.” That is fine, but it leaves the door open to so-called strawberry marmalade or raspberry marmalade. Can we ensure that the new legislation permits that only citrus fruits can precede the word “marmalade” on labels?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and providing an opportunity for me to outline the regulation of the marmalade market. As Paddington Bear wisely reminds us:
“A wise bear always keeps a marmalade sandwich in his hat in case of emergency.”
As hon. Members may notice, I do not have a hat, and I hope that we do not have an emergency. I certainly do not have a sandwich, so I hope that we will not get into any sticky situations, although I thought that we were getting into some spicy situations when I was listening to the hon. Lady’s speech.
After the flurry of media stories over Easter about marmalade, this is a topical debate, but I think Paddington himself would be mildly exasperated by all the marmalade nonsense that has been spread around in the papers. In response, I want to reassure Members of the House that absolutely nothing will be changing about the composition of marmalade. Despite misinformation that has now spread far and wide, there is no requirement for retailers or producers to change an orange marmalade label to a citrus marmalade label; in fact, the orange marmalade that is sold in the Tea Room is able to be exported, and will still be able to be exported once these changes come into effect in the European Union.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, marmalade is often already labelled as orange marmalade on UK supermarket shelves. This is in compliance with EU rules past and present, and many British manufacturers already meet international labelling standards voluntarily so that their products can be sold overseas. After our new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, we will simply support that trade by cutting unnecessary red tape with our largest market; we will not be subverting the meaning or composition of marmalade. I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will welcome that news.
As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, marmalade is a product steeped in tradition and loved by millions at the breakfast table. It delivers a perfect blend of sweet and tangy fruit preserve, made from the juice and peel of citrus fruits simmered with sugar and water. The well-known version is made from bitter orange, most commonly using Seville oranges, but other citrus fruits such as lemons and limes make an equally delightful change and are becoming more popular. While the marmalade we know today is a symbol of British breakfasts, its origins stem from Portugal, where—as the hon. Lady said—it was made from quince and known as marmelada. It was then imported into England in the 16th century from Mediterranean countries. Modern marmalade has existed since the 1700s, when, in Scotland, water was added to make it less solid. It was the people of Scotland who then made marmalade a breakfast item, and the rest of Britain soon followed. Interestingly, the word “marmalade” in the English language comes from the French, which came from the Portuguese word “marmelada”. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it started with the Greek “melimilon”, which means sweet apple. As is the case in many such circumstances, marmalade is more international than I suspect many people who are using it as a symbol of UK patriotism understand.
Our current domestic rules for marmalade are regulated by the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003, which implemented the assimilated EU directive 2001/113/EC. Those rules help protect the quality and reputation of these important products and ensure that they meet consumer expectations. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, our domestic rules lay down compositional standards for jam, jelly, marmalade and other similar products, meaning that marmalade and jelly marmalade must contain a minimum amount of citrus fruit—200 grams per kilogram of finished product—of which a set amount, 75 grams, must come from the endocarp. For those who do not know what the endocarp is, it is the segments and pulp of a citrus fruit. As the hon. Lady also pointed out, the soluble solids are also set at a minimum level of 60%. Very few other ingredients are permitted, and only in restricted amounts—for example, no food colours are allowed. I understand that the hon. Lady is very familiar with these regulations, because she was particularly active when changes to the minimum levels of sugar in jams were proposed by the UK in 2013. Food policy is devolved in the UK, but those standards are similarly accepted and set across all the devolved Governments.
I am pleased to say that our domestic UK market for marmalade is buoyant—it is worth £67 million. Our leading UK brand, Robertson’s, delivered £9 million in sales in the last year, and Mackays—the fastest-growing marmalade brand—is now the UK’s second largest and Scotland’s No. 1, with 19% of market share in Scotland and 7.6% across the UK. These successful brands are excellent examples of products already referencing “orange marmalade” in the name. Marmalade is synonymous with Paddington. In fact, it was reported in 2014 that marmalade sales soared following the release of the “Paddington” movie—the so-called Paddington effect.
As promised in our manifesto, this Government are focused on resetting our relations with the European Union and our closest trading partners. We have agreed with the EU to establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary area. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met the French Agriculture Minister, Annie Genevard, she said that
“our friendship is built on co-operation, on mutual benefit and on a shared understanding that our security and prosperity are bound together”.
Alongside the Windsor framework, the SPS agreement will make moving goods easier, cheaper and more predictable. That is not just between the UK and the EU, but within the UK, too, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is about more than trade statistics. Short, regulated, high-standard supply chains between trusted neighbours are the foundation of resilient food security. We expect the agreement to cover the breakfast rules, to which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills referred in her contribution, including the jam and marmalade rules that I mentioned earlier.
Members may be aware that in 2024, the EU updated its rules on jams and made some minor changes to marmalade provisions. In the EU, consumers use both “jam” and “marmalade” to refer to jams made from non-citrus fruits. That is what they have always done. To accommodate different linguistic preferences, the EU adapted its rules to allow the equivalent to marmalade to be used for the term jam, where that was commonplace in a member state’s market. That is an option that a member state can choose to implement.
To avoid confusion with jam, the EU updated the reserved term of what we know here as marmalade to citrus marmalade, but producers can still simply name the flavour of the citrus fruit—orange marmalade or lemon and lime—and have consumers understand the precise nature of that product. The change will not apply to jelly marmalade, because there is no provision for jelly to be used interchangeably with marmalade, and so no confusion will arise. Aligning with the EU rules would mean that a small change to our marmalade description rules would have to be made, but as most jars already list the citrus used, the real-world impact would be minimal and consumers are unlikely to notice any difference.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister enormously for her explanation, and I am pleased that there is no intention to damage our trade in any way. We should boost trade of this well-known product with its unique qualities. My constituent would be particularly concerned about the level of sugar. I know I have asked some detailed questions—I have a copy of those questions for her, so if I may, I will hand those to her after this debate—but I am also particularly concerned about the proportion of sugar and those old Bristolian standards that were set over 100 years ago. I think the Minister’s view is the same.
Dame Angela Eagle
There have been no changes to the amount of sugar required for marmalade to be marmalade. If the hon. Member is hinting, as I think she might be, that various nefarious producers are masquerading non-marmalade as actual marmalade in the UK sense of the word, she should probably tell me, or at least tell local authority trading standards officers what is going on in the local area. They can then test to see what spreads or preserves are masquerading as marmalade. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, if she wants to hand me those questions.
The Government are committed to supporting and protecting traditional British food products such as marmalade. We do that through meaningful regulation, which supports high food standards and covers marmalade. As I hope the hon. Lady knows, given the SPS deal, we will be aligning with some of the EU’s rules—as, indeed, we already do in respect of EU retained law—which ought to make it easier for consumers to know what they are buying.
Question put and agreed to.
Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026)
Deferred Divisions
18:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 169 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 101 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 157 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 90 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 70 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 21 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury—TDDI—is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. The change will be for TDDI provided in sports grounds and gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.
Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000. The subsequent Manchester Arena inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that those shortcomings may have been present in other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has outlined initial concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations where unregulated provision has resulted in harm. The Government are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important to consider the impacts carefully, and I am pleased that they have now been laid.
This statutory instrument brings TDDI at events into line with hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes, where it is already regulated. That means that a provider delivering TDDI at an event must register with the CQC and comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in our healthcare system. Some of these providers will already be registered to provide TDDI in other settings, and the process will be quicker for them.
There has been some confusion about what TDDI actually is. It includes a wide range of treatments from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear to Members that TDDI does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.
To support providers to make this transition, they will have significant time to prepare. I can assure everyone involved that there will be a 15-month period in which providers can register and the CQC can process registrations before regulation becomes enforceable. The CQC will consult on guidance and produce supporting materials to help determine whether registration is required. The provision to allow registration will come into force on 7 September 2026. It will not become an offence to provide TDDI as an unregulated provider until 6 December 2027. In developing this policy, the Government have considered a range of options carefully, guided by the Manchester Arena inquiry findings. We concluded that partial removal would risk fragmenting provision, and a threshold based on event size would not reflect risk.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Chair and I represent the great city of Manchester, and one of its darkest moments was Salman Abedi’s arena attack in 2017. These provisions are long overdue, and I thank the Minister and the Government for taking this action.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly, as all hon. Members in and around the Manchester area have, since the unconscionable events of the Manchester Arena bombing. Regulation such as this could not have come into force without their representations in addition to the inquiry’s findings, so I am grateful to him and other colleagues.
That is why we are taking forward a coherent package, developing non-statutory guidance for providers and organisers alongside the change to secondary legislation to remove the two exemptions and bring TDDI at events within CQC regulatory scope. Stakeholders were concerned that smaller events could be targeted by substandard and unregulated providers. Size does not always correlate with risk, and the Government are determined not to leave those smaller events exposed to inadequate care.
I have heard concerns from stakeholders about the impact on those providing TDDI, such as clinicians who often do so voluntarily, and the potential impact that a requirement to pay to register with the CQC could have on them and the wider event sector. The CQC will therefore commence a consultation in May, which will provide opportunities for further consideration of the appropriate implementation of the regulations for sectors such as individual volunteer clinicians and mountain rescue services.
Some stakeholders have asked whether the CQC is the right body to regulate TDDI. Does it have the capability to do so, given the issues identified by Dr Penny Dash in her review? First, the CQC is the statutory independent regulator for health and social care in England, and it already regulates TDDI in a number of other settings. Extending that regulation to the additional settings outlined will bring more consistency for patient safety and quality of provision.
Moreover, this is an essential amendment to the regulations. The Manchester Arena inquiry recommended action to address gaps in the standard of healthcare provision at events, and it pointed specifically to statutory regulation and enforcement by a regulator. The Government have accepted those recommendations, and this policy reflects our intention to implement them.
Secondly, I will address the CQC’s capability to act as a regulator. It is right to acknowledge the findings of Dr Penny Dash in her 2024 review. Those critiques, I am glad to say, have been catalysts for change. The CQC has accepted the high-level recommendations and is taking forward targeted reforms, including stabilising its regulatory platform and improving the registration experience for providers.
The CQC has set out further steps to improve its inspection framework and strengthen transparency on ratings, characteristics and how judgments are made. This addresses the concerns highlighted by Dr Dash’s review and will help ensure timely, risk-based assessments—exactly what event healthcare providers will need as they register.
Extending CQC regulation to event healthcare is the safest and most straightforward route. It leverages an existing regulatory system, answers the inquiry’s call to action, is being implemented alongside reforms strengthening the regulator’s performance, and closes this long-standing gap in public safety.
By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true their commitments, fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and its drive to improve patient and citizen safety. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. Before discussing the regulations, I want to acknowledge their origin. The horrific Manchester Arena attack killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. I express my condolences and good wishes to all those affected by that vicious attack.
Those running events such as concerts are required to comply with the law, to follow Health and Safety Executive rules, including the purple guide, and—of particular relevance to this debate—to ensure that they have appropriate medical cover. I thank Sir John Saunders for his work on the inquiry. He found very severe deficiencies in the medical cover that night.
SMG had contracted Emergency Training UK to provide medical cover. The person leading that organisation said he had a valid major incident medical management and support qualification—I am sure the Minister has done that qualification, as I have, because hospital MIMMS covers the response to a major incident. He also said that he had an Advanced Life Support Group qualification in advanced life support, but he did not. Again, that is a qualification that both the Minister and I have. I have taught on one of its courses.
This individual was not a health professional, so he was not regulated by the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council. He did not provide adequate training, equipment or record keeping, and he employed staff to do a job for which they were not qualified. Such events are required to have a certain level of medical cover, and although the staff he employed that night did their best, they did not have the level of medical training they should have had. He performed an inadequate risk assessment. Particularly horrifically, he had worked in the arena providing medical cover for a long time.
Of course, most of the time, all was well. However, the system, such as this individual had one, was weak, and when faced with the attack and multiple seriously injured casualties, fell apart. The consequence is that, despite the best efforts of his staff and many others who were present, a poorer quality of healthcare was given than should have been provided had he done his job properly.
Quite reasonably, that caused anger and questions. How on earth could someone be allowed to set up a service to deliver healthcare and safety provision, not through volunteers but as a company, and not provide the proper staff, training or equipment? It was either dishonest or incompetent. It was disgraceful, and the inquiry report was rightly scathing.
The report recommended that the regulation of event medical care be considered, saying that the CQC had suggested that it was the right organisation to provide that. It also recommended that the Government set a standard of medical care for different events to which individuals should be held to ensure consistency, and strongly recommended that sanctions be put in place so that people who do not comply, such as the company in this case, would be subject to criminal or civil sanctions, or both, for their actions. I was outraged when I read the report. Of course, we all want the highest quality healthcare for everybody on all occasions, but we have to consider soberly whether these regulations are the best way to achieve the outcome we all want to see.
The regulations remove exemptions for on-site healthcare at sports events and music festivals, but there is a question of scale. Manchester Arena holds up to 21,000 people, and sporting events or festivals can have many more participants and spectators. There are strong arguments that such events, which usually have commercial healthcare providers, should provide a great service with suitably qualified staff, and should face sanctions if they do not. However, not all sports events are at Wembley, Silverstone or Twickenham, and not all music events are Lost Village, Glastonbury or Manchester Arena.
What will be the effect on grassroots sport? Some small-volume events are high-risk sports and need medical cover, as the Minister suggested, but how small is too small to require healthcare? What regulation will the Government put in place for that? As the regulations also affect volunteers, will they discourage volunteering in healthcare provision? If so, will that affect the ability of sports events to take place, and how many events will be affected? The Government have admitted that they do not know the answer.
The other small peculiarity is whether medically qualified staff will need to step back in favour of non-medically qualified staff who have a first aid certificate to avoid the need for registration, which I will come to in a moment. Will cover, in some cases, be downgraded to first aid cover that, unlike TDDI cover, does not require registration? If there is such a downgrade, will it be good or bad for patients?
What is first aid? The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 define it as
“cases where a person will need help from a medical practitioner or nurse, treatment for the purpose of preserving life and minimising the consequences of injury and illness until such help is obtained”,
or as the
“treatment of minor injuries which would otherwise receive no treatment or which do not need treatment by a medical practitioner or nurse”.
As the Minister said, first aid will remain exempt from registration, but it is not entirely clear whether that remains the case where it is provided by a healthcare professional. The CQC website says that first aid is exempt where it is provided by a non-healthcare professional with first aid training or by a healthcare professional who is acting in an emergency or unexpected situation, but if a person is at a sports event specifically to provide healthcare for people who might have an injury, is that an unexpected event? Does it count as first aid, or is it TDDI?
I note that many of the people who responded to the consultation said that it is not clear where first aid finishes and TDDI starts. It is important that the Government define that more clearly. If they do not, there is a risk that people will not provide healthcare when they could provide it perfectly competently, because they are concerned they do not have the registration status to do so and fear the sanctions that may be imposed, when those sanctions have been decided.
Some of this might be covered by the guidance. The recent Government scoping exercise planned 49 types of guidance, including the purple book and the green book. But it is notable that whereas the Health and Safety Executive used to publish the purple and green books or their equivalents together, they are now provided separately; the purple book costs £50 to read an online copy and the green book costs £30 to read an online copy. That might not be of any particular consequence to Twickenham, Wembley or Manchester Arena, but it is of consequence to people running very small events, whether sporting, cultural or musical.
Can the Minister say when the event healthcare standards will be published? He is asking us to vote to hold people to a standard he has not written yet. Will it be free to access? What consideration will be given to support specific courses? The Rugby Football Union, for example, provides specific courses for healthcare provision at its matches. What role will it play in event healthcare standards? What provision will be made for children? Children are not just small adults and specific healthcare considerations may apply.
Another issue, which the Minister himself touched on, is whether the CQC is fit for purpose. The Secretary of State said that it is not. I have not heard the Minister say what additional resources will be provided to the CQC to deliver the additional regulations. There is a difference between healthcare providers in a muddy field or on the side of a hill compared with medical care providers in a hospital with a full suite of equipment. What extra training will the CQC need to regulate this? What will be provided? Is the Minister confident that it can be done, particularly in time for the deadlines imposed by the regulations we are being asked to vote for today, given that the event healthcare standard has not even been written or published yet, and given the Government’s propensity to delay the publication of things such as the workforce plan, which was due over a year ago and has still not been published?
Another issue is mountain rescue. I should declare an interest as a former member of a mountain rescue service—the Minister is smiling. The service follows insurance licensing rules and the purple book. It also has training for remote rescue medical technicians that is governed by the Mountain Rescue England and Wales medical sub-committee under the auspices of the University of Lancashire. It has expressed significant concerns. First, if there is a healthcare professional on the team, what effect do these regulations have? Will they be able to carry the controlled drugs that they are able to provide for the rescue services if they need to administer healthcare on the side of the mountain? These are volunteers, not paid employees. Who will do the paperwork, who will pay for it and who will fund it? Will the Government consider exempting mountain rescue services and volunteers from the charges?
Will England be a less attractive place for events? The costs and numbers appear far higher than the Government estimate. Sports bodies have done a survey that suggests that almost half of doctors will withdraw from doing voluntary events because of the regulations. What about the wider costs for sports and events? They currently face costs for national insurance, employment costs, rising inflation and Martyn’s law, and now there will be the cost of these regulations. What sanctions will there be? It will be against the law to breach the regulations, but what will happen to people who do?
What will be the effect on international sporting events? Some international teams bring their own medical teams with them. The individual medical team applies for temporary GMC registration, usually a couple of months before they come over for events. They may provide TDDI to those in their care. Will that be affected by the regulations? Will they need to register or not? Physiotherapists too have asked whether the care they provide will count as TDDI or as first aid. Will they need to register?
In the previous Government’s assessment in 2023, the cost was put at £1,200 per registration and an ongoing £1,900 per annum. What will be the effect of meeting the event healthcare standard on the smallest events and how will volunteers manage those costs?
The Government have created an exemption for transport within a site. I want to understand why. For example, my husband was injured in an accident at Silverstone a couple of years ago. He received healthcare in the car, and then as he was being transported to the ambulance building within the complex. He was given excellent care, for which I am very grateful. The helicopter then came and took him to Coventry hospital. Why have the Government chosen to regulate the on-site care that a person receives in the vehicle they were driving, for example, and the care provided in the hospital, but not in the gap between the two? That seems a little peculiar to me. The Minister has obviously thought about it carefully, and I wonder what reason he will give.
The healthcare professional in charge at some events can be quite junior. I went to an event with 18,000 people and met the medical team there, which was led by a doctor three years post qualification. That seemed quite a junior doctor to be covering a whole medical team. I also noted that the responsible officer was his employee. Although there is no rule that stops a responsible officer being an employee, I should explain that the responsible officer is the doctor who signs off on one’s annual appraisal and General Medical Council revalidation every five years. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest if a person’s boss is asking to be signed off. Can the Minister please look at that to see whether it is appropriate a responsible officer to be an employee, as that was also happening in an event setting?
Although I think the draft regulations are born from a good place with an important motivation, and it is important that they are done correctly, we do not currently know their cost, effects, scope or standards, including their effects on grassroots event boards. We therefore cannot have confidence that they will achieve the goal we want. Everyone in this room—everyone in the country—wants everyone to receive the best possible healthcare, but I am not convinced at this stage that the Government have really got this right.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I first want to express my condolences to all those affected by the Manchester Arena attack.
The Lib Dems support bringing providers under CQC regulation, as the draft regulations would do, but we need to be careful about the impact on smaller organisations, as the shadow Minister says.
I reiterate concerns raised by mountain rescue teams about the impacts that the draft regulations will have on their ability to provide services at temporary sporting events in remote locations, such as fell races or mountain bike events. They have emphatically said to us that they will cease providing rescue cover at those events if the regulations are applied. Will the Minister meet mountain rescue representatives and consider their calls to amend the legislation to provide an exemption on rescue cover? Because of those concerns, the Lib Dems will abstain today.
Dr Ahmed
Thank you again for chairing the Committee, Mr Stringer. The shadow Minister is very knowledgeable about these matters. Like her, I have been an attending doctor at events, and I am very sensitive to the representations she made, as well those made by other colleagues over the last few weeks and months. Much of what she talked about relates to the definition of “quality”, but defining that is not for the Government but for experts, clinicians and regulatory bodies, which is why it is so important that we give the CQC the power to do this.
I do not want small events and village fêtes to be overregulated; that is not the intention of this legislation. Nor do I want individual doctors, clinicians and other volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees, and we will look into this with the CQC. Given the changes that have been made to the CQC governance architecture, I believe that it is absolutely the right body to do this work, which is basically an extension of what it already does in hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries up and down the land.
The tragic events in Manchester highlighted the care gap, and this Government intend to ensure that it is closed for the benefit of our citizens attending events up and down the county. By amending the CQC’s regulation, event organisers and those attending events can be reassured that the medical cover provided is adequate and of a suitable quality. Regardless of the size and type of event, a basal level of quality must be assured.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister may be about to answer exactly what constitutes first aid, but I have been looking up the definition of TDDI on the CQC site, which seems to cover mental health. Thinking particularly about festivals, where health incidents arising from drug misuse may lead to associated psychotic episodes and suicidal ideation, would the legislation cover volunteer organisations helping people on that side of things?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point; I am very happy for the CQC to take that away and answer her specific question. On the issue of what constitutes first aid or more complex medical care, all of us who have been medical cover at events have sometimes come across the incongruous situation where being a medically qualified doctor is sometimes not enough to provide first aid. Those incongruities have existed for as long as I have been in practice, and I do not think the regulations particularly change that. It is often down to individuals’ interpretation of first aid, as well as their insurance cover, and I am sure that we do not want to overly complicate this matter.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Lady knows that I often indulge her interventions, but not today. These regulations are a response to a public inquiry and are designed to ensure that the CQC has the scope and oversight of events and arenas. It is for the CQC over the next 15 months to provide some of these definitions and clarity, and they are absolutely the right people to do it. On that basis, I ask colleagues to support this very necessary measure to protect those the people we were elected to serve.
Question put.
Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The draft order was laid before the House on 26 February 2026. Automatic enrolment is a major policy success that has substantially increased workplace pension participation. The National Employment Savings Trust has been central to that progress and remains critical to the system’s continued effectiveness. NEST now supports nearly 14 million members, around one third of the working-age population, providing a low-cost, accessible pension scheme for employers and workers across the UK.
Subject to Parliament’s approval, the draft order amends the National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, which sets out the legislative framework for NEST’s operation. The amendment will allow NEST to expand its retirement options to include flexi-access drawdown. FAD is a retirement income option that allows individuals with a defined contribution pension to withdraw any amount from their pension pot, while keeping the remaining funds invested.
The draft order also enables NEST to offer a scheme pension paid directly by the scheme administrator, or through an appointed insurer, and it gives the trustee authority on a member’s death to provide a dependant’s scheme pension or drawdown pension to eligible individuals, including dependants, nominees and successors.
Together, these measures give NEST the flexibility to offer a full range of retirement and post-death benefits consistent with other major pension schemes and wider industry practice. The Pension Schemes Bill includes guided retirement measures that will require pension schemes to design and make available default pension plans with a sustainable income for the majority of savers. The reforms made through this amendment will ensure that NEST can deliver on those expectations and provide its members with a level of choice, flexibility and support comparable to those of other large-scale providers.
NEST members currently have three main options at retirement: they can buy an annuity; take an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum; or take their pot as cash or transfer to another provider. Since NEST was created, we recognise that pension freedoms have transformed the market. Savers elsewhere can access a far wider and more flexible range of retirement choices—flexibilities that the 2010 Order prevents NEST from offering. As a result, 14 million NEST members are left with fewer in-scheme options than those in comparable pension arrangements elsewhere, which cannot be right or fair.
In the 2023 consultation, “Helping savers understand their pensions choices”, most of the 46 industry and member groups that responded supported allowing NEST to provide default pension options. They recognised NEST’s scale and unique role, and they agreed that its members should receive fair and equivalent treatment, while also being clear that NEST should not gain any commercial advantage. Since the consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions has worked closely with NEST and the wider pensions industry to uphold the principle of fairness.
That work culminates in the amendment before us today, which will allow NEST’s 14 million members to benefit from modern, flexible retirement choices, without distorting competition across the market. Without this change, NEST—as the largest master trust in the country—would be unable to offer flexi-access drawdown or fully meet the expectations of guided retirement, including providing the vast majority of its members with a simple, dependable default income in later life. That would fall hardest on NEST members, many of whom are lower-paid workers, and therefore most in need of secure and straightforward retirement income options.
I am sure all Committee members would agree that we cannot allow that group of savers to miss out on a safe, dependable default pension income, particularly at a time when rising cost of living pressures make a reliable and predictable retirement income more important than ever. I commend the draft order to the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today.
Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times.
Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots?
The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Broadly speaking, the Liberal Democrats support this measure. However, we note that an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions suggests that 77% of NEST members are likely to change their behaviour: a huge number of people will be looking for advice.
As the Minister will be aware, one of the many amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats to the Pension Schemes Bill called for free, impartial advice to be made available to those people when they are looking at their pensions and other issues. I invite the Minister to say a few words on whether the Government believe that the guidance infrastructure is sufficient for the members of this scheme and others to access the free, impartial advice that they need when making such big decisions.
Andrew Western
I welcome the broad support from both colleagues who have spoken. I was surprised that the hon. Member for St Albans resisted the temptation to point out that describing the coalition Government as the Cameron Government when things are positive is a particularly interesting tack; I credit Steve Webb for a lot of the positive work on auto-enrolment and broader pension changes.
On the FAD changes, I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s support. This is an important set of changes, and I am delighted that he is supporting them—not least because his Government consulted on the issue back in ’22-23. Given the broad support, I think we can all agree that this is an overdue change. It is one that I welcome.
On the question of the use of secondary regulations and the concern that the industry has in that regard, I will take that on the chin: the industry is making a fair criticism and we will engage with it on that. On the particulars of this change, as a result of the consultation we know that the industry is broadly content with what is proposed here; I hope that that is part of the reason why the Opposition has determined not to oppose these changes.
On the question of revisiting previous amendments, including the Liberal Democrat one, we will not be looking to reverse previous decisions that the Government have made—the shadow Minister is clearly doing his job in asking us to do so—and that includes decisions on mandation changes.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
If we are going to offer flexi-access drawdown, does the Minister agree that it would be better if members of defined contribution schemes had greater awareness of what their pension schemes were invested in? The latest research suggests that more than 50% of people in DC schemes do not know what they are invested in. To make informed decisions, does it not behove all pension fund holders to make themselves aware of what they are invested in?
Andrew Western
I suggest that it is always good practice for an individual to look at how their pensions and other investments are invested. I am more than happy to ask the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of whether we are looking at any work in this space to enable people to have greater access to that information. It is best if I take that question away and come back.
It is also best if I come back to the hon. Member for St Albans on her question about behavioural change. As the hon. Member said, 77% is a significant number when we are talking about 14 million members. Guided retirement sets out the principles and framework for how schemes should support the vast majority of members with the big decisions as they move into saving for retirement. We will clearly need to do a range of work to ensure that proper support is available in the necessary amount, but I will ensure that she receives an update on the specific activities that the Department is undertaking to move us forward in that regard. It is a reasonable question, and I will ensure that she gets a detailed response.
The amendment itself simply enables NEST to provide for the accumulation options required to deliver on the broad principles of the changes that we are seeking to make. Given the overall support for the measures, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household (Nesil Caliskan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
I cannot tell you, Mr Twigg, how very delighted I am to be opening this debate. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why they matter, why change is needed and how the Government’s proposals strike the right balance between protecting consumers and supporting a successful travel sector.
As I think all hon. Members would recognise, the travel sector plays a vital role in the lives of millions of people across the UK. A holiday is often the most significant discretionary purchase a family makes in a year, and our constituents will often spend many weeks saving for it. Holidays are a source of joy, support people’s wellbeing, bring people together and help families to explore new places in the UK and overseas. The sector is also economically significant, supporting around £58 billion of the UK’s economic output and more than 1 million jobs.
Package holidays remain a central part of the market, and the UK package holiday sector alone was valued at around £11 billion in 2022. From high street travel agents to airlines, accommodation providers and small domestic tourism businesses, package holidays are a central part of the market. Each year, around 15 million to 20 million people in the UK take a package holiday, often choosing them over other types of travel because of their added convenience and protections. The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 are the cornerstone of consumer protection in the sector, and the changes we propose will support businesses to thrive and grow while ensuring robust consumer safeguards.
The package travel regulations exist to make the market work effectively. They give consumers confidence when they are paying for travel in advance, often months before departure, and give businesses a clear framework in which to operate. In practical terms, the regulations provide a framework of financial protection if a company becomes insolvent, require clear information to be given before booking, set out responsibilities if something goes wrong during a holiday, and protect consumers from unexpected price rises after a booking has been made. Those protections matter both to people and to the industry, but they can only work well if they are clear, understood and proportionate. [Interruption.] Do I continue, Mr Twigg?
Nesil Caliskan
An additional pressure has just entered the room.
Why and what changes are needed? Over time, it has become clear that parts of the current framework are not working as well as intended and are creating confusion for consumers, as well as unnecessary complexity for businesses. Having engaged extensively with a range of stakeholders across industry and consumer groups, we have prioritised a number of targeted reforms to support both consumers and traders.
First, we will remove the category of linked travel arrangements altogether. Currently, those exist as looser arrangements than holiday packages that require businesses to take out insolvency protections. However, there is clear evidence that they are not achieving their purpose. Many consumers do not understand when they are protected and when they are not, and many businesses struggle to understand exactly what their obligations are. That uncertainty benefits no one. It can undermine consumer confidence, increase the number of disputes and place unnecessary burdens on businesses, especially small operators.
Our changes will mean that, in the future, when consumers make bookings in circumstances that closely resemble a package—such as booking multiple travel services through the same trader in a single visit—they will now receive a full package of protections. That will align the law more closely with how people understand their bookings in practice and will strengthen consumer protection. At the same time, we will reduce burdens on businesses that simply facilitate a later booking of a second service within 24 hours. That will allow, for example, domestic tourism businesses to refer customers to one another without triggering wider obligations, supporting collaboration and growth while ensuring that consumers remain protected under wider consumer law.
Secondly, recognising the complex set of relationships that are required to organise a package holiday, we will introduce new provisions to clarify requirements around refunds and redress for businesses working with third parties. When services are cancelled, travel organisers will now benefit from refunds from those third parties within 14 days, bringing their rights of refund in line with those consumers. We will also update provisions to give organisers greater clarity about their ability to obtain redress from third party suppliers. That will help ensure that financial risk sits more fairly across the supply chain.
Let me turn to the impact on consumers and businesses. Strong and consistent protections build consumer confidence to book package holidays, which supports demand and benefits compliant businesses across the travel sector. For consumers, the changes will make the regulations clearer and easier to understand by removing the confusing linked travel arrangements category and clarifying when package rules apply. Clearer rules reduce disputes and uncertainty, helping consumers to book with confidence and reinforcing trust in the travel market. Consumers return to businesses that treat them fairly, creating growth that supports the economy.
For businesses that provide package holidays, the proposals reduce unnecessary complexity and support more straightforward compliance. At the same time, clarifying the right to redress from third party suppliers helps to ensure that costs fall to where failures occur, ensuring a fairer distribution of financial risk. That makes it easier for businesses to plan, manage cash flow and work collaboratively across the sector. Subject to parliamentary approval, the new regulations will commence in April 2027, to allow some time for travel operators to adapt their approach for the new arrangements.
In summary, the regulations underpin the complex but vital relationship between consumers and travel businesses. Consumers rely on businesses to deliver holidays that are often paid for well in advance. Businesses rely on consumer confidence to invest, operate and grow. The regulations help that relationship to function by setting clear rights and responsibilities on both sides.
The changes we are making preserve the core bargain—strong, trusted consumer protections alongside a framework that is workable and proportionate for business. The reforms demonstrate the Government’s commitment to maintaining strong consumer protections, while also reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, to create an environment where travel businesses can thrive, contributing to economic growth across the county. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair presiding over us, Mr Twigg. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for setting out the regulations. It is clear that this is a matter of great importance across Government, and it is an important matter for the Opposition, too. In fact, the regulations carry on work that the Conservatives started—work that the Labour Government are now continuing.
The aim has always been for reforms that support our domestic tourism and hospitality industries, while still providing appropriate protections for consumers. That is exactly what our goal should be with all regulations. I am pleased that, in this area at least, the Government seem to recognise that growth is increasingly being held back by red tape that brings little benefit to anyone. At least one of the four changes before us reduces regulation, which is a good thing and something that I applaud.
While I welcome the sensible measures to alleviate the regulatory burden, however, we must always remember that there is little point having pro-growth deregulation while increasing anti-growth taxation. Over the past two years, many in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries have felt like a target—in fact, many have felt like target No. 1—when it comes to additional red tape and higher taxes. At least two of the four changes we are considering still act to increase regulation. I have a few questions on those changes.
First, as type A linked travel arrangements become absorbed into the package definition, in the explanatory memorandum the Department has clearly set out that this will increase the regulatory burden. The ongoing compliance costs for businesses offering those services will increase. Can the Minister now give us an estimate of how many businesses the Department feels this will impact, and can she confirm that she has at least met with some of those businesses to hear their views on how the regulations will impact their day-to-day operations?
Secondly, as the Government Whip set out, the regulations also establish a 14-day period for the refund of cancelled services. Can the Minister therefore set out the rationale for arriving at that 14-day period? When the Government come up with these periods, I am always interested to know how they arrived at, say, 14 days rather than another period. Is there a specific reason for that number of days?
Finally, I was contacted overnight by Expedia Group, which has set out its detailed thoughts on the regulations. I will write to the Department with the concerns it has raised. Its requests include that the Government publish guidance defining the terms “single visit” and “facilitate” within the regulations before commencement takes effect, so that operators such as Expedia have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition. On that specific point, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain her views.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Thank you for chairing, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for arriving late—I was confused about whether there was another Division in the Chamber. I thank the Government Whip for stepping in and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, for his remarks.
The regulations build on legislation from the previous Government, and we have worked really closely with the sector, which is an important driver of growth in the UK. Great holidays bring so much joy to consumers all over the country, and our reforms are all about strengthening the package—which the hon. Gentleman touched on—for the travel framework, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, while clarifying those obligations to ease the burdens on business, supporting the sector and supporting a healthy and thriving economy.
The shadow Minister asked a couple of questions that I will respond to, first on the cost and the impact on businesses. The policy will deliver a net benefit to business of £19 million over 10 years, with £98 million in costs outweighed by £117 million in savings. The analysis considered a range of sources, including feedback from the consultation.
The best estimate we can point to from published analysis is from the 2023 impact assessment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, as the hon. Gentleman might know. That analysis estimates that 13,979 UK businesses sell packages. I hope that provides him with clarity on the costs.
Gareth Davies
Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?
Kate Dearden
I was getting to those points—I thank the hon. Gentleman for the nudge.
Kate Dearden
We have expressed our intention for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2027. These regulations are commencing next year to give businesses almost a year to implement the changes, and they have been aware of these changes since the Government response in December.
We have been working closely with industry to develop guidance and will continue to do so in the coming months. Officials have already conducted engagement and consulted on the regulation at pace. It is really important for these changes that we work closely with the industry and that it welcomes them. We want to make sure we work closely with the industry on that guidance.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 14-day refund period for businesses. Travel organisers are required to refund consumers within 14 days of cancellation, but sometimes that will be because of a failure from a third party. Introducing a 14-day refund period for businesses from those third parties will create more certainty for travel organisers, helping them to manage cash flow and recover costs. That covers most of his questions, but I am happy to answer any more if he has any. Otherwise, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Walsall Road, Lichfield
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cost of Heating Oil
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.
It would be fair to say that North Norfolk is quite rural. We are proud of that, and we enjoy the beauty and tranquillity that it affords those of us lucky enough to live there, but in the decades I have lived there and all the time I have been campaigning and working for the people of North Norfolk, I have seen too many ways in which we seem to be punished or penalised for rurality.
Much of the North sea gas that is used across the country passes through the North Norfolk countryside, deep underground and at high pressure. A vast amount of gas is onshored at the Bacton gas terminal, one of my constituency’s largest employers, and then sent out across the country. Despite our being the custodians of that vital resource, around half of my constituency is not connected to the gas grid. Of those who are not connected, more than half rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their home and provide hot water. These homes, and the families in them, vary widely. The homes range from listed buildings that cannot be retrofitted to run-of-the-mill family homes that happen to be somewhere with no gas connection and were built long before the advent of heat pumps and other green energy solutions.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Vikki Slade
I am so glad that he made it to the Chamber in time. Will he comment on the fact that families who live in very old properties—I have properties on Charborough Park and in Shapwick that are National Trust properties or belong to old estates—are already facing much higher costs to run their homes because they are solid-wall and thatched?
Steff Aquarone
I completely agree. As I said, these homes vary widely, as do the families that live in them, but what connects all these places and people is a unique and worrying exposure to oil price shocks impacting their daily lives.
Running a home on heating oil means buying energy in advance, in bulk and irregularly throughout the year. Households know that even half-filling an oil tank will cost them hundreds of pounds. They expect and budget for that. But since the outbreak of Donald Trump’s war in Iran, they have seen the price of heating oil skyrocket far beyond the changes in the price of crude oil.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Many of my rural constituents are also paying the price of President Trump’s latest exploration into market manipulation. Given that heating oil customers are not protected by the Ofgem price cap, will he join me in calling on the Government to take the Liberal Democrats’ line and implement such a price cap for heating oil customers?
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Given that between 60% and 65% of households in Northern Ireland rely on home heating oil, whereas 80% of the rest of the UK relies on gas, does the hon. Member agree that there is a strong case for the Government to enhance existing support schemes to reflect Northern Ireland’s higher dependence on home heating oil?
Steff Aquarone
Again, I agree, for reasons I will come on to. I will just note that the ministerial meeting for Members early on in this crisis, which was very welcome, featured a really interesting profile of Members from across the House. Rural and coastal Members often find themselves together, and Northern Ireland Members such as the hon. Gentleman were well represented at the meeting.
As I said, since the outbreak of war, the price of heating oil for my constituents has skyrocketed far beyond the gradual increases they suffer due to the usual inflationary pressures. This was a near-overnight shock that saw people having to scramble to find hundreds of pounds in already stretched household budgets. I want to share just a few of the experiences I have heard from my constituents.
Roy in Roughton has paid £1,400 to fill his tank, which usually costs him £800. Eric in Salthouse paid 55p a litre in January, but was quoted £1.34 a litre in March. Wendy in Hindringham told me that she had been quoted £720 for 500 litres of oil—double what she paid in October. She says:
“We just don’t have that sort of money.”
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As the representative for North East Hampshire, I know all too well the premium that many rural households face when it comes to bills and expenses. Rural households already have a really heavy burden, as he has outlined, including higher rates of fuel poverty, lower energy efficiency and a fuel poverty gap of £987 against their urban counterparts. More than 5,000 households in my constituency rely on heating oil. Does he agree that the Government have a responsibility to act, probably through a price cap, which would ensure that rural households are not penalised simply for where they live?
Steff Aquarone
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was so glad to be granted this debate, and I am sure other Members share that view. There is a long-term discussion to be had about Government action on retrofitting and reducing the fuel poverty gap, but right now the urgent issue is the price today.
I was pleased to see progress on some of these concerns in North Norfolk. Local heating oil delivery company Goff agreed to honour the prices it had agreed before the global price increases, which meant that many of my constituents were protected. But as welcome as that is, we cannot just rely on the good will of companies to regulate their own market. It has been left as a wild west for too long, without any strong regulations or protections to keep my constituents safe from unaffordable price spikes. While we rightly discuss a great deal the rises in the cost of energy, many who rely on heating oil will look enviously at the energy price cap, which at least puts a strong ceiling on what will be paid. For them, there are no guarantees of where the price rises will stop.
Another key issue is the minimum order requirements for heating oil. It is not like filling up a car, where if the prices look bad, we might just stick in £20-worth and hope it gets us to the end of the week. For most, the minimum order of heating oil is 500 litres. If someone runs out during the peak of a price spike, that means a minimum outlay of more than £500, or no heating or hot water.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
A constituent got in touch who had been in hospital over the winter and then in a care home while he convalesced. He finally got home and is now having to pay for carers twice a day. He is 70, and he has no spare money. His heating oil has run out, and he is being quoted twice the price he paid in September, before he went into hospital. He is totally trapped. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable in our society from these shocks?
Steff Aquarone
I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent well in his recovery. This is just not something we had to think about 10 or 20 years ago. I am sure price-sensitive households were always thinking about every line on their household budget, but for somebody going from hospital to convalescence to home, continuing healthcare probably thinks about everything under the sun—except the cost of energy, because it has not been a thing for that long. We have to do more, because this issue is so urgent right now.
We finally have to say, “Enough is enough.” Heating oil customers need to stop being seen as an afterthought in energy policy. We need to reform properly how we support these people, so that they are never again forced to find vast sums of money just to keep their heating on because of global events that are totally out of their control.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?
Steff Aquarone
The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to upgrade his geographical reference to “fellow Member from Norfolk”, as a decent quarter of his constituency is in the same county as mine. He will know that a disproportionate percentage of the population in Norfolk is older. There is a tragic, understated reality. When I visit households in my constituency—I am sure he can relate to this—I can just tell whether they are suffering from fuel poverty, because they will be living in one room. That is all too common for older people, and we have to take it seriously. I do not want to indulge in cheap soundbites, but the reality of how the older, retired generation live is quite different from the perceptions that are often peddled. I am grateful for his reminder of that point.
On policy, let me turn first to the support the Government have announced during this crisis. The money is welcome, but I cannot help but wonder how they thought that £53 million was adequate for the millions of people who are affected. I accept that they sought to prioritise those in greatest need, who must receive support, but do the Minister and the Government recognise that even if someone is not on the lowest income or relying on benefits, a sudden extra bill in the hundreds of pounds just to keep the heating on can cause real problems?
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have a case from Berkhamsted. Louise’s entire estate relies on heating oil, and the price for filling her tank went from £1,080 to £2,500—a more than £1,000 increase—over a weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £35 per household will not touch the sides?
Steff Aquarone
I do agree. That great example shows that even if the increase does not push a household over the edge into total poverty, it will cause people to have to make tough decisions about their money. Like my hon. Friend, I have inevitably received a range of messages on this issue. Unfortunately, I have had quite a few on social media over my calls for support with fuel costs. That is a shame, as I am an environmentalist, but we will not win the argument on renewable energy by making struggling rural households pay the price of Trump’s illegal war in Iran. This is part of a wider debate about retrofitting and rural renewables. We do not have time to explore it here, but the need is urgent.
I have found it incredibly frustrating to hear the repeated line from the Chancellor that these households will receive support anyway through the cut to electricity bills announced in the Budget. That is of course true, but their biggest outlay on energy by far is on heating oil. If a person does not use electricity to heat their home or their water, the impact of electricity prices is far, far smaller. The Government continue to demand that they be grateful for that small mercy, which sort of implies that they should stop asking for more, and that is starting to grate slightly on my constituents—and on me. I ask the Minister to acknowledge the profile of energy use in rural areas and perhaps reconsider that approach.
Local government, however, is stepping up on this crisis. It is dishing out the Government support, which is no mean feat, and finding its own ways to support communities. Liberal Democrat-run North Norfolk district council has allocated £50,000 to support households that have been plunged into fuel poverty due to these rising costs. That was set up within days of the crisis by Councillor Lucy Shires, our finance portfolio holder, and will be distributed to vulnerable households by North Norfolk Foodbank. They stepped up while the Government were still trying to work out their sums, and that has been hugely welcomed by my constituents.
Looking to the future, we must establish a cap on the cost of heating oil. As many hon. Members have said, the two-tier system of price protection for those using gas and electricity and for my constituents using heating oil is wrong and has gone unchecked for too long. We saw many prices surge well beyond the actual cost of oil on the global market, and there is a real risk that unfair margins are being made. People will say that it cannot be done. In fact, the Minister might do so, but I gently remind him that the same was said of the energy price cap, which is now accepted across the political spectrum. We can take tough decisions and develop tricky policies. That is what we were sent here to do. I offer the Minister my support—I am sure Members of other parties do too—in developing proposals that will support and work for rural residents everywhere. As Grahame from Thursford told me:
“The Government’s response in relation to this is simply not good enough. A price cap is the way forward.”
Further to that, I hope that the investigation that the Competition and Markets Authority is undertaking will allow the Government to introduce a better set of regulations for the industry. In fact, much of the industry would welcome that. There are many good businesses out there that behave in the best interests of their customers, and they do not want to be dragged down by bad actors. Ensuring that everyone is held to the same standards is good for the industry and consumers.
Although we are discussing heating oil today, I urge the Minister not to forget those who rely on LPG. They may be fewer in number, but their need is just as great. They often feel ignored in such conversations, and it is vital that we address their struggles too. They are often hit just as hard by price spikes, and they need protection.
Beyond that, we need to ensure that our homes are cheaper to heat. We should have been fixing the roof when the sun was shining—perhaps literally. It is time for an emergency programme of upgrades to make our homes fit for the future—well insulated, energy efficient and with renewable alternatives.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. More than 55% of households in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are off grid. I am grateful to him for mentioning LPG. As he knows, residents who rely on LPG did not get support from the Conservatives when this last happened back in 2022. Does he agree that we need to go further and provide support to people who rely on all fuel types?
Steff Aquarone
I totally agree. It is the same cash-flow problem, the same price peaking problem and the same issue of intermittent delivery—because people do not refill every week or every month—but it is a different slice of the petroleum refinement process, so it is volatile in a slightly different way. In some cases, it is even more problematically volatile, so I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point.
Well-insulated homes powered by renewable energy will prepare us for whatever volatile fossil fuel markets may do down the line and reduce my constituents’ exposure to the effects of the late-night proclamations of President Trump. I want to be clear with the Minister: residents in North Norfolk should not be poorer because they live in a rural area. We face unique challenges, and we accept that, but we should not be punished for them. The Government have a responsibility to step up and help where necessary, and that is what I am calling on them to do today. If we were in power, Liberal Democrats would be stepping up for Britain; the Government must do so, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. Because so many Members wish to speak, you are likely to have two minutes each. If anyone intervenes, that limit will reduce or some of you will not be called, I am afraid.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate.
I want to speak about the impact that the rising cost of heating oil is having on rural communities such as mine in Suffolk. Following events in the middle east, many residents who rely on heating oil contacted me—as I am sure happened to others—with understandable concerns about the sharp increase in prices. That matters because it is an immediate pressure on family budgets, one that many people feel powerless to avoid.
This issue is important because my constituency has one of the highest number of households relying on heating oil. About 40% of all properties in the villages are completely off the grid. That means that many residents are exposed to this sudden price shock. Those most affected are those least able to absorb the extra cost, especially residents in council homes and in lower-income rural communities that are disproportionately hit. For many of those households there is no short-term alternative and no flexibility.
As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the Government have taken some important steps in response. The £53 million emergency support fund is welcome, as is the warm homes plan providing targeted support for low-income households in rural areas. It is right that the money is distributed through local councils, which are often best placed to identify where the support is most urgently needed.
I raised the matter locally with Goff, one of the principal suppliers of heating oil. I was pleased to be assured that it will honour the original prices quoted to customers who ordered on 28 February, 1 March and 2 March, at the start of hostilities. That provides immediate reassurance for those residents who acted promptly and should not be penalised.
That must be our approach: immediate support for those facing rising costs now; proper oversight of the market; and long-term action to reduce dependence on heating oil. For rural communities in my patch, that is a necessity, which we should all push for.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important and timely debate.
The ongoing cost of oil is a symptom of Trump’s idiotic war in Iran. Volatility in global energy markets and the lack of consumer protections for off-grid fuels have left many rural residents exposed to sharp price increases. It is leaving rural communities reeling, with many wondering how to heat their homes. The longer the crisis drags on, the greater the impact will be.
A third of homes in rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton are reliant on heating oil. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 saw prices of heating oil spike up to almost 160p per litre. Last month, prices peaked at 134p per litre and still sit at around 120p, more than 100% higher than before the war. Despite the impact of this sharp price increase, no action was taken to shield rural communities from future price spikes, no price cap has been created like it has for on-grid homes, and there has been no protection from Ofgem. Instead, all we have is another temporary sticking plaster.
The Liberal Democrats were the first to call for action, demanding an immediate three-month zero-rating for VAT on heating of all residential homes and a price cap to protect them from sudden price increases. Although we welcome the additional £53 million of support announced last month, that equates to a meagre £35 per household. Organisations such as National Energy Action, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition and Age UK agree that this limited funding support must go further.
Rural homes already cope with higher rates of fuel poverty, worse levels of energy efficiency and a fuel poverty gap of £987 compared with urban homes. Given that Glastonbury and Somerton has more households living in fuel poverty than the national average, any jump in oil and gas prices will result in further financial pressure. My constituents simply cannot afford that additional burden.
In the long term, we must consider how to support rural properties to transition away from oil and LPG as heating sources, so I hope that the Minister will be able to address that today.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about heating oil in my constituency. About 10% of its households are on heating oil and they have spoken directly to me, both by email and by filling in a survey—I am grateful to everyone who filled in that survey—telling me how much of an impact the issue is having. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of pounds being added to household bills.
One lady told me:
“We usually pay around £200-£250 per fill up of our small tank, which we need to fill up 2-3”
times
“a year. We’re now at nearly empty and our recent quote has been £750”
for a fill-up. She continues:
“I’m 9 months pregnant, about to go onto a reduced wage and will not be able to afford an additional £1500 this year for oil. Our oil covers both heating and water which are both necessary for looking after a newborn and the rest of our family.”
The challenge that constituents put to me and the challenge to the Government is about fairness, because at the same time as they are talking about further help for households, on all sorts of supplies, in a targeted manner, everyone is benefiting from the cap that is available to ordinary bill payers, and my constituents say to me, “We are not getting anything like that kind of help.”
Although the amount of money that the Government have announced is welcome, it is a drop in the ocean. Per heating oil household, it is something like £30 or £35. If it is targeted, as it will be in my constituency, it is a few hundred pounds for certain households. As I have just illustrated with one example, that will not touch the sides of the additional bills that people are having to pay. We are talking about a huge increase in bills and a lack of Government responsiveness, and this has already happened to people.
Future help is welcome, but already many people are forced to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds that they had not anticipated and budgeted for. That means vulnerable people, people on median incomes, are sitting with their heating turned off and worried about whether they can afford their bills for the rest of the year, so it is vital that the Government listen much more strongly to the thousands and thousands of people across the south-east and the many more across the country who simply cannot afford to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds in additional bills out of nowhere in the way they are having to.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing today’s debate. Nearly 1,000 people across my constituency of Sherwood Forest rely solely on heating oil to heat their homes and provide hot water. The sharp increase in prices is having a particularly severe impact on rural communities—as we have discussed—such as Wellow in my constituency, where access to alternative forms of heating is often unavailable. I welcome the Government’s introduction of support schemes to assist the most vulnerable and the Government’s swift action on that. It is right that those most in need are supported first, but also we must recognise that many households risk slipping through the net and require more support. These people do not qualify for other financial support, such as universal credit, but are not in a financial position to absorb such a hit as this financial crisis is causing.
Let us face it: heating and water are not a luxury, but a necessity. I have been contacted by constituents in Blidworth who have been forced to turn off their heating and hot water to preserve their oil stock. They have told me of their worry about the risk that that will pose to their health, especially if they are unable to secure more oil. At a time when the duration of the conflict in the middle east remains uncertain with Trump’s reckless war, many people across Sherwood Forest who rely on heating oil are understandably anxious about the future, especially as heating oil prices continue to rise rapidly and individual stock levels are shrinking.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to extend the current support to all those who rely on heating oil, and ask the Government to do more specifically to help those in areas where they have no other source to rely on and to help the most vulnerable. In my constituency, it is mothers with babies who are really struggling at the moment.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for initiating this very important debate.
South Cotswolds is one of the most rural, off-grid constituencies in England. About 20% of households rely on heating oil; that is about four times the national average. A young mother with two small children faced a sudden increase in the price to get her tank filled up from £305 to £800. Rural households already pay a premium on everyday goods that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has put at up to 20%, and face a fuel poverty gap of nearly £1,000 compared with urban households.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Let me say a big thank you to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for his passion in seeking help for our constituents throughout the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I want to speak about Northern Ireland in particular, and specifically the 68% of my constituents who do not have the luxury of turning on a gas boiler. They must instead watch the price of a drop of kerosene like a hawk—or like an Ulster Scot, as we are. On the Ards peninsula, where I live in Strangford, almost every household uses oil for heating.
While this House debates the energy price cap, we must remember that, in the vast majority of Northern Ireland, a cap is a myth. When the price of oil spikes, our people do not just see a higher bill at the end of the month; they see an empty tank and a cold home. They are at the mercy of a volatile global market, with no safety net. I do not want to be churlish, Minister—I never am—and I thank the Government for what they have done, but let us be honest: the £17 million package is a start, but it is a drop in the ocean.
A payment of £35 per household does not even fill a jerry can, let alone a tank to last a cold Ulster winter. We are part of the United Kingdom and need to be considered accordingly. The fact is that people should not be penalised simply because of our geography or our lack of a gas grid. No one is asking for a handout, but we are asking for a fair deal. There must be an increase in targeted support to reflect the actual cost of a 500-litre delivery.
I also believe that the Government need to review the winter fuel payment and restore the universal nature of that payment for our pensioners—that is my first ask. My second ask is that there needs to be infrastructure investment to fund long-term energy security, so that we are never this vulnerable again. Minister, on behalf of my constituents and others throughout the United Kingdom, the time for “monitoring the situation” is long over. The time for delivery is now.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In my constituency, 2,281 homes rely on heating oil as their only source of warmth. Those are not households with alternatives; they are off the gas grid entirely and, unlike the rest of us, they face a market that is completely uncapped and unregulated.
As we all know, the ongoing conflict in the middle east and the strait of Hormuz is driving oil prices unpredictably higher. Families relying on heating oil are being squeezed the hardest. Those in the worst affected areas, such as Wrington, Felton and Dundry, cannot switch supplier instantaneously. They buy in bulk, have no negotiating power and, when prices surge, go cold.
I therefore welcome the steps this Government have taken: the energy bill cap extended until June, saving the average household £170; the £150 warm homes discount for the most vulnerable; and, crucially, the swift announcement of a £53 million support package targeted at low-income and vulnerable households who depend on heating oil. The funding allocation reflects census data on need, demonstrating that this is not a scattergun approach. It is targeted, proportionate and urgent.
Support alone, however, is not enough. I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a strengthened code of practice to improve price transparency, and to explore a new regulator or ombudsman for the market. Those households deserve the same consumer protections as everyone else.
I urge the Minister to move quickly to ensure that local authorities have the guidance and resources to get this funding to those who need it before the cold takes hold. No one in this country should have to choose between heating their home and feeding their family. This package is a welcome start, but it must be the beginning not the limit of this Government’s ambition.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate. Around 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil as their sole source of heating, and in some villages, including Yetminster, Bradford Abbas and Longburton, the proportion is almost half of all households.
In the last couple of weeks, one constituent was quoted £1.40 per litre—more than double the previous week’s price of 60p—resulting in a £735 bill for 500 litres. Another constituent, a pensioner, had a confirmed order cancelled and was then asked to pay more than £1,000 for the same delivery. Others have reported being unable to secure deliveries at all or being quoted up to two and a half times the previous price, leaving them without heating or water. One company tried to offer my constituent a refund instead of delivering the oil, so that they would have to reorder at a higher price. These are not isolated incidents: they point to a wider issue of instability and a lack of transparency in the market.
This is a challenge not just for those on the lowest incomes. Middle-income families who receive no targeted support are also being hit hard, as are farmers, who already face increasing input costs. Although I welcome the Government’s recognition that some oil-heated households are particularly vulnerable, the current level of support does not match the scale of the problem. As has been highlighted elsewhere, £35 per household is simply not sufficient in the face of the prices we are seeing.
A temporary zero-rating of VAT on heating oil would provide immediate relief, and we should implement a price cap similar to the other price caps in the marketplace for consumers such as electricity users. At the very least, the Government must assess whether the current level of support is adequate in rural areas with high levels of oil dependence and ensure that funding is targeted accordingly.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this timely debate, and I thank the Minister for visiting the Western Isles last month to hear directly from my constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar how the spike in prices has affected them. As he heard from consumers, prices have doubled since the conflict broke out. There is huge demand, limited competition and, of course, an island premium on deliveries.
People appreciate the emergency heating oil fund announced by the Government, which will send £4.6 million of support to Scotland for consumers in need. This being Scotland, of course the SNP wants to do things differently. The Scottish Government have doubled the sum to £10 million, which is welcome, but announced that instead of funds being distributed through local authorities, which know their area and their constituents, the fund is operated through Advice Direct Scotland, a Scottish charity that gives free, impartial advice to people across Scotland.
As soon as the scheme was announced, my constituents reported a glitch in the system. People applying from the Western Isles found their online applications bouncing back. When they called the helpline, they heard a recorded message instructing them to apply without supporting evidence, informing them that they would then receive an email to which they could attach receipts of eligibility and evidence of supply. This kind of ping-pong shambles benefits no one, and I fear it will lead to a lack of uptake of support.
In talks with Advice Direct Scotland, officials assured me that the scheme is operating, that nearly 5,000 people have applied and that 16,000 applicants are expected across the six months the scheme is open. By rough calculation, 16,000 times £300 is £4.8 million, which is only half the amount the SNP Government claim to have allocated to the scheme. I do not want heating oil support by stunt, whereby only half the fund is distributed.
I urge my constituents to apply early for support as soon as they have receipt of their oil delivery, and I call on the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Advice Direct Scotland to be fully transparent about the distribution of funding both during and after the scheme, and in terms of amounts and geographical distribution.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.
South Shropshire is a very rural, remote area, and its beauty is unrivalled, as many Members will agree. With 53% of my constituents off grid, this is a major issue. When the war in Iran increased the heating oil prices literally overnight, many constituents got in touch with me to raise their concerns. Paul from Eardington saw his heating oil quote go up from 53p to £1.39 per litre—an increase of about 150%—in almost 24 hours. That is a huge impact, and his story resonates across my constituency. Many of my constituents have not been able to fill up because of the 500-litre minimum. A big shout out to Cambers of Harley: when I was buying my wheelbarrow at the weekend, I saw 25-litre containers, which provide fuel for people who cannot afford 500 litres.
Despite many having praised it, the Government’s £53 million of energy support has penalised my constituency. Shropshire council has more than 53,000 off-grid households, of which more than half are in my constituency, yet it has been allocated only £750,000. That equates to £14.29 per house, whereas the average across the country is £35. Why is South Shropshire missing out? My constituents need support. I want the minimum order level to be addressed, and I want future provision to ensure that my constituents, particularly the hardest hit, can have heating oil without having to choose between that and food.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.
In his statement to Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister said that energy bills had gone down on 1 April, yet for literally tens of thousands of my constituents, that is simply not true. It is estimated that in my constituency alone, 22,500 households—approaching 50,000 constituents—are not connected to the gas grid. Thousands of those homes are reliant on oil and LPG tank gas to heat their homes.
Let us delve a bit deeper. One low-income house in Newtonmore, which is in the Cairngorms national park, an arctic-alpine mountain environment, went from paying £640 to £1,220. The supplier told them there was a minimum order of 1,000 litres. A constituent in Forres went from paying £307 plus VAT in December, to £827 in March for 500 litres. That constituent is disabled, with multiple health conditions.
This inequity is not new. When it comes to their electricity bills, people in Moray, the highlands and across Scotland are paying among the highest energy prices in Europe, and substantially more than most of the rest of the UK, despite vast amounts of that energy being produced right beside them.
Torcuil Crichton
Like the hon. Member’s constituency, many businesses in my constituency, including distilleries, rely on kerosene heating oil for manufacturing processes. Would he urge the UK Government and the Scottish Government to devise a loan scheme to help these businesses to get over this Trump spike?
Graham Leadbitter
I will come on to the energy powers that should be devolved, but it is currently the UK Government’s responsibility.
Over the years, Scotland has sent over £350 billion to the Treasury from oil and gas activity, yet when it comes to the crunch, all the Treasury can come up with is the equivalent of £35 per household for oil. Yet again, the Scottish Government have had to step in and boost support by more than doubling the fund, for an issue that the UK Government have failed to address properly in the first place.
Rural homes and communities in Scotland are being overlooked and ignored. Is the Minister really happy that he is presiding over discrimination that is putting so much financial stress on vulnerable households? Will the Government take urgent measures to increase significantly the support funding? Will they provide support to those reliant on LPG gas for their heating? Will they properly regulate heating oil with a price cap, which I fully support?
If the Government are unwilling to take those actions, will they devolve energy powers and budgets to the people of Scotland, so that they can make their own decisions in their own Parliament on these vital and urgent issues?
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this essential debate.
The escalation of conflict arising from Donald Trump’s war on Iran and the consequential disruption to the strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through international fossil fuel markets. This has left many households across the country, including a significant number of my constituents, facing sudden and severe increases to their energy bills.
I have been contacted by people who are switching off their heating entirely or worried about preserving what supply they have. This is particularly concerning for elderly people or those with health conditions who need to stay warm. The average price of UK heating oil increased by 100% in just three days, and prices have remained over 120p per litre ever since.
Across the UK, around 1.5 million homes rely on heating oil systems, with a particularly high concentration in rural areas. Around a quarter of households in my constituency use oil central heating, compared with 5% nationally. Households that are dependent on oil-heated systems are not protected by Ofgem regulation or the energy price cap, and are therefore more exposed to immediate energy price increases.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
This crisis shows that we cannot rely on emergency payments to resolve geopolitical shocks; we need the electrification of heat in rural areas, and heat pumps play a significant part in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government taking steps to roll out renewables and heat pump technology across rural areas would go a long way to help to protect and preserve rural areas from these sorts of shocks in the future?
Steve Witherden
It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree wholeheartedly.
With heating oil prices reaching levels similar to those in 2022 following the Ukraine war, our Government have been far quicker to react than the previous Conservative Government were. Less than two weeks after the price surge, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero announced a £53 million support package aimed at protecting the most vulnerable households that rely on heating oil—particularly low-income households in rural communities.
Wales was allocated £3.8 million, which the Welsh Government delivered through one-off £200 payments to eligible households on the council tax reduction scheme that use heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas. They also made enhancements to the value and frequency of the discretionary assistance fund for those in severe financial hardship. This response to protect households’ immediate needs in the face of crisis was very welcome.
However, if high prices persist, support will need to evolve. What plans do the Government have to ensure continued and expanded support for vulnerable households should this crisis continue? Diolch yn fawr.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. We have all received casework on this issue from so many residents who are so worried and have been impacted by what has happened as a result of Trump’s war in Iran.
The cost of heating oil doubled in just one week at the beginning of March, and that has had a huge impact on so many people. A constituent in her 70s wrote to me whose husband is in palliative care. The cost of filling her tank has gone from £320 to £750 and she just does not know what to do. She has asked what help the Government have given, and has received no help so far. Another constituent wrote to say that he had agreed a price back in February, but the company repeatedly delayed and ultimately cancelled his order, telling him he would have to reorder at the new price, which had more than doubled in the meantime.
The Government have announced the £53 million package but, as so many Members have said, that is clearly insufficient to support the scale of affected households: more than 3.5 million people across the country depend on heating oil. So far, the Government have refused to cap the cost of heating oil, when we have caps on other energy sectors such as gas and electricity. That feels completely inconsistent and unjust. We would really like to see that changed.
I echo the calls of my Liberal Democrat colleagues for the Government to act now to protect constituents who rely on heating oil by enacting a three-month zero-rating of VAT on heating oil for all residential homes, and by developing a price cap to shield them from sudden increases in the price of heating oil. I would also welcome an update and more details from the Minister about the progress on the promised new consumer protections in the heating oil market.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.
Across our rural communities and in villages such mine, including Inkberrow and Cookhill, many households are not connected to the mains gas grid and have no choice but to rely on heating oil. In recent weeks, my office has been inundated with emails from constituents facing what can only be described as outright price gauging: sharp, sudden increases in heating oil costs, often with little warning and no meaningful protection. The figures are not abstract; families are being asked to find hundreds of pounds up front just to heat their homes. That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of the issue. Where someone lives should not determine whether they are protected.
I welcome the Government’s swift action in providing additional support through the crisis and resilience fund, enabling local councils to step in and support households facing immediate hardship. That will make a real difference in the short term, and I thank Ministers for listening. For some families that support will mean the difference between staying warm and going without heat. But we must be clear: emergency support, however welcome, is not a substitute for structural reform. That means a properly regulated off-grid energy market, greater transparency from suppliers—including real-time price publication—and serious consideration of a price cap on domestic heating oil and LPG.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of extending regulation to this market would be to introduce a requirement on the companies to maintain a priority service register, as is the case with the gas market, which would ensure that those companies could more easily identify which customers are vulnerable?
Chris Bloore
I wholeheartedly agree and so would my constituents.
A price cap would ensure that households are not left exposed to sudden and excessive increases that they simply cannot plan for. The Competition and Markets Authority has previously raised concerns about weak competition and poor transparency in this market. Those concerns have not gone away; they have intensified for our constituents and rural businesses. I hope the Minister will consider taking comprehensive action.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this timely debate. Nearly 13,000 households in Stratford-on-Avon, including mine, are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil and LPG. That is a huge number of people left exposed in a way most households in Britain are not. There is no price cap; when prices rise, they rise fast, and people are expected to find hundreds of pounds up front just to heat their homes. There is no buffer, no protection—just the full impact landing at once.
Once again, it is constituents such as mine who are left picking up the bill for a reckless and illegal war driven by President Trump. I am hearing from constituents worried about how they will afford their next heating oil or LPG delivery. For some, even the minimum order is out of reach.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Those who are obliged to use heating oil are isolated by definition, and they are further disadvantaged if they happen to be old, or infirm, or disabled or poor. Surely the Government recognise that the mechanisms already exist to cut prices, as has been said. There is no need for delay. We need to help people in my constituency, the hon. Lady’s constituency and many others who are suffering from the kind of exploitation set out in this debate.
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Local heating companies have also stopped delivering for consortia, which provided a way for villagers to work together and pay less for their oil by buying in bulk. That has now stopped.
The Government support does not match the reality that people are facing. It works out at around £35 per household, and that is simply not enough. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a clear proposal that would provide meaningful support to households. A three-month zero VAT on heating oil would give immediate relief; it is simple, it is affordable and it would make a real difference to people right now. Big businesses are making immense profits from the middle east conflict and the surge in energy prices. The Government should implement a windfall tax on those mega-profits being made at the expense of families struggling to heat their homes. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering that?
We have also called for a price cap on heating oil, because it cannot be right that households off the gas grid are left completely exposed, while others have some protection. However, if we carry on relying on expensive fossil fuels, that will keep happening and people will keep getting hit every time there is an oil price shock. That is why we need far more ambitious action to insulate homes and to roll out cheap, clean energy produced here in Britain that stays in Britain, rather than being shipped off to the highest bidder. Yes, we need to protect people now with measures such as a VAT cut, but that must be backed up by real investment in making homes warmer and cheaper to heat, especially in rural communities such as Stratford-on-Avon.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this really important debate.
According to House of Commons Library data, Yeovil has a higher percentage of households using only oil for heating than the UK average. Because they are not protected by the Ofgem energy price cap, families across my area are suffering from rising costs due to a war they never wanted. One constituent told me that they suffered a 60% week-on-week increase in prices; on top of that, they struggled to find suppliers delivering to their area. Another constituent pointed out to me that they were able only to purchase a minimum amount of oil, which suggests that suppliers may be profiting from the situation.
The £53 million announced by the Government is welcome, but amounts to only about £35 per household. That is not good enough. Rural communities deserve a bit better than that, for sure, so the Government must enact a three-month zero rating for VAT on heating oil for all residential homes and develop a price cap to protect rural households from sudden increases in the price of heating oil.
I also urge the Minister to investigate the impact of rising oil prices on the spending and value of rural households, something I have heard real concern about. We also need proper long-term investment in rural home upgrades. We are proposing a 10-year energy home upgrade programme to make houses cheaper to heat. That has to start with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, to improve savings through energy efficiency. I would welcome the Minister to Somerset to discuss that further and to see how the crisis is affecting my constituents in Yeovil.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate.
I do not know whether to take comfort from the number of MPs present for this debate, or to be troubled that we are here again to press the Government to take stronger action to get to grips with the costs facing rural households because of Trump’s war. As Members have said, many households in rural areas simply have no alternatives to heating oil, and that is particularly true in Caerfyrddin and across Wales, where reliance on heating oil is significantly higher than the UK average. Some 57% of my constituents, representing more than 25,000 households, are off grid.
Just over a month ago, heating oil was retailing at around 65p a litre; today, if I wanted to buy oil for my home, it would be 130.98p—an increase of more than 100% in a matter of weeks. I recognise that the Government have announced a package of support for low-income households who heat their homes with oil, and of course I welcome any help that is available. However, because heating oil is bought in large lump-sum deliveries to cover several months—usually about four months—a 100% increase is a huge hit for households, whatever their income bracket. People who are already squeezed from every side are expected to find extra money that they do not have.
I simply ask the Government to cast the net wider, so that households who are not defined as low income can still receive the help that they need. That includes constituents who do not claim benefits, those whose income is just above the pension credit threshold and pensioners who now pay tax because of the freeze on taxable earnings—they are not well off. Every day that passes is a missed opportunity for the Government to address the needs of households in the UK and across Caerfyrddin.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), on securing the debate.
In North West Norfolk, more than 20,000 households are off the gas grid. When people are struggling, urgent support is needed, so I welcome the crisis fund that Norfolk county council has established and the fact that the Conservative-led administration chose to double the funding to £6 million. Although that support is focused on people in need, I reiterate that that is not limited solely to people on benefits. Local authorities have discretion, and I have been told by the council that households earning around £35,000 would qualify, so I encourage anyone who is in need to apply to the council. Clearly, there is concern about the adequacy of those funds, which I raised with the Energy Secretary. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that his Department is monitoring in real time the payments that are going out.
Like other Members, I have been helping constituents who have had orders cancelled or who have had to accept higher prices for existing orders. I am glad that Goff Petroleum, one of the main providers in Norfolk, agreed to honour their prices, even taking a loss to do so. We should recognise that the just-in-time model that many firms in the industry use exposes them, and thus customers too, to shocks.
We need to see reform in the market: greater pricing transparency and formalised priority support for vulnerable people. We should also recognise that this is an issue for businesses, not just for households. Rural areas do not only face higher costs for heating oil. Prices at the pump have leapt—and in the Budget the Chancellor committed to increase fuel duty by 5p from September, after 14 years of freezes under the previous Conservative Government. That is the wrong choice and puts higher costs on to drivers and businesses. While international factors are largely at play, the Government can choose to act to ease the burden of tax and levy. That is what they should be doing. The plans that we have set out would do that and would save people £200.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I thank everyone for keeping to time. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. As many have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this hugely subscribed and important debate and for representing rural constituencies across the country.
As we have heard, people in rural areas already face higher living costs, higher levels of fuel poverty and poorer energy efficiency compared to urban homes, and those areas also have many vulnerable elderly people. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that, once again, we are debating urgent support to rural, off-grid households facing immediate and unaffordable cost increases who are uniquely exposed to volatile global fossil fuel markets.
Clearly, we have not learnt the lessons from the very recent past. In the current energy crisis resulting from Trump’s dangerous, reckless and illegal war in Iran, heating oil is not covered by Ofgem’s price cap, just as during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it was not covered by the energy price guarantee. We must not allow rural households to be left behind again. As the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association points out, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the price of imported jet fuel is the largest component in the retail price of a litre of heating oil, and it is far more volatile than Brent crude oil. The association has reported prices jumping from 44p per litre in January to 100p litre this week and, as we have heard, the final price landing on consumers is way above that.
In my constituency, 2,954 households—35%—are reliant on heating oil. That is much higher than any other Cambridgeshire constituency. As soon as the conflict began, I heard directly from constituents in the villages of Fowlmere, Barrington, Litlington, Weston Colville, the Abingtons and Heydon, who, despite having agreed a price, were being told that neither that price, nor even the date of delivery, could any longer be guaranteed. One vulnerable elderly resident had only two days of heating oil left in their home. Some bought heating oil from a different provider at double the price because they could not wait.
It is questionable that the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association justifies that kind of action as acceptable and appropriate because it is approved by the Competition and Markets Authority. I was the first to demand directly of the Chancellor, when I talked to her in the Chamber, that she not leave households exposed once again, as they were in 2022. Her response was that public money would not be spent and that she would focus exclusively on price gouging and complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority.
As Liberal Democrats, while we welcomed the Government’s U-turn to channel £53 million of funding through the newly launched crisis and resilience fund through county councils—Cambridgeshire county council was one of the first councils to get that up and running—we have heard that it is not enough. As other Members have said, it is averaging around £30 to £35 per household, and I have already been told that many struggling households are now complaining that they do not meet the criteria from the fund. As I have mentioned repeatedly to Ministers—and as highlighted by research from Energy UK—improved data sharing from Government Departments—that goes beyond the Department for Work and Pensions—is critical for the funds to be fair and effectively target and reach those who really need them. We need to look closely at price gouging and at whether this unregulated market for heating oil is fit for purpose in serving and protecting rural households.
Will the Minister respond to our Liberal Democrat proposal for a three-month zero rating of VAT on heating oil; for a better regulated sector, with a proper price cap that shields households not only on heating oil but on LPG; and for improved consumer protection? Will he also look at the regulation we probably need on improved data sharing, so we can ensure that this help reaches those who need it most?
As many have said today, the long-term solution is not to leave rural households on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. We need to increase the transition to home-grown clean energy, insulate homes and ensure that the warm homes plan works for rural and off-grid homes.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. I must start by declaring an interest: my home is off the gas grid, and we use heating oil. When constituents have raised this issue with me—many have—I therefore understand it not just as their Member of Parliament, but as a fellow purchaser of heating oil.
When prices doubled—or, as we heard, sometimes tripled—overnight following the outbreak of war in the middle east, it was a genuine financial shock that was even greater than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. According to evidence from Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert, customers who had paid around £300 to £350 for 500 litres of heating oil in February were being quoted between £600 and £1,000 just weeks later, and that price continues to go up. That is not a marginal increase. For families on fixed or modest incomes—not just the poorest households—that is the kind of bill that forces a choice between heating, eating and other necessities.
So far, the Government have allocated £53 million in very targeted financial support across the United Kingdom, as we have heard. They have announced intentions to introduce consumer protections, including dispute resolution, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups. To be fair, they have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to examine the market, and have signalled that an energy independence Bill will include powers to establish an ombudsman or appoint a regulator.
I acknowledge all those steps—they are not nothing—but let us be honest about what they amount to in practice. As we have heard, in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of households rely on heating oil, the allocation amounts to roughly £35 per household. The First Minister of Northern Ireland described it as a “slap in the face”; the Finance Minister said it was “significantly below par”. In Scotland, eligible households can apply for £300 in support. In England, the money flows through local authority crisis and resilience funds—I particularly note the example given from Norfolk.
Are Ministers confident that funding is actually reaching people in every part of our country at the pace and scale required? The evidence from many places suggests that the answer is not a straightforward yes. Also, why has LPG—this has come up in the debate—not been more consistently included in the scope of support? LPG users are in much the same position as heating oil customers—off grid, without alternatives and facing the same challenges—yet they have too often been an afterthought in support announcements. That needs to be addressed.
The problem is not confined to households. I have heard from businesses, some in my constituency, that are dependent on oil and LPG, including a pub that has had to completely close its kitchen and food offering because the cost of running it has become prohibitive. Thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across rural Britain are in the same position, and the Government have not even attempted to support those businesses. That needs to change.
That is the structural failure at the heart of this debate. Unlike gas or electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem. There is no ombudsman or binding transparency requirement. The Competition and Markets Authority is now examining the market, which I welcome, but the CMA’s own chief executive has acknowledged troubling reports of cancelled orders and sudden price increases. That is precisely the kind of sharp practice that exploits the absence of regulation, examples of which Members have raised in this debate.
We should end the practice of accepting orders without stating a clear, binding price up front, only for consumers to receive a bill on delivery significantly higher than anticipated. That is not a complex regulatory ask; it is basic consumer protection. When someone agrees to take delivery of heating oil, they should know what price they are paying before the tanker arrives, not after. The Government’s promise of an ombudsman and stronger consumer protection signals the right direction of travel, but it is a promise of future action, not present support. Rural households and businesses cannot wait for primary legislation to wend its way through Parliament before they receive the most basic of protections.
I say to the Minister: adequate support means three things. It means emergency financial assistance that is genuinely proportionate to the scale of the crisis, not the equivalent of £35 per household, when those households are facing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in additional bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative colleagues, including myself, were the first to write to the CMA to investigate failings in the sector. I urge the Minister to continue to examine that “at pace”, which I think is the fashionable term, to get this right in future.
We are also urging for LPG users to be treated with equal importance to heating oil consumers. That means immediate binding price transparency requirements, so that consumers know what they are paying before they commit. Around 1.5 million households across the UK rely on heating oil. They are disproportionately older, rural and without alternatives. They deserve better than warm words and a timetable that seems to stretch endlessly into the future.
Stuart Anderson
Further to that point of order, Dr Allin-Khan. I would also like to declare that I use heating oil.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I do not mind if any of you use heating oil. That is fine; do not feel the need to let me know, although I appreciate it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I thought we were about to end up in an “I am Spartacus” moment. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for raising this vital issue and giving us the opportunity to discuss it at length, since it is an important area that is dominating much thinking among Members and in my Department.
It is important at the outset to put this in the wider context of what is happening in the middle east. It is clear from what we have heard over the past few weeks that the conflict in the middle east is not Britain’s war. The Prime Minister made the right judgment in not taking the country into offensive action, but how we emerge from this crisis will define us for a generation in how we respond. It is clear that we need to de-escalate the situation in the middle east. We need a negotiated settlement that allows the free passage of traffic through the strait of Hormuz. That will ultimately determine the fate of energy prices and our constituents’ cost of living.
Let me do three things. First, I want to respond to issues raised around the immediate support the Government have offered. Secondly, I will talk a little more about market reform and regulation, and the process going on with the CMA. Finally, I will talk about some of the wider structural issues discussed this morning.
As hon. Members have mentioned, 1.5 million households in the UK use heating oil to keep their homes warm. We know from what has been said this morning, and also from looking at what has been happening in the market, that the price of a litre of heating oil has increased significantly—doubled, in fact—since the war in the middle east began. Even before the situation in the middle east developed, the cost of living crisis was a priority for the Government. Hon. Members know that we have till the end of June. This does not apply to those on heating oil, as we will discuss, but energy prices have been reduced under the price cap by 7% until the end of June, and the Government were taking other measures to alleviate the cost of living even before the middle east situation started.
I want to be candid with people about the choices that we had to make. Under the last Government, it took around 200 days for support to come to heating oil customers. We have rolled out support within two and a half weeks, but there is a trade-off when we make such decisions, and the decision that we made was to prioritise speed at this point, which meant deploying funding through local authorities in England and through devolved Governments elsewhere in the UK. That does, however, limit our ability to stipulate what the criteria are, but that is the trade-off we had to make. Listening to hon. Members this morning, I think we have made the right choice in prioritising speed because the need is clearly great right now. Had we been sitting here saying that the Government were coming up with a far more extensive scheme that might take months to deliver, I think we would have had a very different sort of debate this morning.
Martin McCluskey
No one has said that this is the extent of all the support that will be on offer: I have been very clear about that, both in the Chamber and whenever I have been asked the question. The point of immediate support now was to provide people with relief from an immediate crisis. We have been very clear—the Chancellor was and the Secretary of State was—that it was never intended to provide discretionary support for every single heating oil user to fill up their tank. It was to provide immediate relief quickly from a pressing crisis that we were facing across the country. We are keeping everything under review. Were we in a situation later in the year where we need to look at providing further support, we will make decisions then, but right now that support is on offer to people.
Different local authorities are taking different approaches. That is in the nature of the trade-off that we had to make. North Norfolk is taking an approach that looks at means-tested benefits, but North Northamptonshire is not taking an approach that relies on means-tested benefits. It is asking for evidence that people are not able to afford a payment, which involves, for example, giving over bank statements to enable people to make an assessment based on income rather than on means-testing. So different authorities are taking different approaches. That is what we have to accept if we are deploying this through the crisis and resilience fund and not having a centralised scheme as we did before. But as I said, this is about doing things at speed to make sure that people have the support they need.
On the situation in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that almost two thirds of homes rely on heating oil. We have allocated £17 million to support them. Again, we will keep that under review. We have heard complaints from the Northern Ireland Executive, as we have heard from others this morning, that it is not enough. But as I understand it—the hon. Member might want to correct me—there is not currently a scheme through the Northern Ireland Executive to deploy that money, so we do not yet know what the demand actually is in Northern Ireland for the take-up of that funding.
Jim Shannon
I do not want to be churlish—when we get something that is helpful, we accept it—but our indications are that those moneys will be disbursed across Northern Ireland shortly and that it will be £35 per household. As I asked in my contribution about pensioners, who are really feeling the pinch, what can be done for them specifically?
Martin McCluskey
As I said, once the funds are disbursed in Northern Ireland, just as across the whole of the United Kingdom, we will make an assessment as to what further work might need to take place. I will have further discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive. We are obviously keeping every option under review, especially as we start to think about later in the year and into the winter. In Northern Ireland, we are still to see what happens when the funds are disbursed.
In Scotland, we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about how Advice Direct Scotland is disbursing those funds. However, we cannot know at the moment how much is being given out, because the Scottish Government will not let Advice Direct Scotland provide us with that data, so there is no way for us to know what the situation in Scotland looks like.
In England, we are having weekly stocktakes with the DWP, which is the Department responsible for the crisis and resilience fund. It is providing us with assurance on the disbursal of those funds, and we hope to have a dataset available in May that looks at how many applications and payments have been made, and what those payments look like across the country.
Torcuil Crichton
If officials from Advice Direct Scotland can tell me, as a constituency MP, the number of applicants they have, and the estimated number they will have—16,000, with 5,000 applications already last week—surely they can provide that information to the UK Government as well.
Martin McCluskey
Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are not allowing the data to be shared because of the pre-election period. I would argue that that is not what the pre-election period is meant for, and I will continue to have those discussions with the Scottish Government. I know that other hon. Members in Scottish constituencies have faced a similar problem in getting any data about their constituencies from Advice Direct Scotland because of this prohibition from the Scottish Government.
I am conscious of time, so I turn to the issue of wider market reform. There is obviously evidence that the market as it exists at the moment is not working. I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who was a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade under the last Government—
Martin McCluskey
Well, the hon. Member was a Member of the party that was last in government, let me say that, and I find it difficult to listen to him tell us about the lessons that we should have learned. We should never have been in this position, and we should not be in a position again where we are facing higher energy prices because of an international situation, and where we are having to deal with an unregulated market in heating oil. I argue that the then Government should have looked at this in 2022 and determined what action needed to be taken.
I will explain what we have done so far. The CMA is conducting an investigation at speed. These investigations normally take around a year, but it is going to conduct this one within 12 weeks. It has already completed the evidence-gathering stage, and it is now in the process of examining that evidence. I hope that it will come forward with the report in June. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will look at what comes forward from the CMA and examine the case for regulation.
Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about a price cap, but I do not want to prejudge the work of the CMA. There have also been suggestions about minimum orders and price guarantees—there a number of different proposals on the table—but we have to ensure that we make the right decision, and do not end up with unintended consequences that could make the situation worse. In a market with a large number of players, many of which are quite small rural businesses, it is especially important that we do not make the situation any worse. We are looking at a range of options.
The Chancellor has written to the CMA to ask that it remains vigilant across heating oil prices and tackles any unjustified increases that it might find. The Government are also in daily contact with industry to understand the drivers of recent price movements. We have reminded heating oil distributors of their commitments under the trade association code of practice.
Pippa Heylings
Does the Minister have a timescale for when he expects the review of the market and any recommendations to come back from the CMA? When will the Government enact them? Will they be part of the energy independence Bill, or is there another way in which they could come into effect quite quickly?
Martin McCluskey
I hope the report will come back to us some time in June, and then we will examine it to determine what may be required in terms of further action. I want us to move as quickly as possible. I have another meeting with the chief executive of the CMA tomorrow to discuss progress on the market investigation and ensure that work is carrying on at the pace that we want. We are not moving slowly. We have already accelerated this process—it was a year, and it is now 12 weeks. That is significant, but we obviously want it to move as quickly as possible.
Let me turn to the wider structural issues that we face in the energy sector. We recognise that the heating oil sector is under-regulated. Unlike gas and electricity, heating oil is not regulated by Ofgem, and we will put that right by exploring what regulations are needed to protect consumers and get them a better deal.
Taking a step back, ongoing events provide us with yet another clear reminder that we must get off the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel markets and on to the path of clean, home-grown energy that we control. We will learn the correct lessons from the crisis, unlike the previous Government, who went through the situation in 2022 and did not. In our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already brought in £90 billion of investment in clean British energy. In the light of spiking oil and gas prices, we intend to go further and faster in the pursuit of national energy security.
We are bringing forward the next renewables auction, just months after the most successful auction that we have ever had, which secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. We are making plug-in solar available for the first time in Britain so that families can buy a low-cost panel straight from a supermarket and set it up on their balcony or in their garden.
We are speeding up delivery of the £15 billion warm homes plan. I heard what many Members said about the fabric of housing. There is obviously support within the £5 billion that we have set aside for low-income schemes, but there is also work going on about low interest and no interest consumer loans. I am trying to accelerate that work so that we can get that to people as soon as possible.
Pippa Heylings
We welcome the publication of the warm homes plan, but we have not received details of what will replace the energy company obligation 4 programme, which was run through local authorities. Can the Minister tell us when he expects that detail to be available? Will it be published ahead of the winter so that it can be applied and homes can be upgraded?
Martin McCluskey
As the hon. Lady knows, the Department runs a range of programmes. We took the decision to abolish ECO4 because it was not working effectively. In some cases, it was costing more to find people who needed the measures than it was to deploy the measures. The Department has been provided with an additional £1.5 billion, which took the total up to £15 billion for this financial year. That money is being deployed through the local government schemes—the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant. That is enhancing what has already been provided to low-income households through the Department.
As I say, £2.7 billion of capital is being deployed to provide low interest or no interest consumer loans. We need to accelerate that. At the moment, we are probably looking at early next year, but I would like to see that come forward so that we can use those consumer loans as a response to the current situation. We know that there is significant demand for home upgrades, including solar, battery and heat pumps, but we have to give people the support they need to take up those options.
We will speed up the delivery of the £15 billion warm homes plan—the largest home upgrade programme in British history—and we are reforming nuclear regulations following the Fingleton review so that we can fast-track new nuclear power stations.
Greg Smith
The Minister seems to have pivoted towards electricity and away from heating oil, which this debate is about. On the wind auctions, I am not sure consumers will thank him for the price that has just been paid. However, we are talking predominantly about the many rural homes that are off the gas grid. Many are built out of stone—I declare an interest, as mine is built out of witchert, which is a form of cob—and heat pumps do not touch the sides. Will he at least acknowledge that for those rural homes, we need to look at things such as alternative fuels? Boilers can be converted to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil and, in the future, synthetic fuels. We must not just keep talking about electricity.
Martin McCluskey
Fifty per cent of grants provided through the boiler upgrade scheme, which is our primary vehicle for providing people with grants for heat pumps to replace—
Martin McCluskey
If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish the point, I was going to say that 50% of those are to rural homes. I am not trying to dismiss the fact that there are some properties where it would not be appropriate to fit a heat pump because of the fabric, although adaptations can be made. However, we are seeing from consumer behaviour that most boiler upgrade scheme grants are going to rural homes, so there is clearly demand within rural areas for heat pumps, whether the traditional air-to-air or air-to-water heat pumps or ground source heat pumps, which are increasingly popular in rural homes.
I go back to the point about learning the lessons. We are in a situation where this country is significantly exposed to fossil fuels, whether through gas or oil. The long-term solution—to remove that risk and exposure—is to move to electrification, because we would not be having this debate if homes were electrified. We need to find solutions for rural homes, and we need to move to technology that means people have more control over their energy and the system.
Behind every decision this Government take is a simple principle: whatever the challenges, we will support working people. We will always fight their corner through this crisis. That is why we are directly helping those affected by the spike in heating oil costs, cracking down on energy suppliers who are cancelling orders or jacking up prices, and working at pace to ensure the sector is properly regulated. That is why we are doing everything we can to end our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets and take back control of our energy.
That will mean an era of economic growth, good new jobs and unprecedented investment—an era of real energy security. That is how we will ensure that ordinary working British people, including those in rural areas, never again pay the price for foreign conflicts and our overdependence on fossil fuels.
Steff Aquarone
A couple of years ago, I recall a senior former Secretary of State from the Conservative party, who shall remain nameless for the purpose of this anecdote, saying how annoying it was that the Liberal Democrats had gained 72 seats. Previously, they knew we would work out the right answer to these complicated challenges and they could steal the ideas with pleasure without anybody knowing, because we did not have a platform—so how inconvenient it was now that we had one! If individual Members want to know, I will tell them who said that to me.
The speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) reminded me that these problems are solvable and that the Liberal Democrats have plans to solve them. In particular, we have the longer-term vision for bringing about a future where energy is produced and used in Great Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said.
I do not have time to reflect on all the valuable contributions from Members across the House, of which there were a great many, and it would be discourteous to suggest that only my party has added to this debate. We have been enriched by contributions from all corners of the country and almost all corners of the House. I note the absence of any contributions from Reform Members, which is regrettable; I believe that 2,000 houses in Clacton and 6,000 in Newark rely on heating oil. As they cheered the war in Iran, it is frankly embarrassing that they are not here to defend some of the consequences.
On a note of consensus and optimism, I do think that the Liberal Democrats have offers and ideas to bring to the table, whether it is about a closer relationship with the European Union or tackling the water companies. We are not ashamed to have our ideas taken forward in somebody else’s name. There are many things we want to contribute to this, and I am sure my colleagues will be just as willing as I am to do so.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am optimistic about the progress that he has indicated—it just cannot come soon enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil.
Rail Prices: Contactless Payments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of contactless roll out at railway stations on ticket prices.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I appreciate the Minister’s attendance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to my constituents who rely on the rail network.
I welcome the move to contactless payments at railway stations. It is a transformational innovation that makes travel much quicker and easier. It allows those of us who like to cut it fine to just tap in without having to queue for a ticket or hurriedly navigate the ticket machine. The Government’s case for the roll-out is that it should make rail travel more convenient, accessible and flexible, and I agree that those are the right ambitions.
Reigate station was one of the stations brought into the latest expansion of contactless in December 2025. This was part of a wider scheme to roll out contactless ticketing across the south-east of England. Stations in neighbouring constituencies, such as Dorking, Leatherhead and Ashtead, were also included. The concern I want to put to the Minister is that, for my constituents, this roll-out has introduced not simply a new way for people to pay but a change in what they pay, when they can travel, which discounts they can access and whether long-established local arrangements still apply.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate on an incredibly important issue. Does she not agree that contactless roll-out may be beneficial for some, but for others, the higher prices, restricted off-peak hours and complex new ticketing structures will be incredible off-putting, and that there must be a return to the customer-first policy across our public rail network throughout the United Kingdom?
Rebecca Paul
It is like the hon. Gentleman has read my mind—or even my speech. I completely agree with his point, and I will go into a number of those issues in some detail.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
This is such an important debate. My constituency is the single biggest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London, yet we were completely missed out from the tap in, tap out roll-out. I wrote to the Minister to ask why, and he did not tell me when we would be included. On behalf of my constituents who are working really hard for that elusive growth, I ask the Minister when that might happen.
Rebecca Paul
I hope the hon. Lady gets an answer to her question.
On paper, contactless was presented to my constituents as a simple upgrade to how they pay. In practice, it is much more than that. I am not at all suggesting that operators have actively set out to conceal their price rises, but it is fair to say that they were not as clear, prominent or energetic as they should or could have been in explaining the full practical implications for passengers. Indeed, the changes were snuck through without any proper consultation or targeted communication. That is particularly galling since the Government are freezing rail fares across the country to ease cost of living pressures. Why do my constituents who rely on Reigate station not deserve the same?
Contactless was presented to people simply as a way of making payments easier, so many passengers, understandably, assumed that they would not have to pay more or change the time they travelled. Clearly, that has not happened at stations like Reigate. One very brief example will illustrate the point: the first off-peak train of the day is now nearly an hour later than before. That is a ticket price hike by stealth. For many years, Reigate passengers had a settled and well-understood expectation about which morning train to London marked the start of off-peak travel. That was an important part of how they planned their day, especially those travelling into London for leisure, appointments or family trips rather than for the traditional commuting pattern.
Under the new structure, because peak now runs until 9.30 am, and because Reigate’s train pattern does not line up neatly with that cut-off, the practical effect has been to push the first off-peak option later. In other words, a journey that many local passengers had long understood to be available on an off-peak basis is no longer available on the same terms. Some must now travel later, otherwise they must pay more. In that case, the roll-out of contactless has had a measurable negative impact on how some of my constituents travel by rail.
Of course, it is important to acknowledge that not every fare has increased and not every passenger has found themselves losing out. Southern notes that for many people, the contactless fare will be the same as that of a ticket bought on the day, and the whole premise of the system is that, for many passengers making simple journeys, contactless will be convenient and, in some cases, better value.
That, however, is only one part of the picture. The people who are most exposed to the downsides of this transition are the people least placed to absorb them. Currently, existing discounts cannot be applied to pay-as-you-go contactless, and if someone has a railcard or is eligible for other discounts, including a child discount, it may be cheaper to buy a conventional ticket rather than use the contactless system. That means that often the most affected passengers are families, older people, veterans and others whose journeys may amount to something more than the default model of a full-fare adult simply tapping in and tapping out.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. There are issues with people who rely on super off-peak tickets, particularly at the weekends. Contactless has been introduced to Harlington in Mid Bedfordshire. It is valuable for commuters, but there are families who rely on the super off-peak fares, particularly at the weekends, who are now paying more for their travel at a time when they are hearing from the Government that rail fares are being frozen. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for the Government to reconsider the technology that they are using to allow more flexibility in ticketing through the contactless system?
Rebecca Paul
I agree, and I will come on to that, but I am concerned that there is some rigidity in the roll-out. I expect that part of the challenge will be making adjustments to reflect what is required locally but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the super off-peak impact is detrimental to many constituents, so I thank him for raising that.
One of the strongest examples that has been raised with me several times is the family day out. A family in Reigate taking children into London for museums, sightseeing or simply a day in the capital may now find that the day is squeezed at both ends. Outward travel on the old familiar basis is no longer available at the same time in the morning, while return travel is also shaped by the new peak restrictions in the evening. Ministers often speak, rightly, about encouraging leisure travel, public transport use and access to our capital’s cultural institutions, but if a system makes that kind of family journey harder to plan, less flexible or more expensive, something has gone wrong.
There is also a fairness issue between neighbouring stations. My constituents look at nearby stations where these issues have not arisen and ask a simple question: “Why are we being treated differently?”
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I agree that we need to avoid extra charges and make train fares cheaper. The hon. Lady talked about neighbouring constituencies. Despite Woking being the busiest station in Surrey, we do not have tap in, tap out, which means that hundreds of people a year tap in at Waterloo and, unreasonably, are not able to tap out at Woking, resulting in extra charges. Does she agree that the Government should introduce tap in, tap out fairly to Woking and other areas of Surrey?
Rebecca Paul
I agree that we should look to roll out contactless to stations that do not have it, but I hope that the issues I am raising about pricing are taken into account. I hope it is useful for the hon. Gentleman to see the impact that the roll-out is having in Reigate. It would be good if we could iron out the difficulties before it is further expanded. We very much welcomed contactless and were excited to get it, but we did not anticipate the stealth price hikes and their impact. It was something that I really wanted to celebrate locally, but all of a sudden there were these downsides that we had not planned for because they had not been communicated properly. I hope it is helpful for the hon. Gentleman to learn from what has happened in Reigate, and hopefully the Minister will take that on board before rolling out contactless to other stations in Surrey.
Sitting on top of all this, there is an unfortunate layer of confusion. I agree with the Government in their diagnosis that rail fares are too complex and that simplification is necessary. On one level, that is plainly true, so surely they did not intend that the contactless roll-out would leave informed local rail users having to spend time and energy working through the interplay between contactless singles, paper returns, travelcards, caps, discounts, peak times and station-specific exceptions. We have to ask ourselves whether the new system is actually simpler from the passenger’s point of view. Contactless undeniably offers much convenience, but I am concerned that it is not offering clarity or value for money for all.
I gently say to the Minister that this roll-out appears to have been a rigid programme. The correspondence I have seen suggests that operators had only limited room to preserve sensible local arrangements, even where a clear passenger need has been identified. If that is correct, the Department should reflect on whether the roll-out has been too inflexible. National consistency has its place, but so does common sense. We were just discussing the broader roll-out in Surrey, which I hope we will see; there is lots that can be learned and improved on so that other areas in Surrey do not suffer the same surprise and detrimental impact as we have in Reigate.
I would like to ask the Minister four things. First, what can be done for specific cases like Reigate where contactless has caused unexpected problems? Will he step in to help work towards restoring the long-standing off-peak position for the first morning journey, so that passengers are not simply forced on to a later train or a higher fare? Secondly, will the Minister review the impact of the contactless roll-out on passengers who depend on discounts, particularly railcard users and families travelling with children? It is difficult to argue that a system is fully fit for purpose when important categories of passenger are told that the purported benefit does not properly work for them.
Thirdly, can the Department for Transport look into anomalies between geographically neighbouring stations and whether these are forcing passengers to alter their behaviour, including using cars to drive to a further away station to secure a better deal? We are seeing people drive to Redhill rather than get the train from Reigate, which they live closer to.
Finally, will the Minister ensure that when these changes are rolled out in future, passengers get genuinely clear, station-specific guidance explaining what has changed, who benefits from contactless, who may be better off sticking with conventional tickets and how any new restrictions operate in practice? My constituents have very much regretted not having access to that information.
As I hope I have made clear, I support simpler ticketing, modernisation and making rail travel more attractive. Contactless is a gateway to all that, but it must work for all passengers. Regrettably, at the moment we have a system that is leaving a sizeable minority disadvantaged and paying more for less flexibility than they enjoyed before. I hope the Minister will engage with these points in the practical and constructive spirit in which I have made them, and I would be delighted to work with him on finding workable solutions and taking the learnings for roll-out to other stations. Overall, it is a great thing: I very much welcome contactless coming to Reigate, but it would be really good if we could iron out some of the difficulties with ticket pricing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing it, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their important contributions as we consider contactless payment roll-out at railway stations and its impact on ticket prices.
I want to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Reigate that I listened carefully to the concerns she raised. I also want to thank her for the spirit of practicality and openness with which she has approached the implementation of contactless roll-out. Of course, the Department for Transport needs to take on board the concerns of constituents in Reigate and the other areas where contactless ticketing has been rolled out, to ensure that it does what the scheme is intended to do: provide a more seamless, integrated and easy-to-use ticketing experience for passengers. I have taken on board some of her specific points, especially on what can be done for her constituents in Reigate, and the concerns she raised about off-peak and the types of people who take those services, whether they are families visiting London or people relying on the social connections that the railway can bring.
The DFT keeps implementation continuously under review. I will ensure that anomalies in the system such as those that the hon. Lady raised are passed through to the Rail Minister. Her point about guidance and communication is especially important. We want people to benefit from contactless roll-out, which means that they need to be fully informed about the implications of these changes. I thank her for raising those points in a spirit of practicality and openness.
More broadly, I know that the hon. Lady is a determined advocate for her constituents. Like the Department for Transport, she understands that our railways are catalysts for cultural connection and economic growth, and I believe that her constituents in Reigate should be able to benefit from them to the same extent as those in every other part of the United Kingdom. She has mentioned the challenges people face due to limited transport connectivity, and I welcome the opportunity to respond in more detail to those concerns today.
On the matter of expanding pay-as-you-go with contactless ticketing at Reigate station specifically, I appreciate how important flexible ticketing and payment options are for passengers and want to provide some information on the progress being made on the points that the hon. Lady raised. On 7 December last year, we introduced changes to paper fare pricing at 50 stations across the south-east in preparation for the launch of the pay-as-you-go ticketing system. A week later, on 14 December, pay-as-you-go was launched at 30 stations, including Reigate, enabling passengers to benefit from simpler, easier and more flexible ticketing.
The introduction of new, simplified single-leg priced fares, like those already successfully implemented in London, means there is now just one peak and off-peak fare, with consistent restrictions across those services. Prices were adjusted so that a single ticket is around half the price of a return ticket, although I am cognisant of the anomalies that that has created, which the hon. Lady pointed out.
The move to single-leg pricing unfortunately means that some passengers may pay more, and that is something that I will reflect to the Rail Minister, but it is important to note that, in return, it unlocks more flexibility, and other passengers may see a reduction in their ticket price. These changes apply not only to pay-as-you-go, but to paper ticket prices.
We are already seeking to roll out this improved flexibility in pricing and ticketing beyond London and the south-east; we are now firmly in the delivery phase of launching pay-as-you-go to more than 90 stations in Greater Manchester and the west midlands. However, I take the point made by the hon. Members for Reigate and for Woking about the need to ensure that we learn the lessons of the roll-out as we bring it to more places, so that we can fully secure the benefits of a contactless system.
Greater Manchester is already benefiting from new, simpler fares in advance of pay-as-you-go ticketing, and the west midlands will have full, integrated multimodal fares and ticketing from day one. Alongside that, we are testing other ticketing innovations through digital pay-as-you-go trials, three of which have gone live across the north and the midlands since September last year. They will help us to understand how best to deliver this new, innovative ticketing option, to meet the needs of passengers.
The hon. Member for Reigate made a point about consistency of communications and a seamless experience for passengers. As we move towards delivering Great British Railways, our priority is to strike the right balance between affordability for passengers and taxpayers, to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal but also to run the railway in a more holistic way so that passengers get a consistent experience wherever they travel. GBR will enable more consistent ticketing practice across the network, ensuring that wherever people travel they can be confident that they are buying the right ticket and getting the best fare for their journey.
We must also acknowledge the very real cost of living pressures that are facing many households, including in Reigate. Transport costs form a significant part of that mix, and we must balance the need to fund the railway through passenger revenue with the need to reduce the burden on taxpayers. For too long, passengers have endured relentless fare increases. Between 2010 and 2024, fares rose by around 60%, placing real pressure on hard-working families and commuters. This Government are committed to turning the page and in March we took the significant step of freezing regulated fares for the first time in 30 years. We are taking immediate action to ease the burden on passengers and to begin building, longer-term, a more affordable railway.
Monica Harding
Of course it is really important that we bring fares down, but we also need to make sure that the trains actually work. In February, 5.82% of all South West Railway services were cancelled on the main line that runs through my constituency. I wonder whether the Minister thinks those figures are accurate, but they are very poor figures for a commuter line, where anything over 3% is considered poor. Will he comment on that?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise disruption of commuter services on behalf of her constituents. It links back to the point that our railways are meant to be catalysts for economic growth, which should be the case in Esher and Walton, as in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I will make two separate points. First, if the hon. Lady writes to me specifically about the disruption being experienced in her constituency, I will ensure that she receives a full response about what the Department for Transport intends to do, working with the operator, to achieve changes. Secondly, if she feels that the ministerial correspondence that she received on ticketing, which she mentioned in her intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, did not go quite far enough in giving her the information she needs, I will ensure that she receives a fuller response to that point, too. I thank her for raising that important point.
Thanks to this Government, the price of travelcards will be frozen until March 2027, meaning that weekly and daily caps will remain unchanged from 2026. That will make a real difference for people who rely on pay-as-you-go travel in places such as Reigate, allowing them to reach their caps sooner and ensuring that the cost of their journeys does not rise significantly throughout the year. These decisions will put more money back into the pockets of working people and form part of our wider plans to bring the railway into public ownership, in order to create a simpler and more reliable network that delivers for passengers.
The hon. Member for Reigate also highlighted the challenges that constituents face with transport connectivity more broadly. On securing reliable rail and bus connectivity, we recognise the concerns that exist and have a clear plan to address them by equipping major city regions with the tools they need to roll out locally ticketing that reflects local travel patterns. This will include a shared technology solution allowing for integrated pay-as-you-go with contactless across different transport modes. We will set out further details in due course, while of course taking into account the specific challenges that the hon. Lady raised.
I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are firmly committed to improving the travel experience for her constituents and for passengers across the network. That means simplifying fares, making them more flexible to meet the needs of passengers, and delivering innovative solutions that fully realise the benefits of a truly modern transport network. I assure her that I have taken on board her specific points about the roll-out and will ensure that they are reflected through to the Rail Minister. I thank her for her contribution on this incredibly important topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Single Status of Worker
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.
Good afternoon, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to an issue that has the potential to transform the world of work for millions of people up and down the country.
The Government’s plan to make work pay was one of our central policy commitments at the last general election. I was proud to play an important part in shaping the package and begin delivering on it in government. As a result of changes that this Government have made, the lives of working people are already improving. Minimum wage rates now take account of the cost of living, which is massively important to people on low incomes in this time of rising energy and fuel costs. Fathers are now entitled to paternity leave from day one; they no longer have to wait months to accrue that important right. Statutory sick pay is also now an entitlement from day one, and the lower earnings limit and the waiting period have been removed. This transformation of the world of work will continue as measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 come into force over the coming months and years.
However, noticeably absent from that list is the promise that we made to the electorate to move towards a single status of worker, on which we committed at the election to launch a consultation in the first year of government. We are approaching the end of the second year with no further indication of when there will be a consultation or, indeed, whether there will be one at all. I understand that the focus of most of our time in office has been the mammoth process of passing and implementing the Employment Rights Act. I know only too well how significant an undertaking that has been and I commend the work of officials in the Department for Business and Trade to pass that transformative Act within less than 18 months of our entering office.
Although the Act has been implemented, we must not forget that a number of commitments in the plan to make work pay fall outside its scope. They include changes to the parental leave system and carer’s leave, reform of TUPE, the review of health and safety guidance, changes to allow collective grievances, and what we are debating today—the commitment to move towards a single status of worker. I know that steps have been taken to implement change in some of those areas, and I would welcome a substantive update from my hon. Friend the Minister on the progress being made to deliver on all the commitments in the plan to make work pay.
The need to deal with worker status has been an issue since long before we entered office. It is almost nine years since the publication of “Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices”, which made some proposals on status, and more than seven years since the then Conservative Government accepted that changes needed to be made. It is a matter of record that nothing has been done since then to implement those proposals. It has therefore long been recognised that employment status is overly complicated, outdated and no longer reflective of the complexities of the modern labour market. We will see whether we can reach consensus on the solution, but we should at least begin to try to address it.
It might be helpful if I set out the current legal framework. I hope that that will demonstrate the need for reform and why this is a complicated area that requires careful consideration. First, there are those who are classed as employees, who receive almost all working protections, depending on service length. Then there are workers, or limb (b) workers—under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—who have access to some working protections, such as the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the minimum wage, but not others. And then there are the self-employed, who have no rights to working protections.
In practice, differentiating each status can be tricky, and reliance has been placed on court cases to establish the boundaries between them. It can therefore be a significant challenge for an individual to understand under which status their employment falls. If they do not readily know the answer, it can be difficult to enforce their rights without legal support. Matthew Taylor noted pithily in his report that
“without an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law, understanding how this might apply to your situation is almost impossible.”
People’s status and their rights under it should not be subject to their willingness to fight, sometimes for years, through an employment tribunal.
It might be said that people’s status and rights ought to be obvious from day one of their employment. For many that is true, but it does not recognise the explosion in what might be described as gig economy-type work in the past 15 years or so. By the end of the previous Administration, the number of people classed as being in insecure work stood at about 4 million, according to a TUC analysis. That represented a growth of about 1 million during the Tories’ time in office. Job growth in that period was driven largely by a rise in insecure work, which increased three times faster than secure forms of employment. Of the 4 million in insecure work, the TUC found that about half were low-paid self-employed, and many of them were unlikely to be genuinely self-employed at all.
During that period, the emergence of platform work saw the size of the gig economy explode. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that there were 1.6 million people working in the gig economy by 2022. Advances in technology, combined with ageing status laws, have allowed employers to avoid their responsibilities by advertising for positions that are described as for a “worker” or for the “self-employed” but, in reality, have all the hallmarks of direct employment.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for giving way. We have sat in a number of hearings where different industries have expressed to us the competitive disadvantage that they experience because people in the industry use the gig economy or platform work to avoid responsibilities. We heard evidence from Royal Mail about the disadvantage in the parcel delivery network, and from the British Hairdressing Association about the end of direct employment in hairdressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to think about the competitive disadvantage for employers who do the right thing in considering these issues?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the arguments put forward by not only those who represent workers, but those who represent businesses about the need for a level playing field. I will draw on some of the examples and evidence that the Select Committee has heard of the imbalances that are created.
Those who might be classed as being in bogus self-employment may perform work under the direction of a manager, and be told where to be and when; they may wear a uniform and follow policies; and they may not, in practice, have the opportunity to substitute their work to someone else. To all intents and purposes, they are acting as employees, yet they do not have the associated rights, such as sick pay, parental leave, protection from unfair dismissal or any sort of redundancy process. While that might be sold as flexibility to the worker, it is clear that the employer retains most of the flexibility.
I saw this at first hand a few years ago when I accompanied a self-employed delivery driver working for one of the large parcel companies. I saw the time pressure he faced each and every day just to make an hourly rate equivalent to the minimum wage, which, once overheads such as his van and fuel were taken into account, was not actually reached. If he was an employee, he would have the right to a minimum wage for each hour worked and the right to rest breaks, and he would not be forced to rush on a very tight delivery schedule just to scrape by.
It is important to note that the abuse of employment status has a knock-on effect on the competitiveness of businesses that choose to do the right thing by their workforce, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) referred to. The Select Committee has seen the impact of the race to the bottom on standards and on responsible employers, such as Royal Mail, that meet the full costs of employment and maintain good, unionised jobs, but are not able to compete with companies that choose to treat their couriers as self-employed or limb (b) workers. They may be doing so lawfully, but it means that they can undercut the likes of Royal Mail by not having to worry about the minimum wage, sick pay or holiday pay. It also means that they can, and do, treat their workforce as ultra-disposable commodities. I do not believe that is fair competition, nor do I believe that it is the direction that we should be going in as a country.
Recently, the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail gave evidence to the Select Committee, and they argued for reform in this area. When unions and management speak with one voice, they send a powerful message that should be heard. The sad reality is that large multinationals have been able to exploit the UK’s ageing status laws to completely undercut and undermine one of our oldest institutions. That is bad for workers in the sector, bad for competition and bad for the Exchequer, which loses out on their national insurance contributions and may incur additional costs of supporting low-paid workers in the welfare system.
These practices are on the march. Over the past 15 to 20 years, they have expanded from their traditional home in the construction sector into food and parcel delivery, services and, most recently, hospitality and retail. When I was a Minister, I was concerned to learn that digital platforms, which laughingly called themselves “talent platforms”, were moving into these sectors to match companies with individuals to work shifts, not as agency workers but as self-employed contractors. It is reported that big high street names such as Uniqlo, Gymshark and Lush have used those platforms to advertise work, but, to their credit, they stopped when concerns were raised. However, the TUC found that as late as last year, Urban Outfitters, Claridge’s hotel and Colicci cafés all continued to advertise on the platforms.
These digital platforms mean that, increasingly, the shop assistant helping us bag our clothes or the barista serving us coffee no longer receives the working protections that we all believe they should have. What happens when the coffee shop across the road finds that it can no longer compete with the prices of its competitor because the competitor has everyone bogusly self-employed? It puts those who want to do the right thing in an invidious position.
This has already happened in other sectors, including delivery driving and the hair and beauty sector. The massive drop-off in apprenticeships in the hair and beauty sector is blamed, at least in part, on the rise in the chair model, which of course is another form of bogus self-employment, forcing other salons to make difficult and unpalatable decisions. It is clear that bogus self-employment is driving the race to the bottom.
Bogus self-employment is also facilitating illegal working by those who do not have the right to work in this country. There have been repeated reports that platforms in the gig economy were failing to check people’s right-to-work status. Measures have now been introduced to legally require gig-economy companies to carry out checks to confirm that anyone working in their name is eligible to work in the UK. This is the first time that such checks have been extended to these casualised sectors, making employers liable to fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. However, that is only one approach to tackle illegal working, which requires stronger labour market enforcement across the board. The introduction of a single worker status would mean that the stringent checks that employers are already required to carry out on those who want to work for them directly are also applied to those who work through an app.
There is no time to waste on tackling bogus self-employment. It is already unlawful, but the law must be enforced properly. It is happening at scale in this country, and the Government should take stronger action now. There is no need to wait until single worker status policies have been finalised.
Steps that could be taken now, ahead of a consultation, include introducing a presumption of worker status, which would require an operator to prove that individuals it engages are not workers or employees, rather than putting the onus on an individual to test their rights and try to enforce them via the legal lottery. That presumption is already standard practice in relation to the minimum wage. We could also empower the Fair Work Agency to conduct investigations when status is in question.
We must move away from the piecemeal approach whereby workers fight tooth and nail in a clogged-up employment tribunal system, possibly waiting years to establish their working status. Too often, even when a worker succeeds, the business tweaks its terms of business so that it can avoid the consequences of the tribunal judgment and move people back into bogus self-employment. How is that gaming of the system in the interests of working people in this country?
We can also quickly reform the law on substitution clauses, which are used widely to provide a façade of self-employment, no matter how someone typically works. They allow companies to disavow employee and worker status, on the basis that someone no longer owes any contractual obligations to perform a service personally. Downgrading the importance of that when determining worker status could help to reduce the number of times that it is used to avoid obligations. These things could all be introduced as interim measures to help improve the situation while the consultation and subsequent legislation are pursued.
Governing is all about making choices and intervening to solve problems, no matter their complexity. Doing so might not be popular with everyone, and it might not be easy, but effective Governments are guided by their principles on what is right and what is wrong. I think that most Members would agree that the current employment status system does not treat working people fairly. It is unnecessarily complex, it is no longer appropriate for our modern labour market, and it facilitates rampant bogus self-employment and exploitation. The Labour party decided that it was no longer fit for purpose, and we fought the last election pledging to “move towards” a single status of worker to simplify the system.
I will be the first to admit that that commitment was not as strong as I or others on the Labour Benches would have liked, but moving towards a single status of worker would at least be a step in the right direction. However, it is a step that we have yet to take, and that needs fixing. The Government must not forget about this important strand of the Make Work Pay agenda. I understand the challenges of doing this alongside implementing the provisions of the 2025 Act, but we entered government to deliver transformative change for workers, and that takes hard work and determination. We should not take our eye off the ball.
I have sympathy for the Minister; she is wholeheartedly committed to the Make Work Pay agenda and, indeed, was closely involved in its development while we were in opposition. I know that she will advocate for the package in internal discussions among Departments and push tirelessly for its implementation in full. Sadly, as I know from my own experience, she will also be facing scepticism and belligerence from other parts of the Government that are against bringing forward a consultation on worker status.
The Minister has my support, and no doubt the support of a large number of the Back Benchers here today, to continue pushing in internal discussions. She should remind those she has discussions with of not just what was in the plan to make work pay but the commitment at the Dispatch Box in the other place by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I pay tribute to for all her work on the Act. On 23 July 2025, she said:
“I am pleased to be able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that we will publish our consultation on employment status by the end of this year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 358.]
The Minister will not need it pointing out that we are already well into the next year.
I am concerned that some may have the view that the Make Work Pay agenda was completed as soon as the Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent, but the job is not done. We cannot let this opportunity to transform the world of work slip through our fingers. We owe it to working people in this country to deliver on the change that we promised. The Government need to demonstrate their commitment to moving towards a single status of worker by opening the consultation this spring and setting out a timeline for delivering change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. We are likely to start voting between 3 pm and 3.30 pm, and there could be up to 16 votes. At that stage, I will suspend the sitting and we will have to return. I cannot see us finishing all the speeches and the Front-Bench speeches in the time we have available—although if that happens, it is all good news.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for highlighting this matter. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well in her new role. I think this is her second or third Westminster Hall debate, and she has done a fair bit in the Chamber.
Although I agree with the principle of what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, I want to highlight the issue for businesses back home. They are not against the principle or object of a single status of worker, but we need a balance. With respect to other Members, I would like to tease that out.
The issue is incredibly complex and must be teased out from all angles. While I agree with the backdrop of ensuring fairness, I will highlight the risks of casting a long and perhaps damaging shadow over the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the very lifeblood of the Northern Ireland economy. In my constituency, small and medium businesses create the most jobs, so it is for them that I am here today. I wish to be their voice in Westminster Hall.
No one in this House, and certainly no one in my party, supports the exploitation of workers. We have always stood for the right of every individual to be treated with dignity and to receive the pay that they have earned by the sweat of their brow. Where bogus self-employment exists to undercut the law, it must be met with firm and decisive action.
By the same token, we must not allow a desire for simplicity to lead us into a harsh overhaul that sometimes ignores the economic reality on the ground. For many, the current limb (b) worker status is not a trap but a choice that offers a vital compromise of flexibility that a rigid, one-size-fits-all employment contract simply cannot provide. I ask that the Minister takes my thoughts, and probably those of others, on board to ensure that we can provide protection for workers while at the same time not disadvantaging the small businesses in my constituency.
Our primary concern is for the small business owner—for example, the shopkeeper in Newtownards, the start-up in Ballynahinch and the family firm down in the Ards peninsula, all in my Strangford constituency. These employers are not faceless corporations. They are people who take risks to provide jobs for their neighbours. We have to be aware that in attempting to prevent abuse, we could be preventing job creation or retention by burdening them with the same administrative and financial burdens as multinational giants. Will the Minister ensure that small businesses—the lifeblood of my constituency—are protected? Rather than necessarily protecting workers, the Government may be jeopardising the very jobs that they rely on.
We must remember that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages of any business, every new hire is an investment that takes time to repay. We want to encourage businesses to continue hiring and rehiring, but they also have to have the prospect of a future, and a sense of where that leads. If we put our thumb on the scale against employers by removing the space they need to make vital judgments, we will potentially choke opportunity and harden the barriers for those who are currently on the margins of the workforce.
Let us focus on economic delivery and transparency. Let us empower businesses to grow, rather than stifling them with red tape. We need common sense, not ideological rigidity. We should be building a dynamic labour market that respects the need for flexibility, rather than one that forces every worker and business into a single, restrictive box. That is why the conversation—this debate—must be fulsome, taking into account the effect on small businesses, which account for 90% of all the workers in Northern Ireland. That is how massive this issue is, and shows the impact it could have on us. Those 90% of workers in Northern Ireland businesses do not have a human resources department to keep them right.
I am pleased to be part of this conversation, and I hope that all Members will take my views on board in a positive and respectful way. I am keen to achieve what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough wants to achieve, but I am also conscious of ensuring that we can bring businesses along too. If we can do that, it is a win-win for everyone.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Mr Efford. I refer to my declaration of interests on my trade union membership and trade union support in the general election.
The Conservative ethos of unhindered market determination meant that historical antagonism to the trade unions, which are seen as an unholy impediment to the favoured goal of a flexible labour market, intensified as the Tories continued to try to curtail their power. It became the common theme of Governments here and elsewhere—up until, of course, the election of the Labour Government in 2024. The market had to be what determined the wages and conditions of ordinary working individuals, not collective bargaining or negotiations with unions. Management would be totally free to pay what the individual worker is worth. That is worth recognising at the outset.
They reckon that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was not Tony Blair, as she once declared; her most profound legacy was the gig economy. The widespread acceptance of insecure, casual employment is one of the cornerstones of the UK economy. What an absolute disaster. The gig economy was given legal underpinning by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the two levels of employment status: the employee, with full legal and contractual rights, and the worker, who enjoyed only minimal legal protections. The exploitative use of casual labour was basically given legal legitimacy. That was a crime against ordinary working people.
Under those Acts, a worker is said to have a more casual, less structured work pattern—for example, zero-hours contracts. They are usually required to do the work themselves, and cannot ask somebody else to cover for them. They technically do not have to make themselves available to work, but in reality the fear of no further hours being offered if they turn down a request that they work has made this a legal fiction in many cases.
Look at the economic effects of the widespread employment of those legally characterised as workers. It is blatantly obvious that good, long-term jobs have been replaced by low-paid, minimum wage jobs. Many of those who have been forced to work in the large casual work sector require benefits to survive. Employers’ profits are being subsidised by everybody in this room—by the taxpayer. Cheap labour has been a major cause of a lack of investment in capital and in research and development, resulting in poor productivity growth. It is hard for workers to achieve union recognition as they are without unfair dismissal protection, leading to even weaker union density in key industries—again, a key goal of the Conservatives throughout their history.
I would like to share some of the difficulties suffered by individuals employed as workers. Many have been on zero-hours contracts and do not know what money they will earn each month. We understand the problems that brings: they have no job security and can be dismissed without notice, they are not entitled to redundancy pay, and some employers employ a pool of workers who work besides those with employee status, so that there can be mass redundancies and avoid statutory consultations and legal obligations to discuss alternative employment with those affected—they can freely choose those with worker status.
Workers can be wrongly classified as being self-employed—the well-known bogus self-employed—a tactic used to avoid national insurance contributions, stakeholder pension contributions and so on. It is sometimes hard to spot because of legal complexities. If, on paper, somebody hired to work can choose somebody else to do that work for them, the so-called substitution clause means that that individual will legally be given self-employed status and have no employment rights whatsoever. It is often hard to prove the false nature of the written clause, but in reality, it is well known that no one in the firm would dare to rely on these clauses for, say, an extra day off.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the exploitation of workers with very little legal protection. Does he agree that it must be incumbent on all employees to have union recognition, whereby the voices of employees, no matter how small the organisation, are heard and can be part of any action that can be taken against rogue employers? There are some very good employers that recognise unions and work with them to achieve the best, but many do not recognise unions and would rather have working conditions that take us back more than 100 years, before the work of trade unions had even started.
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with the sentiments outlined by my hon. Friend.
I will move on to a summary of the legal rights denied to people classified as workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996: protection against unfair dismissal after six months; the right to guaranteed hours; the right to maternity pay; the right to paternity leave; protection against unfair redundancy selection; the right to redundancy pay; access to statutory union recognition procedures; and the ability to request family-friendly flexible hours. Those are the rights that are being denied to workers at this moment in time.
What are we really asking for? There must be a renewed push for the full implementation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to merge the employed and worker tiers into one single legal category of employee with full legal employment rights. We need an end to the bogus self-employment tactics that unscrupulous employers deploy. The law should not recognise the legitimacy of any substitution clause.
The best means of achieving a clear distinction between a new employee with single status and those who are actually self-employed is to use the formula proposed in Lord Hendy’s single status Bill of 2023-24, which was introduced in the Lords. That would not only merge employees and workers into a single status of employee; legal employment rights would also end the bogus self-employment tactics that employers use to deny people the higher employee status. Under Lord Hendy’s Bill, a person would be deemed to be self-employed only if there was clear evidence that he or she was genuinely operating a business on his or her own account. Evidence such as business accounts, advertising and the number of clients or customers would be needed to prove true engagement for services by a self-employed person.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for bringing this timely debate to the House. I also thank the Minister for her sterling work on the employment Bill. It was an excellent Bill. It could be a lot better; it could be a lot stronger—to be honest, we need an employment Bill 2.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the arguments against single worker status is that of flexibility, particularly for young people who want to work seasonally, as happens in my constituency in Cornwall? I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that that option still remains open if a person remains an employee under our new Employment Rights Act. There is misunderstanding about that, and it is really important that people realise that there is the option under the Act to retain flexibility without the need for self-employment status.
Ian Lavery
I am sure the Minister will respond to that question.
I want to say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for the sterling work that he has done. A lot more work needs to be done, but working people in this country are a lot better off now since the election of the Labour Government in 2024 than they ever were before. The Employment Rights Act transforms the lives of ordinary working people, but we must work at it and it must go a lot further. This debate is about the differences between an employee and a worker, and we must change that as rapidly as possible.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for securing this debate and for his sterling work in ensuring the Employment Rights Bill became the Employment Rights Act. He was doughty in his prosecution of it. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I too received support from trade unions in the run-up to the general election.
I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues, not least by leading, in opposition, on Labour’s new deal for working people. The Minister herself contributed to that in no small part, for which I am eternally grateful. It was a joy to work with her on it. We published it in September 2021, in consultation with affiliated and non-affiliated unions. I entirely support the Government’s direction of travel but, now that the Employment Rights Act has passed, the task is clear: we must implement it properly, deliver the remaining new deal commitments in full and ensure robust enforcement so that rights mean something in practice. I urge Ministers to go further and faster on one central commitment: a single status of worker. That was never peripheral. It was at the heart of the new deal. The principle is straightforward: if you work for someone else, you should enjoy the full range of employment rights. Without that clarity, bogus self-employment will continue to deny millions the basic protections of sick pay and holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal.
One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity. There are ways and means of accommodating seasonal work, and nobody would deny that, but we must also look at it from the perspective of small businesses, which work hard to employ people. Let us think through how they are undermined by those who seek to rely upon alternative ways of engaging people. They are undercutting their competitors in Newtownards, down the street, and elsewhere. That is not how it should be. We should be playing by the same rules.
There is also a wider public interest. Artificial self-employment does not just erode rights; it undermines the Exchequer through lost national insurance, income tax and pensions contributions. The TUC’s research on this some years ago showed that it probably accounted for lost revenues in the order of £10 billion per annum. A single status would restore fairness in both the labour market and the tax system.
This reform is not new, and I pay tribute to Lord John Hendy KC, who introduced the Status of Workers Bill in the House of Lords in May 2021. It passed on Third Reading in January 2022 before I brought it to the House of Commons in early 2022. That work demonstrated both the strength of the argument and the breadth of support, yet, as a recent briefing makes clear, the current patchwork of employment statuses has created a legal battleground, with employers able to exploit complexity and avoid responsibility. That is why many of us believe that the Employment Rights Act 2025 should have centred on single status. Instead, we have a commitment to consult, but the case has already been repeatedly and convincingly made. That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report.
We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice.
Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC? Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them.
We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my union support and membership of the trade union group of Labour MPs.
In my constituency, I hear from postal workers, delivery drivers, care workers and many others who feel that the current system simply does not reflect the reality of the work they do. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: does our system of employment status match the modern day labour market? At the moment the answer is clearly no. We have a three-tier system that is overly complex, often unclear and too easily exploited. This is not a marginal issue. The TUC estimates that approximately 4 million people in the UK are in insecure work, including those on zero-hours contracts or in forms of precarious self-employment.
In my community, insecure work shows up in very real ways: the delivery driver working regular hours who is told that they are self-employed, with no sick pay or job security; the worker who wants to speak up about unsafe practices, but fears that they have no protection if they do; and the families trying to make ends meet without the certainty of stable hours or fair conditions. In sectors such as distribution and logistics, which are so important to the economy, the problem is particularly acute.
The TUC has also highlighted that up to one in eight workers are now in some form of insecure work. Where a parcel is delivered in my constituency, the person carrying it is often classified as self-employed, without basic protections. That is not genuine flexibility; it is insecurity dressed up as choice, and it is costing working people in my constituency real security and dignity, and ultimately real income.
We can also see the wider consequences. Companies that rely on insecure models are able to undercut those that provide decent pay and conditions. That creates a race to the bottom, one that often harms workers, undermines responsible employers, and weakens our economy. We see that tension clearly in the postal sector. Royal Mail, which directly employs its workforce and provides a universal service, is competing with firms that can erode basic obligations by classifying workers as self-employed. As evidence to the Business and Trade Committee has shown, it is not a level playing field: decent employers are penalised for doing the right thing, while the Treasury loses out on revenue that should be contributing to our public services.
There is, therefore, a strong case for moving towards the single status of worker, with a robust test to distinguish genuine self-employment. This is not about removing flexibility where it works; it is about ensuring that flexibility does not become a loophole for rights to then be stripped away. It is also about ensuring that the gains we have made through measures such as the Employment Rights Act actually reach the people they are designed to protect. Rights such as protection from unfair dismissal, guaranteed hours and access to union representation mean little if they can be avoided through reclassification.
There is also a wider public interest in the single worker status. At present, too many people fall outside whistleblowing protections simply because of their employment status. That cannot be right. If we want safer workplaces and higher standards, we need a system that gives people the confidence to speak up without fear of losing their livelihood. On the day that we mark the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, candour and truth in public and private life have never been more important.
Fundamentally, this is a cost-of-living issue. The TUC has found that insecure workers are significantly more likely to struggle to pay their household bills. When people lack basic protections, when their hours fluctuate unpredictably, when they have no sick pay and when they can be dismissed without notice, that instability feeds directly into financial insecurity. A fair labour market is essential to a fair standard of living. As a former chief executive who worked with a progressive Government overseas to improve employment rights, I believe in an economy built on fair rules, strong rights and shared prosperity, one that rewards good employers and protects working people.
I know the Minister has a long track record of supporting working people, so I have every faith that she will conduct this process well. I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a simpler framework to create a system that reflects the reality of modern work, closes loopholes and ensures that every worker has access to dignity, security and fairness at work. Ultimately, this issue comes down to a simple principle: people who work should have rights that they can rely on. For the people I represent, that principle cannot come quickly enough.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), with whom I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, for securing this debate.
The world of work has changed beyond recognition in the past several decades, but our employment laws have been severely left behind. We still sort people in work into three rigid categories—employees, workers and the self-employed. The framework for that was built in a different era, when people had one job, one employer and the reasonable expectation that the law would protect them if things went wrong.
That is obviously not the reality for millions of people today. It is not the reality for the delivery drivers who log into apps and spend hours under the management of an algorithm; they cannot set their prices and they are disciplined if their ratings drop, yet when they fall ill or are injured on the job, they are told, “Sorry, you are self-employed—you are on your own.” It is also not the reality for the agency care worker who has been looking after the same vulnerable residents for years without ever accruing a single day of redundancy protection, and it is not the reality for the freelance designer who depends entirely on one client but has no holiday pay, parental leave or pension contributions.
These people are trapped in a gap in the law. They are doing essential work, but they are being denied the essential rights that go along with that. The legal case that created those gaps was rooted in case law going back to 1968 and relied on concepts designed for the factory floor, not for the platform economy. It means that the rights of many workers depend not on the work they do or the hours they put in but on how cleverly designed their contract is. Let us be completely honest about who benefits from those contracts and that complexity: it is most certainly not the worker.
The problem has not gone unexamined. The Taylor review reported in July 2017 and recommended significant reforms. The Government of the day responded with the “Good Work Plan” in December 2018 and committed to legislate. Although the previous Government identified the problem and promised to fix it, they never did, and that has left people waiting for far too long. The current Government have taken important steps in the Employment Rights Act 2025: guaranteed hours for workers if they want them, a day one right to make flexible working requests and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency. Those steps are all welcome, but the Act did not address the fundamental structural problem that the categories themselves are broken. The Government can strengthen the rights attached to the “worker” category, but if people cannot tell which category they fall into, those rights remain words on the page. The Government’s next steps document commits to consulting on a simpler two-part framework for employment status, but we have been here before, and consultation commitments alone are not enough.
The Liberal Democrats believe that reform in this area should be built on clear principles. First, we need a dependent contractor status that sits between those who are fully employed and those who are genuinely self-employed. If someone works personally for another party and is not guaranteed business on their own account, they should have access to minimum levels of earnings, sick pay and holiday entitlement. The idea that someone can work full time for a single company and have fewer rights than a Saturday shop assistant is an indictment of our current system.
Secondly, the tax and national insurance treatment for employers in different categories must be aligned, because the current framework creates fiscal incentives for businesses to push people out of the protections they deserve. When it is cheaper to classify someone as self-employed, that is exactly what happens, and the cost is borne by the worker, and ultimately the Government.
The third principle concerns the burden of proof in disputes, which should shift from the individual to the employer, because asking someone on low or irregular pay with no savings and no legal protection to take on that legal risk against the company that controls their livelihood is not a fair fight. If an employer has classified someone as self-employed, it should be for the employer to justify that decision.
Fourthly, the Liberal Democrats believe that pension provision for those in non-standard work must be addressed urgently. Far too many people in the gig economy sector are building no retirement security whatever. They are invisible to the auto-enrolment system, and when they reach retirement with nothing, that cost will fall on us. In the Commons, we are currently going through the Lords amendments to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Government should be acting on the issue in the Bill.
Finally, where zero-hours contracts remain, there is a strong case for a higher minimum wage at times of normal demand to begin rebalancing the risk that currently falls entirely on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. I urge the Minister to confirm when the promised consultation on employment status reform will come forward and to commit to a timetable for legislation that does not repeat the sorry patterns of promises and retreats that we have seen from Government time and again, because the people caught in the gap have been patient for a long time. They have been told time and again that reform is coming and they deserve more than warm words; they deserve the law to be on their side.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. I regret that he himself was a victim of unemployment, cut down in his prime by a capricious boss, although I have greatly enjoyed working with the current Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to try to do what we all seek to do: improve the employment lot of our fellow citizens.
Single worker status is not a minor legal tidy-up; it would be a fundamental restructuring of the labour market—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough mentioned that in his opening remarks. For that reason, the Conservatives believe that we should proceed cautiously. We cannot have it both ways. This Government cannot deliver a once-in-a-generation change to workers’ rights—330 pages of new legislation that has caused a degree of indigestion in the employment market as it passes through it like an egg through a snake—and then immediately come back and say that we need to unleash even more uncertainty. The law that we pass most often in this House is the law of unintended consequences. Although we are well-meaning, it behoves us all to have regard to the ever-increasing proportion of our young people who are unemployed and unable to find work, in part no doubt due to the additional regulatory burden.
Although the Conservative party does not, of course, oppose a consultation on this subject—if that was a commitment given by the Government it is in the interests of good faith and democracy that they proceed to have such a consultation—we would nevertheless be extremely cautious about rushing too quickly to legislate. In the interests of time and productivity, I will leave my remarks there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on securing this debate and on his impassioned contributions throughout it. I know that, as my predecessor, he knows this agenda well. It has been a privilege to continue that work in my role. I was going to talk a lot about our Employment Rights Act and our wider plans to make work pay but in the interests of time I will not; my hon. Friends have covered those subjects exceptionally well and I thank them for that.
The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. As we have heard in this debate, it is no longer the norm to stay employed in the same company or even the same sector for a whole lifetime. New technology continues to transform the way that we work, and where and when we work. As the way we work changes, our employment rights legislation, which protects people, has had to be updated. That is what this Government are doing. I thank my hon. Friends for the many excellent points they have made in this debate about how we are working at pace to make sure that the environment for working people is much better than when we found it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough put exceptionally well how working people are already benefiting and seeing the impact that the Employment Rights Act and the other legislation that we have been working on are making.
I agree that to continue to progress in this area it is necessary to change the employment status framework for rights. The growth of the gig economy and growth in insecure work mean that some people are working without the certainty and stability that typical employment provides. The genuinely self-employed play an essential role in driving innovation, creativity and economic growth, and high-quality self-employment is a crucial part of our UK economy. However, vulnerable workers who work day in, day out, often in challenging conditions and for low pay, are not receiving the protections that they should. Their working conditions can be highly controlled by the people or organisations they work for, but they are nevertheless designated as self-employed, with no access to the national minimum wage, paid holidays, a workplace pension or protections from unlawful wage deductions.
The existing employment status framework can also be particularly difficult to understand and enforce. For someone to determine whether they are an employee, a limb (b) worker or genuinely self-employed can require the ability to understand both statute and a significant amount of complex case law. That presents challenges in a system where the onus is on the individual to bring a case to an employment tribunal to establish their employment status. It enables some employers to undercut their competitors—in this debate we heard many examples of that from different sectors—by misleadingly designating their workforce as self-employed when legally they are not, denying people the rights to which they are entitled, and exploiting the financial advantages associated with self-employment.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning the role of the Fair Work Agency on enforcement, and I am happy to continue the discussion outside the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the fact that the Government have set up a dedicated hidden economy team within the Fair Work Agency. From April, it will take action in sectors known to have egregious breaches of employment rights legislation, and act on illegal working and tax status.
We are committed to publishing a consultation on our plans to tackle employment status problems. It is important to look at whether the current test for employment status places the line between being a worker and being self-employed in the right place, and to consider how to improve compliance with the law so that everyone gets the rights to which they are entitled. Employment status is inherently complex, as we have heard in contributions to this debate.
I thank hon. Members for their time and consideration. We are doing lots of other work in this area, including for the self-employed, which I would like to talk about in further detail. However, in the interests of time I will not—I see you gesturing at the time with your pen, Mr Efford. I thank all hon. Members for contributing and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough for securing the debate.
Justin Madders
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was my oversight to not mention that earlier.
Technically, the problem for a lot of the people who we are discussing is that they are not employees, so they have no recognition process. The debate has been interesting. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who made some very important points, particularly on the tax take. That is something that we absolutely need to address, but this issue is fundamentally about fairness. Our Make Work Pay agenda has to be bolstered by action to address this problem. I hope the Minister gets the message that we need to do that soon.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) for keeping the debate in the main Chamber going long enough for us to finish this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.
Access to Work Scheme
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. The debate will end by 5.40 pm.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Access to Work scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. A disability can happen to any one of us at any time. That was a lesson that I learned the hard way, when I became fully paralysed by Guillain-Barré syndrome aged 22. I was unable to walk for five months, and it took me more than two years to walk steadily on my feet again. I remember feeling utterly exhausted and I worried about how I would ever work again. I am grateful to have made a near full recovery, but not everyone does. For many disabled people, the greatest barrier to work is whether the right support will be in place to make work possible and sustainable for them.
The Access to Work scheme should enable disabled people to enter work, to stay in work and to contribute fully to their communities and to our economy. Disabled people can have complex needs, but achieve remarkable things despite them. The scheme enables more than 74,000 disabled people to work by providing support such as specialist equipment, support workers and specialist job coaches. A study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found a £1.48 return for every £1 spent on the Access to Work scheme, so it is excellent value for money.
I have mentioned previously in the House that some of my constituents have been waiting more than nine months just for an assessment of their needs. Since then, the situation has deteriorated further. The waiting list has grown to 66,000 people, an increase of 4,000, and 32,000 payments are now outstanding. Applicants are being told that they may wait up to 37 weeks just for a decision, and some, in particular the self-employed, for more than a year. Let us be clear what that means. It means that someone offered a job cannot take it, that someone already in work cannot do the job properly and, in too many cases, that jobs are being lost unnecessarily.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Megan was offered 15 hours of employment through an internship with Silver Lining in Ilminster, which was fully funded by Access to Work, but the scheme only offered funding for three hours. Megan now has to claim universal credit as she cannot find accessible employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that such funding decisions are totally senseless and are keeping disabled people out of work and from contributing to our economy?
David Chadwick
I agree wholeheartedly that that is a great waste of the undoubted talent that Megan has and should be able to bring to the table.
Demand for the scheme has risen sharply. That should be welcomed, because it shows that people want to work and want to get back into work, but the system has not kept up with their demands. Backlogs are growing, processing times are getting longer and confidence in the scheme is falling away.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I met the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which points to the fact that in recent years average support has fallen sharply and, as a result, job retention has dropped from 88% to 43%. That is fewer people in work as a result of the broken system the hon. Gentleman describes. That is counterintuitive when we want to strengthen our economy and ensure that people are in work.
David Chadwick
The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. He is right to underline the issues for people who are disabled and want to get into work. Many employers wish to ensure that those people have the opportunity, but they are unable to expedite the system, through no fault of theirs. They want to employ people, but they cannot because the Government are falling short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a better arrangement and better co-operation in relation to not just those who want to work, but those who want to give them jobs?
David Chadwick
Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it.
Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through.
There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme.
We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity.
When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support.
Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I am very keen to call the Minister by 5.30 pm, so may I ask Members to keep their comments short?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wholeheartedly commend the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing today’s debate, for his eloquent description of the problems facing the Access to Work scheme and for allowing me a few minutes to contribute—in support of the views that he expressed.
I wanted to contribute to today’s debate as I am another example of an MP who has personally benefited from the Access to Work programme. My story has remarkable similarities to the hon. Member’s. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden-onset neurological illness. In my case, it was one called POEMS syndrome—POEMS stands for polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes—but I am very familiar with GBS, the syndrome that the hon. Member experienced, as I was on the same hospital ward as patients with that condition.
My illness affected my mobility. I was in hospital—the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery on Queen Square—for five months. I was unable to stand, let alone walk, and spent a year using a wheelchair. It was during my five-month stay in hospital that I first learned about the Access to Work scheme. Without my physiotherapists and occupational therapists, I would not even have known that it existed. I worry that patients in other hospitals might not necessarily receive the guidance that I did at the National.
The Access to Work team worked closely with my then employer, making adjustments to my office environment to make it wheelchair friendly and helping to access funding to pay for taxis to and from work and to meetings outside the office. That support was crucial in allowing me to go back to work after my illness. Without it, I do not know what I would be doing now or whether I would have managed to achieve elected office. Recent reports, however, suggest that I was lucky then and even luckier compared with people now trying to join the Access to Work scheme. Stories and personal testimony mount of a scheme increasingly letting customers down, with more than 66,000 applications remaining unprocessed.
Last month, I was proud to write the foreword, alongside the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), to a report by the Disability Policy Centre, the UK’s only disability think-tank, about the Access to Work scheme. The research showed that, without the scheme, up to 50,000 disabled people across the country could find themselves out of work. At a time when the number of people out of work due to long-term illness is at a record high, I want to join hon. Members in urging the Government to give Access to Work significantly more funding, so that it can achieve faster processing and much greater visibility for its potential users.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate and allowing me time to speak in it.
The National Audit Office report published earlier this year tells a story of a scheme under serious strain. Applications have more than doubled, the number of applications waiting for a decision has almost trebled, and outstanding payment requests have more than quadrupled. The NAO is clear that the backlog will not fall significantly without policy change, yet the scheme has not been substantially updated since 1994.
I want to give two examples from my constituency. The first is a self-employed artist—a young autistic person with selective mutism. She has been awarded support at £15.33 an hour, but the specialist support she needs costs between £25 and £40 an hour. Nobody will provide it at the awarded rate, so her family is stepping in unpaid. Her father can no longer work full time as a result. Not only does that have a knock-on effect on the family finances, but, if translated across the country, it would have a knock-effect on the economy.
The second example is a local business that supports autistic and ADHD adults into work. Many of them are professionals, academics and business owners—people who are very capable and want to work, but who need nuanced, skilled support with communication, executive function and workplace relationships. This business is regulated, VAT-registered, employs staff and maintains proper safeguarding, but it cannot provide services at £15 an hour, so it has had to stop taking on new Access to Work clients. The worry is that when reputable, safeguarded providers that are working with very vulnerable people withdraw from the market, the gap will be filled by those without those protections.
Those cases point to the same conclusion that the NAO reached: without real reform, this scheme will continue to fail the people it exists to serve. Rates must reflect the real cost of support. The comprehensive update the scheme has needed since 1994 cannot wait any longer.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his personal experience, which is so valuable and helpful when we discuss this type of issue. I know it is not the first time he has raised this matter, and he is right to focus on it.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for sharing his personal experience. I am delighted that both hon. Members are in the House and were able to use Access to Work to help them in their rehabilitation and return to employment. The Department is looking very carefully at the report my hon. Friend referred to, and we will come back to that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for their contributions, and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brings an interesting perspective to every debate he speaks in.
To be very clear, we want to build on our welfare state. We want it to be a working state, so that everyone has a platform of opportunity as well as a safety net. That is because everybody, regardless of disability or health condition, deserves the chance to make the most of their life. We want to remove unnecessary barriers that hold far too many people back—barriers to accessing, staying in and progressing in work—and of course, we need to reduce the disability employment gap, which at 29.5% remains far too high.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the experience of one of my constituents, who has given me permission to provide this information. She is profoundly deaf—that is how she describes herself—and has relied on Access to Work for 25 years. Despite this, she was recently told, via a no-reply email, to telephone or risk losing support, even though email communication had already been agreed as a reasonable adjustment. She applied within the six-week priority window, yet is facing delays of more than 30 weeks. She has received repeated emails incorrectly claiming that she has not responded, and has no clear information or timescales or the support she will receive. Does the Minister agree that a scheme designed to support disabled people into work must itself be accessible, and will she ensure that agreed adjustments are followed, communications improved and priority cases are genuinely prioritised?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has responsibility for Access to Work. He sadly cannot be with us this afternoon, but I have heard that particular case, and if my hon. Friend supplies me with the details, I will certainly raise it with the Minister.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In the light of the previous intervention, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the case just mentioned is not unique. Many such cases are happening in my constituency. People are not getting into work, and firms have gone out of business because work coaches are not being paid. Will the Minister stress upon on the Minister for Social Security and Disability the need to get this sorted?
Dame Diana Johnson
I fully appreciate that the case is not unique, and that far too many people are not getting the service we want them to have through Access to Work. I will say a little about what we are already doing and what we plan to do next.
Access to Work is key to delivering this Government’s objectives. It removes the barriers to work for disabled people and people with health impairments, and provides essential support that people need beyond the reasonable adjustments that employers are already required to make under the Equality Act 2010. As well as being important for individuals, Access to Work is important for businesses because it helps employers to recruit disabled people confidently and, very importantly, to retain them.
The National Audit Office report has been referred to a number of times. It announced its investigation into Access to Work on 1 September, and published its report, which I warmly welcomed, on 6 February. The report highlights that Access to Work is supporting more people than ever—particularly those with mental health conditions and learning disabilities—but it also documents the pressures of administrative backlogs, delays and rising costs, and the impact on people and their employers.
The report also recognises the Department’s efforts to improve decision making and productivity within existing operational, budgetary and policy constraints, including our intention to make improvements following the consultation on last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper. The NAO’s findings and recommendations are important, and we are reviewing them very carefully. They are a key contribution to ensuring that the scheme meets the needs of those who depend on it, while also delivering value for money.
The NAO is right to point out that “data systems hamper productivity” and do not provide officials with “an integrated view” of all customer information. There have been some improvements, for example, to allow customers to view their claims history—a response to customer feedback. Improvements are also being made to the case management system, but there is much more to do. A new standard operating procedure has been introduced to improve consistency and quality in application processing. That needs to be fully bedded in before the new work study called for by the National Audit Office is carried out, so that it can reflect the environment in which caseworkers will be operating in the future.
I want to talk about the growing demand for the scheme. As we all agree, Access to Work does a really important job, but it has come under serious strain from a major surge in demand since the pre-pandemic period. In 2024-25, although they were down somewhat that year, approval volumes were 59% higher than they had been in 2019-20. Spending on Access to Work in 2024-25 of £321 million was, in real terms, twice what it was in 2018-19 before the pandemic. The number of people receiving a grant—74,190—was almost double, and the number of applications in 2024-25—157,000—was more than double the number in 2018-19. Many more people are seeking support, particularly for mental health impairments, and that is now the largest group approved for payment, at 31%.
Funding for support workers represents the largest share of expenditure, at 71%. The job aide support worker category replaced British Sign Language interpreters in 2024-25 as the category with the highest expenditure, at £63.9 million. Spending on BSL interpreter support workers was £62.8 million. Some of the increased demand has arisen from better public awareness of Access to Work. I know that hon. Members were concerned about people knowing about the scheme.
Caroline Voaden
Are the Government evaluating the difference between the cost of paying Access to Work at a higher rate, so that people can actually get the support they need, and the cost of them being on universal credit if they are unable to work?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Department for Work and Pensions will always be looking at and evaluating the schemes we have, and what the cost is if a scheme is not available to people, so that work will be underway.
I want to go back to the issue of people being aware of the Access to Work scheme. Some will remember that Access to Work was once talked about as the Government’s best-kept secret, but the figures I have just read out show that it is not anymore. That is a positive thing; we want more disabled people being supported to move into and stay in employment. However, managing that surge in demand has damaged customer service. It has caused a substantial backlog in applications, which many service users have been inconvenienced by. In response, we have substantially increased the number of staff working on Access to Work, from 500 in March 2024 to 648 this March. We have streamlined the process by removing some routine requests for information, but I agree that serious problems remain.
To protect employment opportunities, case managers prioritise applications where the customer is due to start a job within four weeks. In 2025, staff allocated 96% of those applications within 28 days. We have also heard of cases where someone who previously received Access to Work is denied it, or where awards have been reduced even though the circumstances have not changed. To be clear, the policy has not changed. There has been some misunderstanding about that, so it is important that I make it very clear: there has not been a change in the policy. There will be policy changes, but they have not happened yet. What is true is that, over the past year, officials have worked to apply the existing guidance more consistently. That means that some awards have changed at the point of renewal, but the policy itself has not changed. It is just that the existing policy has been applied more consistently.
Another issue that has caused concern is the withdrawal of routine email access. The reason for that was concern about the security of the often very sensitive data being sent in relation to Access to Work, and the risk to data privacy. We are working on a new digital capability for Access to Work, which will allow documents to be uploaded online. Email correspondence is still available for those who need it as a reasonable adjustment.
On the reform of Access to Work, as I have said, there is no doubt that serious problems remain with the programme. Since it was first designed over 30 years ago, the style, scope and cost of the support that people require has changed significantly, yet Access to Work has stayed largely the same. As a result, there is a strong case for reform. In last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we consulted on the future of Access to Work and how to improve it to help more disabled people into work. Reform needs to be informed by the views and experiences of those who use or could use the service. We recently concluded the Access to Work collaboration committees, with disabled people’s organisations and lived-experience users, to inform and to challenge the design of the future Access to Work scheme.
We will work closely with the Department’s recently formed independent disability advisory panel on the next phase. The panel, under the chairwomanship of the disability activist Zara Todd, will connect the expertise of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions with the design and delivery of our policies, particularly around employment support. The panel has made clear its interest in Access to Work, and has already had its first meeting specifically on the topic. Once we have a reform proposal, we will look at the timescale and work closely with stakeholders to make the transition from the current arrangements to the new ones as painless as possible. We are taking some time over the changes, but I think the House will agree that it is important to get them right.
In conclusion, Access to Work is vital to our mission to break down the barriers to the workplace for disabled people and those with health conditions. We need to continue improvements to the NHS so that people can access the treatment and support that they need earlier and more consistently. Reductions, at last, in NHS waiting lists are really good news. We need Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review, working closely with employers, to shape future workplace environments where disabled people can thrive. We have also set up the Pathways to Work service, and we need Connect to Work and WorkWell to deliver personalised employment and health support. Through the Timms review, we need personal independence payments to support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment.
Our goal is that everyone who can work gets the support, confidence and opportunities that they need to realise their full potential. Those who have spoken in this debate have been absolutely right to highlight the importance of Access to Work in achieving that goal.
Question put and agreed to.
Police Federation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.
I am pleased to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will start by briefly sharing some of my experiences as a police officer, so brace yourselves because some of it is not very nice. In my time in policing, I was the first to arrive at a triple homicide scene. It was a mother who had killed her own three children. I saw people take their last breaths on Earth at road accidents; I pulled a suicidal man down from a road bridge; I knocked on people’s doors to tell them that their loved ones had passed away; and I was called to mentally ill people self-harming down to the bone with a razor. I was spat at by the people I was arresting and, of course, subject to the most disgusting verbal abuse from the people I was looking after in custody inside the police station. That is the reality of policing. If only it were just about catching criminals, but it never has been and it never will be.
I mention those incidents not because my experience was particularly notable; it was precisely the opposite. That is the reality of being a frontline police officer. They see all of that; in one minute they have to be physically tough in the face of aggression, and in the next they have to be emotionally sensitive with a victim of serious crime. That is what our police officers do day in, day out, working earlies, lates and nights on the public’s behalf. We owe them so much for doing the essential work that most people would not have the guts to even consider.
Being a police officer is mostly a thankless job. They get to the end of a long shift doing their bit for society and they feel that the politicians, the media and the courts do not back them up. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but in the meantime, we have to ask who is looking out for the interests of our police officers. That brings me to the Police Federation.
The Police Act 1919 stated that, given their unique role in society, police officers could not join an ordinary trade union or take strike action. To be clear, I am not seeking to question that today. However, in recognising the need for representation, that legislation established one staff association to represent police officers: the Police Federation. That was reaffirmed in the Police Act 1996. I want to pay tribute to the many hard-working federation representatives over the decades, including those serving in forces across the country today, for the work they have done representing their local members. I do not diminish their work in supporting individual police officers in their time of need, but I am afraid that the national leadership of the Police Federation is rotten. It is not right that 140,000 frontline officers have to pay their subscriptions and put up with that because it is the only staff association that they are legally allowed to join.
Over the last two years, the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation has paid himself £1.4 million in salary and bonuses. That is paid through the monthly subscriptions from police officers’ wages. That fact alone is shocking, but it is the culmination of years of failure. Most recently, senior members of the federation who asked questions about its governance were purged from the organisation. Elected representatives who reflected the legitimate concerns of frontline police officers on policing issues were also purged. How can there ever be reform if those who ask questions and could have helped build a better federation are seen as the problem?
This issue goes back even further. There was the disastrous handling of the changes to police pensions, where it was found that the federation misled its own members, failed to communicate with them, and victimised officers who were forced to take action on their own. Cultural change was promised after the scathing Normington review of 2014, but a decade later things were still so bad that another report, the Bousted review, which was completed just last year, described
“an arrogant and inward-looking culture born of a centralist mindset and”—
crucially—
“a feeling that the interests and views of rank-and-file members do not matter.”
If so, what is the federation really for?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very interested in hearing the hon. Member’s evident experience. I would like to put on record that I am the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. It is extremely important that police officers have representation. In only the last three years, we have heard about tragic cases of suicides and hundreds of attempted suicides. It is also evident that the governance of the Police Federation has to be adapted and improved immensely.
Jonathan Hinder
I would not dispute that one jot. The present national leadership say that
“a transformed Federation is the best way to deliver effective representation”
but I am afraid that officers have heard it all before. I dare say they will hear it again unless radical action is taken. It is because of this repeated systemic and cultural failure that I have come to the conclusion that only if police officers are given the freedom to establish and join an alternative will they get the representation they need and deserve.
The Police Federation has very few advocates within policing. I thank the many officers who have contacted me to say how pleased they are to see this campaign getting attention, with many confirming that only the monopoly and fear of being without representation when they really need it keeps them subscribing.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Member says that policing is often a thankless task. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to and thank him and the many other fantastic police officers, including in Dorset police, for their work. The hon. Member talks about the fairness of representation. I had a constituent whose daughter, a police officer, was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer. She was dismissed from the service as a result of a misconduct process that failed to recognise her trauma. Both officers were represented by the Police Federation, and the other officer got more senior representation based on his rank. That cannot be right.
Jonathan Hinder
I am not discussing that today, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Having diversity of options for officers could be useful in instances such as that.
I thank the National Police Association, formed of former federation reps and staff, for campaigning on this issue before me, in their own time. I thank the Metropolitan police’s network of women for sharing their concerns. The network’s leadership told me:
“Officers are effectively being asked to fund campaigns that they fundamentally do not support, without transparency, consultation or accountability.”
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s experience and advocacy of police officers throughout the country. In my constituency, local officers from the federation have been supporting police officers. This debate is not about them, but how can we support them by giving them more choice?
Jonathan Hinder
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that, as I briefly did earlier, because I do not mean to diminish the work of many federation representatives. There are many brilliant federation representatives and leaders in some parts of the country. This debate is very much about the national organisation and whether it can reform itself.
The federation says that officers having choice of representation
“would weaken, not strengthen, the voices of police officers”
but it is hard to believe that it could be weaker than it has been in recent years. To reiterate, this would not require Government funds. It is not about striking or unionisation. The federation can remain a staff association for police officers to join if they so wish, but allowing officers to choose a staff association that truly represents their interests would send a powerful message to our police officers that their interests and voices matter.
I will finish with something mildly amusing. The Police Federation has been running a campaign called “Copped Enough: What the Police Take Home is Criminal”, which is about how police officer’s wages since 2010 have seen cuts in real terms. That is a worthy cause. Would anyone do the things I described at the start of my speech for a starting salary of £30,000? During the time of running that campaign, however, the federation has been led by someone paying themselves £700,000 a year from police officers’ subscriptions, and he was recently arrested on suspicion of corruption. To remind Members, the campaign that his organisation has been running is called “What the Police Take Home is Criminal”. It is hard not to laugh, but in truth, it is a massive slap in the face for the police officers effectively paying those ridiculous wages, whose interests the federation should be serving.
I am grateful for the Government’s engagement with the issue so far, and the Minister’s response to my letter, which was signed by colleagues across parties three weeks ago. I note that her response states that
“the Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.”
I hope that, having heard the case set out today, the Government will seriously consider simply giving police officers the freedom to form and join an alternative body, so that their interests are effectively represented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for highlighting the good work done by the federation, and for sharing his personal stories and experiences. Some of the things he referred to would have been incredibly harrowing; I am not sure I could deal with any of them.
I will take a slightly different point of view. I have a very good working relationship with the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which is well respected by police officers on the ground. I will not refer to the same things as the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have any personal experiences of them happening—as far as I am aware, they are not happening now. Maybe someone will come to me later and say, “Well, actually, this is not right”, but while the federation is not perfect, I am not perfect, nor is the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this Chamber, and that is how we are in this world.
It is also nice to see the Minister in her place; there is no doubt that she is earning her money. She was in the Chamber all yesterday afternoon and is now back to take on another role in Westminster Hall, but she is still smiling. She has done well, and I wish her well.
The Police Federation plays a tremendous role in supporting individual members, from not only the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary before them, but the corporate body of policing. Now more than ever, we need people in the know advocating for police personnel and the service in general. For years, I have taken the advice of the police and the federation, and have asked for greater resources for them as an elected representative. We advocated for them in the Assembly, of which I was a Member for 12 years before coming here, and in this place, where we have warned of a gathering storm.
We also warned about the issue of wages, which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. He referred to pensions, which police officers back home are having problems with as well. We warned that if our police service is starved of the financial muscle that it needs, we will lose not just numbers on a spreadsheet but safety on the streets. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and, indeed, each federation, has delivered a wake-up call that should ring in the ears of every Minister in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—that our police service has been reduced to a skeleton.
The hon. Gentleman referred to wages, and the men and women of the PSNI are not just employees but the glue holding society together. I put on record my thanks to each and every one of them for all they do, yet what is their reward? They face a £23 million deficit while waiting months for the pay rises that they earned in the line of fire, which was literal, not just a matter words, for many officers in Northern Ireland.
I know that this issue is devolved and that the Minister does not have a specific role in relation to this, but she has had numerous visits to Northern Ireland, so I am sure that she has had the opportunity to talk to the police service, and particularly the chief constable, who also comes over here on occasion. However, the funding is centrally allocated, and this issue is replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need a UK-wide uplift in funding to support officers to do their jobs.
In his introduction, the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe referred to some of the things that happen to police officers, and I will give a couple of examples. Their vehicles are rammed in the car chases we see on TV programmes. In Belfast and across Northern Ireland, such chases happen all the time and are just as aggressive, nasty and criminal as they are on TV. Police officers are spat on and verbally abused. They are assaulted nine times a day, on average—for a police officer, man or woman, every day is a difficult day of challenge—only to see the perpetrators walk away with measly fines and suspended sentences, when they should clearly have more. Little wonder that the Police Federation highlights low morale. Enough is enough. We need deterrent sentencing that sends a no-nonsense message: “If you touch a police officer, you will feel the full weight of the law.” The time must fit the crime.
The effectiveness of the Police Federation can be measured only in our response to its reports, to its advocacy and to its recent pleas on behalf of its personnel, who need greater support from this place. I know that the Minister, like all hon. Members here, will want to thank the federation for performing its thankless task, and to thank police officers individually and collectively for all they do. More than that, we need the Minister to act on the federation’s words and to support those who do a vital job at great personal cost.
I know that the Minister visits Northern Ireland on a semi-regular basis. I would be interested to hear what discussions she has had with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and his personnel. I am personally indebted to them for their protection and for all they do for my constituents and people across Northern Ireland. We would not have a society without the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and without the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to look after the PSNI.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Although the Police Federation serves a purpose by taking an active role in raising issues affecting frontline officers, particularly on pay and workforce issues, I am not sure that it is still fit for purpose as the sole representative body of 140,000 police officers across England and Wales.
In the last few months we have seen significant failings across the structure, with ongoing investigations into corruption and the accountability of internal processes. Taken together, those issues risk further undermining the federation’s credibility as a representative body. I feel that there has never been a better opportunity to open a discussion about ending the statutory monopoly on police representation. I believe that, so long as operational independence, integrity and safeguards are robust and protected, as a workforce the police deserve the greatest choice in who represents their interests. It really matters to me that the police in Dagenham and Rainham get the very best there is.
Having spoken to police officers in Dagenham and Rainham, I know how much pressure they are under and how they often find themselves in terrible and complex situations. I and the people of Dagenham and Rainham appreciate them greatly. With that in mind, I welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his work. I support the “Breaking the Monopoly” campaign, and I hope this debate encourages greater parliamentary scrutiny of section 64 of the Police Act 1996.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing this important debate.
I was contacted by my constituent Dan, who is a serving police officer. He tells me that the current level of support from the Police Federation is, at times, woeful, and that the best alternative support available is often found in informal peer support networks run by volunteers. Dan wants to be represented by an effective body that better serves the interests of its members and provides meaningful support on the issues that affect officers. He has serious reservations about whether the federation is delivering on its core purpose. Dan wants fundamental change to ensure fairness, choice and genuine wellbeing for those who serve.
As we have heard, the Police Federation currently holds a de facto monopoly on representation, leaving officers with little real choice and limited accountability. That situation has been made worse by recent scandals. Dan tells me that those controversies have seriously undermined confidence in the federation. As acknowledged in the policing White Paper, it is vital that police officers have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them. Officers deserve robust support.
I reiterate that the mental health and wellbeing of officers are also major concerns. Police work long, demanding shifts, often with insufficient recovery time. That is not sustainable either for the individuals concerned or for the effectiveness of the service as a whole. There is a clear need for greater support to ensure that officers are able to rest adequately between shifts and for sufficient funding, so that local services can offer proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups, for example, every six months. Prevention and early intervention are key to maintaining a healthy and resilient workforce.
Police officers are stretched, and they are having to do so much for so little, so I urge the Minister to consider the views of hard-working police officers when considering any reforms. I am sure she will agree that it is imperative that they have an organisation that truly speaks for them, and one in which they can have the utmost confidence.
I conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the police officers and support staff in Eastleigh for their dedication and commitment to our local communities. I am so pleased that, after several years of campaigning, our officers and support staff are going to get a centrally located police station at last. We must ensure that our police are properly resourced, fairly represented and fully supported to carry out their vital work.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, even though it was slightly unexpected for me to be speaking today. I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing this important debate.
The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the overwhelming majority of honest, hard-working members of the police. We recognise the immense value of their commitment and service, while at the same time continuing to hold forces to account to ensure that communities are kept safe. In my Chelmsford constituency, it has been a real privilege to join Essex police on patrol and to see at first hand the brilliant work they do to keep our community safe.
It is crucial that police officers are properly supported and have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them: the Police Federation of England and Wales. With police officers having no choice in their representation or where their union dues go, the federation must be effective and supportive to all officers. That is vital for retaining existing officers and increasing officer numbers, as the Government have pledged. The reforms recently announced in the policing White Paper must be implemented in the right way, and they must not come at the cost of officer welfare. The Police Federation has an important role in ensuring that.
Sadly, the ongoing police investigation into senior office holders within the Police Federation has naturally shaken confidence in the organisation. That is unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in a longer period of faltering confidence in the organisation. Accounts of poor culture identified in independent reports, particularly towards women, must be dealt with. I have heard from senior female police officers who have argued that allowing them to choose their representative body would be welcome due to these repeated failings. They have shared troubling accounts of where, irrespective of their senior police positions, they have experienced marginalisation, isolation and ridicule after raising issues within the Police Federation.
In response, the Police Federation has committed to an ongoing transformation programme. However, women in the police have also expressed concern that some of the proposed measures to improve the federation are inappropriate from the outset. For example, the federation has spoken of developing a service for victims and witnesses who are federation members, with a particular focus on women victims. That is, of course, welcome, but women have noted the inherent conflict that the current system means a victim or witness can only be supported by the same staff association that also represents the officer who may be the subject of the allegation or criminal investigation. As one officer put it:
“for many women, that does not feel safe, fair, or credible”.
Consequently, the absence of alternative representation can lead to some officers feeling trapped at exactly the time when they should feel most supported and protected.
Like the rest of us, police officers have the right to freedom of association, guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That has formed the basis of the National Police Association’s campaign and legal challenge to allow officers to choose their representative body. In the light of that, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would encourage the Minister to review the effectiveness of police officer representation, including the potential benefits of reforming the legislation in this area to allow officers the option to choose a different organisation to represent them. Our police officers deserve to be listened to and supported by their representative body, and the Government should now listen and support them.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Mrs Harris, for chairing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for sharing his experiences and for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the passionate and detailed contributions from Members who have offered their insight into the current and recent issues facing the Police Federation and its members. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to hard-working police officers across the country. The work they do, day in and day out, to keep our communities safe is second to none. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, for which they deserve all our thanks and admiration.
Let us be honest: having a debate on the effectiveness of the Police Federation right now is probably not the toughest call. I will be careful not to stray into matters that are still subject to legal proceedings, but it is obvious why rank-and-file officers are deeply concerned. The arrests we have seen are extremely serious, and it is right that they are fully and properly investigated, but these issues do not sit in isolation. They add to wider concerns raised by the federation’s members, whether on governance, the handling of pension discussions or employment tribunal cases. Furthermore, legal cases involving the federation, which have been dropped, highlight concerns about free speech in the organisation, with officials seemingly being censored.
Every police officer deserves strong and effective representation. They do the toughest and most demanding of jobs, often under significant pressure and with clear restrictions to ensure political neutrality. The least they should expect is a federation that backs them properly. The federation does important work, and I am sure it supports officers well in many individual cases, but there are clearly bigger structural concerns that need to be addressed. Colleagues will remember that, at the start of the last decade, action was taken by a previous Government to push for reform of the federation. The Normington review set out a number of serious issues, while also highlighting the importance of the federation having the confidence of members, something that has come through strongly again in this debate.
At that time, the Government were clear that change was needed. As the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, said,
“if the Federation does not start to turn itself around, you must not be under the impression that the government will let things remain as they are.”
That warning was not issued lightly. It reflected a determination to ensure that the federation did not lapse into the kinds of practices identified in the Normington review, and it was underpinned by a broader conviction that the federation must be an authentic, credible and outward-looking voice for policing in this country. It cannot afford to become insular. Rather, it must reflect, with honesty and integrity, the experience of many thousands of officers who serve with dedication and courage.
I appreciate that the federation has recently conducted reviews and embarked on a journey of improvement, but events continue to raise significant questions about its performance. As such, I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure the organisation is performing in the interests of all its members. The Police Federation was rightly created by an Act of Parliament over a century ago, which places a responsibility on all of us to ensure that it works for all of its members. Has the Department made an assessment of the organisation’s leadership and the structure of its current governance, and is it planning to do so after the legal matters have concluded?
Although I recognise the challenges within the federation, it is critical to maintain the political neutrality of the police. Any measure that weakens the independence of officers would be disadvantageous to the excellent work carried out by officers working across the country. I want to see a federation that supports police officers and helps them to do their jobs effectively. We ask officers to do challenging work. As such, it is right that they are supported by a federation that works effectively and properly for them.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on his career in policing, on everything he shared with us and on securing this debate. The start of his speech was incredibly powerful, and reflected what I hear often from our police both in my incredibly privileged position as Policing Minister and in my constituency role in Croydon.
I have heard of many cases, such as that of a police officer in Croydon who had to hold the wound of someone who had been stabbed while they waited for the ambulance. The trauma of that side of the role is there loud and clear for everyone to see, but there is also cumulative trauma from all the other things that have to be done, from how the police are sometimes treated and from how they feel that they do not necessarily have the support of Government or the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe described that well, and I cannot do it better.
Tomorrow, I will spend the day trying to be as incognito as possible while going around with a neighbourhood police officer. I will spend the whole day on a shift and hear as much as I can about the lived experience of being a police officer. I am sad not to have done that before this debate, but I am looking forward to it very much. However, my hon. Friend made a powerful speech and, as I think all other Members in the debate have said, the police do a brilliant job and we should not underestimate what they do. We should thank them, never forget what we ask of them and always do right by them.
Within that context, the Government are trying to reform policing to enable the police to do the job that they came into the service to do, whether that means ripping away the bureaucracy of a lot of the tasks that the police are given—historically, we have not invested in new technology and pieces of kit—or putting police back into our neighbourhoods, so that we can do the things that the public want us to do without public frustration at the lack of response. Of course, the biggest police reform in 200 years is looking at the whole structure within policing. In that context, police officers still have to get on with their job; they not only have a difficult job, but have quite a lot of change heading their way. We need to respect that.
In the middle of all that is the Police Federation, which has an interesting role. A lot of Members have said the same thing: on the one hand, the police do a brilliant job, and a lot of the fed reps do a brilliant job, but on the other hand, something is clearly wrong with how the federation has been functioning. We have talked about this before, but since I became the Minister in September I have seen the fed every two weeks and we have a catch-up. Most of the conversations are about what we are doing on the transformation journey, what has happened and what is coming down the line. I think that it is fair to say there has been frustration, such as about the 33 recommendations for changes needed in the federation made by Baroness Bousted in her review. The change is not coming in the way that people expect, as fast as people want, or in a way that we would expect.
Government have a role, but we do not have quite the same relationship with any other organisation; we have a statutory responsibility. The legislation states:
“There shall continue to be a Police Federation for England and Wales for the purpose of representing members of the police forces in England and Wales, and special constables”,
and that in fulfilling that purpose, the federation
“must…protect the public interest…maintain high standards of conduct, and…maintain high standards of transparency.”
Our obligation as a Government to ensure that those things are happening is set in law. Clearly, therefore, we take the question of whether those functions are fulfilled in the way that they should be very seriously.
It is no secret that we have been frustrated, as have many others, at the pace and scale of change. Of course, we saw arrests that came in the middle of this conversation as well, which have made things very difficult. We were very explicit about this in the White Paper on police reform. We said:
“We expect to see clear plans and…demonstrable improvement”
in the fed’s operation. We also said:
“In the absence of such improvements, this Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.”
Given the arrests since the publication of the White Paper, it is very hard for the federation to give us the reassurance that we need, because of everything that has happened. We are continuing the conversations with the federation. There is a lot of interaction between officials in my Department and the fed, and we are sharing data and information, and talking these things through.
I do not think that anyone can pretend that the status quo is an option. It is not. This Government stand ready to do the right thing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), asked what we are considering. I am not in a position to say what the next steps look like, but clearly matters have moved on and we need to ensure that there is proper representation for rank and file. The judicial review, as well as the criminal investigation, means that there is a limit to what I can say.
I very much welcome this debate and the contributions to it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind remarks and I will see the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) talked about what she and the police in her community need, and she said that she is supporting the campaign. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about the importance of mental health.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), talked about the challenges for women members of the fed in particular, which is something that is very live to me as well. I have attended several meetings in which I have talked about the issues that arise if a police officer is, for example, in a relationship with another police officer and there is domestic abuse in that relationship. What we do in that space is very difficult; there are lots of challenges there.
I thank everybody who has attended this debate, including the shadow Minister, for their thoughtful comments. I think that we all know that there is a problem and I recognise the frustration felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe, because he wants to see movement. We are looking at this issue very carefully. We are very mindful of the arrests that have happened, very mindful that we have not seen the pace of change that we want, and very mindful of our legal obligation to make sure that the rank and file have representation.
Jonathan Hinder
I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for their support for police officers. I know that the effectiveness of the Police Federation is not necessarily a debate that most MPs are engaged with, so I really appreciate their coming here today and advocating on behalf of police officers in their patches.
I also thank other colleagues for sharing the experiences of police officers, and for talking about Northern Ireland. The debate is not really focused on Northern Ireland—it is about the Police Federation of England and Wales—but it was interesting to hear about the situation there.
I thank everyone for the collegiate nature of the whole debate, which was evident from all sides. I really appreciate people attending and paying attention to the issues, and I hope that we can continue to work on a cross-party basis to reach a much better state of police representation in the very near future.
Finally, and most importantly of all, I thank all the police officers across the whole United Kingdom for what they do for us. I am proud to have been one of them and I am honoured to have a small role to play now in speaking up for them as an MP.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.
Written Statements
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Employment Rights Act 2025: Non-disclosure Agreements Consultation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We are delivering our plan for change by ensuring employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth. Our plan to make work pay will extend the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country.
The Government are making tangible progress in implementing this generational change in employment rights, while ensuring impact on businesses is minimised. Already this April we have: expanded statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million of the lowest paid employees in society and ensured that it is paid from the first day of sickness absence; supported working families by implementing a day one right to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; and established the new Fair Work Agency.
Today, we are making further progress in our commitment to protect workers from abuse in the workplace by launching a consultation on non-disclosure agreements. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, this consultation will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Non-disclosure agreements consultation
The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduced a new measure that will address the misuse of NDAs, by employers who want to silence workers about harassment and discrimination in the workplace. While NDAs can have legitimate purposes such as to protect sensitive commercial business interests, they should not be used to cover up workplace misconduct.
The NDA measure will void any provision in an agreement, such as a contract of employment or settlement agreement, between a worker and their employer in so far as it prevents a worker from speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination. The Government acknowledge that workers may sometimes want confidentiality in cases of harassment or discrimination. We will set conditions in regulations under which NDAs can still be valid (an “excepted agreement”) and will prescribe individuals that a worker with an excepted agreement can still speak to (for example, the police, a doctor, or close family members) subject to consultation. This consultation is split into three parts:
Part 1 seeks views on the Government’s proposed conditions under which an NDA can still be valid in cases of relevant discrimination and harassment, known as an “excepted agreement”. For example, whether a worker should receive “independent advice” on the terms and effect of an excepted agreement, or an explicit time-limited right to withdraw from an excepted agreement without penalty (a cooling-off period).
Part 2 seeks views on who those who have signed an “excepted agreement” should still be able to speak to, known as a “permitted disclosure”. The intention is that where a worker has signed an excepted agreement, they are still able to disclose information relating to relevant harassment and discrimination to certain individuals or bodies to seek advice or support.
Part 3 seeks views on whether this new NDA measure should, in the future, apply to other individuals that may be vulnerable to the misuse of NDAs and who do not meet the standard definition of “worker” in the Employment Rights Act 1996, including certain groups of self- employed.
The Government want to ensure that they protect workers against the misuse of NDAs where employers are using them to cover up relevant harassment and discrimination and to enable workers to have a greater say in whether they want confidentiality and, if they do, a better understanding of what they are agreeing to.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks and close on 8 July 2026. Following consultation, the Government will consider the responses carefully before developing a final policy position. Any changes will be delivered through secondary legislation, with regulations expected to enter into force in 2027.
Next steps
The insights gained through this consultation will be critical to helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. This consultation will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1513]
Post Office Network Transformation Programme: Independent Investigation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Parliament was notified last year of the Government’s intention to commission an independent review into allegations surrounding the Post Office’s network transformation programme (2010 to 2019).
I can now update Members that the investigation has begun. Adam Tolley KC has been appointed to lead the investigation, supported by an independent legal team. The terms of reference for the investigation have been published online, and Members and their constituents are welcome to write to the investigation team at: NTPInvestigation@businessandtrade.gov.uk.
I will update the House on the investigation’s findings once the final report has been produced.
[HCWS1512]
Experts at Hand and Local Authority SEND Transformation Fund
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
As part of the Government’s long-term reforms to strengthen the special educational needs and disabilities system in England and improve life chances, the schools White Paper, “Every child achieving and thriving”, announced around £1.8 billion of funding over the next three years for local areas to develop and deliver a new experts at hand offer. We also confirmed £200 million of local transformation funding for the next three years. These measures form a central part of the Government’s wider programme to strengthen mainstream inclusion, expand specialist expertise, and ensure children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities receive timely and effective support.
Today I am confirming how funding for the 2026-27 financial year, £429 million, will be allocated to local authorities through the experts at hand and local authority SEND transformation grant.
This funding is for local areas to work in partnership, led by the local authorities working jointly with integrated care boards, to start to deliver the new experts at hand offer. This will provide mainstream education settings across early years, primary, secondary, and 16 to 19 with improved access to additional, evidence-led support, advice and guidance from health and education professionals, so that children can receive the help they need earlier and more effectively. Local areas will draw on the expertise of a broad range of professionals, including speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, as well as educational psychologists, and specialist teachers, including those based in specialist settings. It will take time to transform the system, but we anticipate that by 2029 this funding means a typical setting could benefit from additional support equivalent to 40 days per average primary school and 160 days per average secondary school per year.
The funding will also enable the establishment of speech and language therapist advanced practitioners in every integrated care board area.
Finally, the transformation element of the funding will support local authorities to design and deliver their local SEND reform plan. This includes strategic planning and data work to integrate the experts at hand offer alongside existing services, and the local area’s wider approach to SEND reform preparation, as articulated in their local plan. Funding transformation in this way will ensure that every local authority can produce high-quality plans to ensure their local area builds a more inclusive mainstream system.
Today we have published local authority level indicative allocations, which will be confirmed in May, and a methodology document setting out how these allocations have been calculated. The document introduces the purpose of the grant and our expectations for how this funding should be spent locally.
Local authorities will be required to set out their delivery model and use of funding within their local SEND reform plans. These plans will provide assurance on appropriate use of the grant and demonstrate effective partnership working across education, health and care. Future support for high needs dedicated schools grant deficits will take into account progress against approved plans, including the establishment of a strong and effective experts at hand offer.
The Department for Education will publish the detailed experts at hand guidance later in spring 2026, including minimum delivery expectations, examples of best practice, and further information to support local planning. Final funding allocations for 2026-27 will be confirmed and published in May 2026 and payment will be made at the end of June.
Full details of this announcement, including the grant methodology and indicative allocations, have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website, here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/experts-at-hand-local-authority-send-transformation-fund
[HCWS1514]
Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today the Government are publishing the renewed women’s health strategy for England. The health system is failing women across the country. This strategy will tackle medical misogyny and give greater choice, voice and power to women. This ambitious strategy renewal is made possible by the record £26 billion in funding for the NHS, secured by the UK’s first female Chancellor.
Women across England have repeatedly told us the same stories: that their symptoms are dismissed, their pain normalised, their concerns not believed, and that their voices carry too little weight in decisions about their own care. These experiences are not isolated or incidental. They reflect a healthcare system that has not been designed around women’s needs. That failure to listen has contributed directly to worsening outcomes, poorer experiences and widening inequalities.
The consequences are clear. Women are living longer but spending more of their lives in poor health. Many face long waits for gynaecology services, repeated appointments without answers, delayed diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and avoidable pain during procedures. These failures are felt most acutely by women living in deprivation, disabled women, and by women from some ethnic minority backgrounds, who are least likely to be heard and most likely to experience harm as a result.
The previous Government first published its women’s health strategy in 2022. This plan was underpinned by substantial engagement, including almost 100,000 individual responses and over 400 submissions from organisations and experts to a call for evidence. Those submissions starkly demonstrated the many ways in which we have a health service that is not built for women.
However, its actions have not translated into meaningful improvements in women’s access, quality of care, experience or outcomes—or reductions in inequalities. This renewed strategy is our response to that failure. It recognises that this approach did not deliver for women, and sets out how change will happen through more fundamental reform as we deliver the 10-year health plan.
Through this strategy we will ensure our NHS transformation delivers for women: the community shift, with new neighbourhood women’s health services enabling faster diagnosis and treatment; the digital shift, with women’s health pathways prioritised in NHS Online; and the prevention shift, seizing opportunities from genomics to help manage lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer as well as major conditions like cardiovascular disease. These reforms will be underpinned by a new diverse and devolved operating model with women’s voices and choices at its heart, including rolling out patient-reported outcome and experience data in core women’s health pathways. This transformation will be bolstered by our focus on research and innovation. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government are funding research into areas of unmet need for women’s health—including to improve care for young women living with intense period pain, and first of its kind technology to treat threatened miscarriage. The NIHR is also embedding new sex and gender policies into health research, so that findings are genuinely representative and no woman is left behind by science.
We set out clear accountability for delivery and will be transparent on progress in improving women’s services, outcomes and experience. An overall metric against which we will judge progress is to improve healthy life expectancy in the poorest parts of the country to at least 61 years, delivering our commitment to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions, while increasing it for everyone. Other improvements will start immediately and continue over the next 10 years including:
shorter waits for gynaecology care,
fewer painful procedures without informed consent or a choice of pain relief,
easier access to contraception and screening close to home,
better information and more control over their health through digital services,
being listened to and taken seriously at the first time of asking,
more digital therapeutics bespoke to women,
more women in life science and tech leadership.
Women’s voices are the foundation of this strategy. This Government have listened to what women want and need. The renewed women’s health strategy puts the 10-year health plan’s new care model into action to deliver faster, tangible improvements across four outcomes that matter most to women across England. The renewed strategy sets out how the Government will:
make women’s voices and choices central in healthcare: investing in new ways for women’s voices to be heard and acted upon throughout the NHS including action to tackle outdated and misogynistic practices around pain relief and a new trial in gynaecology services which would vary the amount NHS trusts are reimbursed depending on women’s feedback on their experiences, including pain management.
transform NHS performance in services that matter most to women: women will be directed to the right professional first time, along with marrying redesigned local services with online support to cut waiting lists and ensure women no longer face years-long waits for diagnosis and treatment for conditions like endometriosis.
support all women to lead healthy, prosperous lives including a new programme to improve education for girls about their menstrual health, and expanding access to musculoskeletal hubs in the community, supporting long-term health and tackling a major driver of health-related economic inactivity.
create an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women, including launching a Femtech challenge fund to accelerate adoption of innovations that could transform women’s healthcare and an accelerator for female founders with innovations addressing women’s health priorities.
This marks a decisive shift from identifying problems to delivering change. By listening to women’s voices, improving performance where it matters most, and tackling the drivers of poor health and inequality, we will ensure women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes they deserve.
This work builds on the Government’s action to reform women’s health, including free emergency contraception in pharmacies, at-home HPV testing kits, gynaecology as the first specialty for NHS Online and the introduction of bereavement leave for miscarriage. From this year, the standard NHS health check offered to all adults aged 40 to 74 will also include a question about menopause symptoms, giving up to 5 million women an easier route to advice and support.
[HCWS1517]
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025: Statutory Guidance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Today, the Government are publishing, and laying before Parliament, the statutory guidance for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 (also known as Martyn’s law), in accordance with section 27 of the Act. To enable this, the Government commenced section 27 on 10 April 2026.
As committed to during the passage of the legislation, the Government are issuing this guidance “in good time” ahead of the commencement of the requirements of the Act. It is important to note that the requirements set out in the Act, and clarified in this guidance, are not yet enforceable. The Government will provide a further update on the date on which the requirements of the Act itself will come into force.
This guidance is intended to support those responsible for qualifying premises and events that fall within scope of the legislation, helping them to understand and prepare for their new statutory obligations. Publishing the guidance at this stage enables those responsible to familiarise themselves with the requirements and begin planning for commencement.
As the substantive provisions of the Act have not yet commenced and are therefore not enforceable, the Government strongly advise against using third-party providers who claim they can make premises or events compliant with the Act at this time. No third-party product is endorsed by the Home Office, or by the Security Industry Authority, which will act as the regulator for Martyn’s Law.
The guidance has been subject to detailed consultation with other Government Departments, operational partners and association and sector body representatives, in line with the requirement under section 27(3) of the Act. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the consultation for their valuable input into the guidance.
The statutory guidance has been laid before Parliament and will also be published on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk . The guidance is supported by three non-statutory supplementary documents, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk .
[HCWS1515]
Council Tax Administration
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
A fair and effective system of local taxation underpins good public services and maintains trust between local taxpayers and elected councils. Council tax plays a vital role in funding the services that communities rely on every day and is paid by approximately 25 million households in England.
After 14 years of cuts and mismanagement, this Government have taken decisive action to stabilise councils’ finances, increasing investment by more than £5.6 billion over the next three years and providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade. As well as boosting funding, we have reformed how money is distributed around the country, reconnecting funding to need and deprivation—ending the unfair, irrational system that kept deprived places poor. We have taken the hard decisions dodged by previous Governments. But we know there is more to do.
Last year, the Government launched a consultation on proposals to improve and modernise the administration of council tax. Council tax plays a vital role, funding over 800 vital public services on which communities rely. It is therefore right that taxpayers expect a system that is clear, accessible and simple to navigate that supports people to pay what is due and helps them access support when it is needed. However, the system we inherited, introduced in 1993, has been largely unchanged over the last three decades. Over time, this has left parts of the system outdated, to the detriment of taxpayers and councils alike.
Councils must have reasonable powers to recover unpaid council tax and tackle avoidance. However, at its worst, the current arrangements can operate as one of the harshest enforcement regimes in the country, treating those who are unable to pay in the same way as those who wilfully choose not to. Missing payments can lead to immediate demands for large lump sum payments, liability orders, and the use of bailiffs.
Those in debt are often among the most vulnerable in society, including people on low incomes, those experiencing ill health, or households facing sudden financial shocks. Rapid escalation to aggressive enforcement action on council tax can push people deeper into hardship, compounding debt rather than resolving it. Under this Government, it will end.
Enforcement must be proportionate and treat people fairly and with dignity, particularly at a time when they are grappling with significant cost of living pressures. At the same time, the system must be fair and clamp down on deliberate tax avoidance.
This is why we consulted on a range of proposals and sought evidence on options to make the administration of council tax fairer for both taxpayers and councils. The consultation received over 3,000 responses from the public, local government and interest groups. I am grateful to all who took the time to share their views. I would also like to use this opportunity to put on record my gratitude to Martin Lewis and Money Saving Expert, and Martin’s charity, Money and Mental Health, for their tireless campaigning on these issues. Their work has been instrumental in shining a light on the real-world impact of council tax debt and the harm that poor administration and aggressive enforcement can cause, informed by the experiences of people who turn to them for help.
Through this consultation we have heard clearly that the current council tax administration system is not keeping pace with the realities faced by households and councils across the country. Consultation responses showed strong support for our proposals that will make day-to-day interactions with the system easier, reduce unnecessary escalation and provide better protection for the most vulnerable households in England.
Today, the Government are publishing their response to the consultation, setting out a wide programme of reforms to be delivered over the course of this Parliament. These represent significant reforms to the council tax system and will make a tangible difference for many of the most vulnerable households in England by making bills easier to manage, making support easier to access, and ensuring enforcement activity is fair and proportionate.
We will make it easier for households to manage their bills by making sure those who want to spread payments over 12 months can do so automatically, while those wishing to pay over 10 months can continue to do so. This will help households spread payments across the year and avoid sharp financial pressures at particular points in the year while maintaining flexibility for taxpayers to decide on the arrangement that suits them best. Councils will also be required to present clearer and more consistent information on the support available both on bills and on council websites, so that people can more easily understand their entitlements and options for support and seek help at an earlier stage.
We are also taking action to make collection and enforcement fairer. Our reforms will introduce additional safeguards for vulnerable households by extending the period before liability for the annual bill is triggered after a missed payment, requiring councils to take further steps to work with taxpayers during this period, and capping liability order costs at £100. Together, these changes will slow the escalation of enforcement, reduce stress and anxiety for households struggling to pay their debts, and give people more time to engage with their council and agree sustainable repayment plans.
We have heard many accounts of vulnerable taxpayers facing aggressive enforcement action, including by bailiffs. The Government support the work the Enforcement Conduct Board is doing to raise standards in the enforcement industry and ensure in particular that vulnerable people are treated fairly. The Ministry of Justice has consulted on introducing independent statutory regulation of the enforcement—bailiff—sector to build on the Enforcement Conduct Board’s excellent work. They will announce next steps in due course.
The consultation set out our proposal for a long overdue update to the title of the “severely mentally impaired” council tax disregard and to tackle barriers to access for those eligible. We will take forward our proposal to amend the name and definition to modernise this disregard and remove the stigma associated with the previous name that can deter people from claiming support to which they are entitled when parliamentary time allows. We will also take forward proposals to tackle wider barriers to access, including through a universal application form to reduce complexity and make the process clearer and more consistent for applicants and their families.
The consultation also sought views on the wider taxpayer experiences, including the effectiveness of the carers and apprentice disregards and the scope for additional support. These options carry cost implications which the Government will consider ahead of a future spending review.
This package will help protect the most vulnerable taxpayers in England, support households through ongoing cost of living pressures, and restore a greater sense of fairness and compassion in the council tax system. By making support easier to access, bills easier to manage, and ensuring fairness and empathy for those in council tax debt these reforms represent a significant step towards a system that treats people fairly, recognises genuine hardship and still ensures that council tax is properly collected to fund the delivery of services that communities rely on.
[HCWS1511]
Prison Releases
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
On 27 February 2026, Dame Lynne Owens submitted to me her independent review into releases in error. I want to place on the record my personal thanks to Dame Lynne for the thoroughness of her findings and recommendations. I will deposit a copy of Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review into releases in error in the Library of the House.
I made a commitment to this House that I would be transparent on this issue, and today I have fulfilled that promise through the publication of Dame Lynne’s review in full, our immediate Government response, and a further ad hoc data release on this issue.
While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, I have been clear that the number of errors is unacceptably high, and recent cases have exposed deep-rooted issues across the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the police for all their work returning those mistakenly released to custody, and also want to express my profound sympathies to the victims of those prisoners who were released in error, especially to Hadush Kebatu’s victim, whose family I met last December.
As Dame Lynne states in her review, releases in error are simply one
“symptom of a broken system”.
As a result of 14 years of austerity, staffing cuts, failure to build prison places, and under-investment in digital infrastructure, the system was pushed to breaking point. This Government do not cover up failure—they fix it. We took immediate action to bring our prisons back from the brink.
These errors are still unacceptably high, but the numbers are coming down. More must be done, so today we are accepting Dame Lynne’s recommendations for any changes covered by this spending review period, and making up to £82 million investment to do so. We will go further on several of them, and I am committed to all remaining recommendations, subject to future funding decisions. We will work to bring down the number of errors over the medium term, with a plan to reduce them to pre-capacity crisis levels, and we will drive down the numbers year on year until we get there.
This is why I announced on 11 November 2025 my national five-point action plan to bear down on these errors. As part of this, I commissioned Dame Lynne Owens, the former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to undertake an independent review and make recommendations to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
While the review was under way, this Government have made substantial progress against this five point plan:
My new Justice Performance Board first met in November and most recently on 4 March. Chaired by myself, it brings together Ministers and the most senior officials within the Ministry of Justice to ensure greater oversight of the system and drive improvements in prisons and criminal courts, laser-focused on addressing key metrics, including releases in error.
To improve human processes and checks, an urgent query process with a dedicated unit and court experts was introduced, allowing prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries and reduce release errors. Since 2 December 2025, this unit has supported prisons with over 1,000 warrant matters. In March, we introduced new hourly checks in the Crown court to flag all cases where custodial status has changed. As of 13 April, this has already prevented 10 releases in error since 13 March.
I announced up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence-based solutions. The Digital Rapid Response Unit has been established and is developing digital and AI products to reduce the main causes of releases in error. Following successful prototyping and testing in selected prisons, we have begun deploying new tools across the estate. This includes using AI-enabled tools to automatically extract key information and ensure it reaches the right prison promptly, as well as linking data to prevent offenders from concealing information by using multiple aliases. These tools have been built by forward-deployed engineers at an unprecedented pace.
My Department is working closely with partners to simplify the release process to reduce the scope for errors through the implementation of the Sentencing Act, which secured Royal Assent on 22 January.
Dame Lynne Owen’s independent review was commissioned to examine the mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford, to consider the wider causes of releases in error, to identify any systemic factors, to assess whether current discharge protocols are robust, and to consider whether the data collected and published is adequate.
Dame Lynne proposes 33 recommendations to reduce the number of releases in error. These recommendations span data and digital; governance; system and process improvements; policy and procedure; and training and culture.
These fixes of systemic problems cannot happen overnight, and as Dame Lynne rightly warns,
“it would be foolhardy to suggest that all risk in a highly challenging operational environment can be mitigated or negated”.
But our ambition is clear: to drive down the number of errors.
Today, I am setting out a clear and comprehensive plan to address Dame Lynne’s recommendations, and to go further to bring releases in error back down to pre-prison capacity crisis levels. I will now set out how we will deliver this work in the immediate, short and medium-to-long term, guided by the key themes underpinning these recommendations.
Immediate term
Immediately we will simplify complex process across the system. We are spending £8 million to bolster manual checks across both Crown and magistrate courts. This will involve the recruitment and training of 90 additional Crown court clerks and 75 extra administrative staff in magistrates’ courts. This is alongside the joint His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and Ministry of Justice digital delivery team, established in November to improve information sharing between HMCTS and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service systems. This has enabled early progress against Dame Lynne’s recommendations, with the team on track to begin transmitting court documents directly to the appropriate prison record this month.
We have already revised the early removal scheme operational guidance to improve clarity for staff, and this updated guidance has been published. In addition, in line with recommendation 1 of Dame Lynne’s review, we are extending the use of body-worn cameras to all uniformed prison personnel working with prisoners and in the discharge process, and have invested heavily in increased training. Since the beginning of this year, over 6,000 key staff have received foreign national offender training, including instruction on Home Office protocols.
Short term
In line with recommendation 11 of Dame Lynne’s review, we are improving communication with victims in the event of a mistaken release, alongside increased digitalisation, and strengthening system-wide data collection and information-sharing.
We recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error.
Ensuring victims of crime have the information and support they need remains a Government priority. We continue to invest in vital victim and witness support services, providing a record £550 million over the next three years to help these specialist services meet the rising cost pressures of delivery-facing services.
Last year, we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill to Parliament. The measures in this Bill will help victims get the justice they deserve and ensure victims are better protected than ever. They will also give victims greater confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.
We also fully recognise and share the emphasis Dame Lynne placed on the importance of victim notification. To reflect this shared priority, we will accelerate our work to talk with the victims sector and ensure that victims’ views are heard as we clarify our policies on victim contact.
Our digital transformation programme is already delivering substantial progress. Several of Dame Lynne’s recommendations build on this and recognise that “technology is essential”, not only to reducing releases in error, but to the effective functioning of a modern criminal justice system. In total, we have already allocated up to £20 million for the financial year 2026-27 for the digitalisation of processes that underpin manual sentence calculations. This includes accelerating staff-facing tools and increasing digital and AI investment in prisons.
We are investing up to an additional £4 million towards accelerating the expansion of the calculate release dates service, automating sentence calculation to directly address releases in error. This service already covers 98.5% of sentence types with exceptional accuracy. Within two years, this acceleration will deliver a fully end-to-end system, with court data flowing straight into the correct prison record—even when there are aliases or spelling mistakes.
Medium to long term
In the medium to long term, we will build on the foundations created through increased digitalisation to drive reform across the criminal justice system, in line with recommendation 15 of Dame Lynne’s review. This will be driven forward by a new digital justice board, which will be established shortly. Dame Lynne’s recommendations underscore the need for a coherent, system-wide CJS strategy, including exploring how the use of biometrics could support tracking individuals across the whole system.
We are already working closely with the Home Office to develop Justice ID, which will provide a set of building blocks that together allow staff to consistently identify and track the same individual from arrest, through the courts and custody, and into the community. This will be supported by up to £50 million of investment in data foundations and in developing Justice ID, with initial uses to be rolled out this year. This represents a major transformation that goes far beyond simply issuing a new single identification number.
Justice ID will allow agencies to share trusted data that is complete, consistent and up to date. It will reduce duplicated data entries and minimise the risk of information being lost as cases progress through the system.
We are also actively exploring how biometrics, such as fingerprints and facial scans, could further strengthen Justice ID. This work builds on existing uses within policing to help verify and assure the identity of individuals subject to criminal proceedings as they move through the system. This transformation will also underpin work to develop a plan to phase out the use of paper records in prisons, as recommended by Dame Lynne, helping to reduce the risk of omissions, inconsistent record-keeping, and the need for staff to navigate both physical and digital records. We will begin rolling out biometric fingerprint and facial recognition trials within the next six months, and we expect full roll-out of biometrics across prisons before the end of this Parliament. We expect this to translate into a system where a single Justice ID allows us to reliably track individuals end to end, core data flows are automated, and there is measurable improvement in public protection, timeliness and productivity.
Dame Lynne’s review also highlights the shortcomings in recording releases in error under the last Government and since the general election, which led to under-reporting under successive Governments. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to ensure our statistics reflect the totality of releases in error, and will explore every tool available to ensure data shared with the public is robust and reliable.
In the meantime, I recognise that it is in the public interest to publish new ad hoc data, which is why we are publishing this today alongside Dame Lynne’s review and the Government response. These numbers show that from April 2025 to March 2026, there have been 179 recorded releases in error from prisons. Compared with last year, this represents a 32% decrease.
This Government have already accepted the blueprint set out in Sir Brian Leveson’s “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts” for bold, structural reform in our criminal courts. It is our intention to rebuild the system through investment, structural reform and modernisation.
Several of the broader recommendations in Dame Lynne’s review align with the cross-criminal justice system reform already under way following the reviews led by David Gauke and Sir Brian Leveson. My Department is driving this programme forward, and I am committed to ensuring that Dame Lynne’s recommendations are part of a coherent, phased approach to wider system transformation, recognising both current financial pressures and the need for alignment across the system.
To support this long-term programme, I have appointed a new second permanent secretary, specifically tasked with providing leadership across the whole criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice will continue to work closely with other Government Departments and stakeholders to deliver these recommendations.
Public safety is the Government’s first duty, and I remain committed to bearing down on releases in error. The steps we have already taken and will take in response to Dame Lynne Owens’ review are leaving no stone unturned. We are backing this up with up to £82 million investment over this spending review period.
Through a combination of reform, improved technology and better practice, we will reduce the number of releases in error to pre-prison capacity crisis levels, and drive them down year on year.
[HCWS1518]
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery commenced its work in May 2024 under the last Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Since then, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the ICRIR has worked hard to build trust so that it can start delivering answers for victims and families. More than 270 cases have already been referred to the ICRIR, with more than 100 active investigations under way.
This Government have been clear from the beginning that we are committed to the fundamental reform of the ICRIR, which will become the Legacy Commission. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will significantly reform the governance of the ICRIR to build wider confidence in its vital work.
Following a number of concerns about corporate effectiveness and culture raised directly with the Northern Ireland Office, Peter May was jointly commissioned by the NIO and the ICRIR board to deliver a review of the corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the ICRIR. I am grateful to him for this work. His findings, submitted to me at the end of February, identified that the organisation is facing a number of problems resulting, in his view, from a combination of the 2023 legacy Act itself, internal governance shortcomings and the culture of the organisation at senior levels.
Since receiving the findings, I have met each of the commissioners individually to seek their response. I have established a joint ICRIR-NIO oversight committee to ensure that the review’s recommendations are addressed. I have also provided additional dedicated sponsorship resource to support the organisation.
I now plan to commission a section 36 review of the ICRIR and its performance of its statutory functions. As set out in the 2023 legacy Act, this must be completed no later than 30 April 2027. I will make a further statement in due course following the appointment of a chair and publication of its terms of reference.
Many of the ICRIR’s dedicated staff participated in the review by Peter May. They did so on an understanding of anonymity. It is right, therefore, that we ensure that the correct processes are being followed, and that the findings are shared by the ICRIR with its staff in the first instance. Once this has been done, I will place these findings in the Library of the House, along with our response and joint action plan.
It is vital that the Commission’s important work continues on behalf of victims, survivors and their families, as they seek to find answers after so many years. The internal challenges faced by the ICRIR, as a new public organisation tasked with a complex statutory role, must not detract from this. I will do everything I can, including through the important reforms set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to ensure that the ICRIR is appropriately supported to deliver for those families.
[HCWS1516]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the 2014 regulations so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury, known as TDDI, is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. This change will be for the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided in sports grounds or gymnasiums, or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events, where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.
Let me start by clarifying what this is and what it is not. This regulated activity relates not to the task being carried out but to who is doing it. It is the assessment and treatment of physical or mental state when provided by a specifically defined list of healthcare professionals, as per the CQC’s website. The scope of this activity requires those carrying it out to be listed healthcare professionals registered with the appropriate professional body, such as the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the Health and Care Professions Council. When a healthcare professional uses their professional title, qualification and skills to assess and treat a person for a disease, disorder or injury, they must be registered with or employed by a company registered with the CQC.
Providers carrying out the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at events may include independent ambulance services that employ paramedics, doctors and nurses, and which are commissioned to attend an event such as a music festival, marathon or football match and be on hand in case anyone there experiences a medical emergency.
Perhaps I can give some context. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. The subsequent inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that these shortcomings may have been present at other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of appropriate regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was absolutely clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has itself outlined additional concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations of unregulated provision resulting in severe patient harm.
The Government, as noble Lords would expect, are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important that they be carefully considered in order to understand the impacts. I am pleased that they have now been laid before us.
To turn to what the amendment will do, the 2014 regulations exempted the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided at sports venues or gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements from regulation. This SI removes this exemption. It will bring the provision of this treatment at events into line with provision in hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes where it is already registered. This means that any provider delivering the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at an event must register with the CQC and must comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in the health system. Of course, some of the providers will already be registered to provide this treatment in other settings, which will make the process quicker for them.
I should say to noble Lords that there has been some misunderstanding about what is covered by
“the treatment of disease, disorder or injury”.
It includes a wide range of treatments, from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.
By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true our commitment to fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and the drive to improve patient safety. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I shall speak briefly to this statutory instrument and ask a number of questions, if I may, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I think that I understand the structure of what is proposed and the exclusion of first aid so that it is not covered, but when I look at the providers that are likely to be affected, I am trying to work out carefully which are the providers concerned. I am assisted by a friend who is part of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and who said that it had undertaken a survey.
It seems to me that many of the people who responded to that as healthcare professionals may well be working in registered providers already, so they may be concerned about the need to register in relation to the services that they provide at events but in fact they do not need to register. However, the event organisers themselves may need to register if they bring healthcare professionals on site in order to provide services that go beyond first aid at their event. I am trying to understand how, when the department went out and identified 89, or whatever the number was, potential providers that were not already registered, it ended up with a figure of 36, which seems very low. It certainly bears no comparison to what those who are working in the sector believe would be the number of presently unregistered providers. We need to understand who these 36 are, the character of those providers that the department has identified and why there is such a discrepancy between that and what others have been saying. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us much more about that.
As a practical example, are all football clubs, or the major football clubs in the Premier League, the Championship and so on, already registered with the CQC? Clearly, they, as organisations, provide continuing healthcare to their players. Do we not need to worry about any of that? Is an event like one of the big festivals that take place already registered, because it has put a team together in order to provide more than simply first aid? Perhaps we are worrying about a need for registration when actually we do not need to worry so much.
I have only one other question. An essential part of the follow-up to the Manchester Arena inquiry was the preparation of an event healthcare standard. Would the Minister be kind enough to update us on that process? Where does it stand and when might we see its publication for consultation?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also ask a few questions. I declare my interests as the senior steward—namely, the chairman—of the Jockey Club and as the mother of an elite athlete.
I spent last weekend at two quite different sporting events, juggling my time between the Grand National and the Home Internationals lacrosse competition, as my daughter played for England for the first time— I did check with her that I was allowed to mention that in the Grand Committee. I mention them both because while one is really a grass-roots sporting event—it has a small crowd, but none the less there is an ambulance in attendance because it is a potentially dangerous sport—the other, the Grand National, is the second largest attended sport in the country and the second most watched sporting event on television. As I understand it, both are captured by the same changes being proposed today.
I express my condolences to everyone who was affected by the tragedy at Manchester Arena. In no way do I want to suggest that the questions I am posing negate the need to address the recommendations of the public inquiry. It is hugely important that we learn the lessons.
First, I took some time to speak to a former chief medical adviser of the British Horseracing Authority, Dr Jerry Hill, who told me that a clear standard of healthcare for events is an extremely positive move. I put on record that I wholeheartedly support the event healthcare standard. I understand that there has been good consultation on the draft and that, in Dr Hill’s view, it will help event medics fight their corner for resource. He told me that, at the moment, event medics often feel that they are behind Portaloos and security in priority at events. It is important that we recognise that we need that standard.
However, in moving from that standard being guidance to putting it on a statutory footing—I appreciate that this SI does not do that, but it sets us on that path—we need to evaluate formally whether the draft is effective. As I understand it, the DHSC was somewhat swamped by people wanting to participate in evaluating the draft, and that it was perhaps not following the more scientifically robust approach that a number of sports suggested—I think two focus groups were planned to evaluate the draft. Can the Minister assure us that that event healthcare standard will be evaluated to a scientifically robust standard rather than that of a more politically normal focus group? It is very important that we get it right.
Secondly, I also understood that, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, the CQC’s initial impact assessment had claimed that only 36 healthcare providers would need to register. Horseracing alone thinks that we have 350 individual clinicians who would need to register, even allowing for the fact that each clinician tends to work in three different sports. Potentially, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK’s estimate of 23,000 is an overestimate. Even if it is one-third of that, it is still massively more than the CQC expected.
I also understand that, in November 2024, the CQC said that it had a maximum capacity to register new providers of 1,000 per year. If we are not very careful, with all the best intentions we will be setting up a bureaucratic quagmire, which will mean that events, big and small, will not be able to find suitably registered clinicians to support them. What assurances can the Minister give us that the CQC can cope with the workload? Has the CQC recruited, or does it intend to recruit, anyone from the sports or cultural events sector? In the past, the CQC has had, in maybe more traditional healthcare settings, a bad habit of sending non-specialist inspectors—my noble friend Lord Lansley is laughing at that, but it is serious business. The best example I have is of occupational therapists being sent to inspect ambulance services.
What assurance can the Minister give us that the CQC is going to recruit the suitable expertise to deliver on this important obligation? Where will it sit in the priorities of the CQC which, after all, has an awful lot of important work to do? It currently has an interim chief executive and a chairman who wants to leave, so I am nervous about quite so much going on to the CQC. I support others who have called for pragmatism in the implementation of these regulations to allow time, if the CQC is struggling to put the resource to them that they need.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The Explanatory Notes say that a full impact assessment was not completed because
“no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
I think it entirely foreseeable that there could be significant cost and complexity, as well as an inability to deliver the healthcare benefits that we all seek, for two important sectors of society that provide important glue as well as economic value. Whether we are talking about grass-roots or world-class sporting and cultural events, if we implement this SI badly, there will be substantial negative consequences.
I am aware that I have asked an awful lot of questions. May I be presumptuous and ask the Minister for a meeting with the department and the CQC so that a number of us can properly understand how this measure will be implemented?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Sport Wales; with that, I sit on the board of UK Sport. I am also a board member of Active Travel England.
I reiterate the comments made by others about how horrendous and horrific the Manchester bombing was, as well as how significant an impact it had on so many people. The recommendations are important. I absolutely understand why we want to protect people and improve the system. I am also going to ask a number of questions, so I would be very happy for a follow-up afterwards.
I have spoken to a number of organisations in the wider sport industry. It is fair to say, I think, that there is a level of concern about the statutory instrument that we are debating today and the impact that it could have on the wider sports industry. I understand that the Sport and Recreation Alliance has written to the Minister; I would be interested in the reply and to know what further work has been undertaken.
I know from speaking to a wide group of people who work in the sports industry that they generally feel as though His Majesty’s Government have failed to engage with the sector properly and have not understood the significant, negative effect that this measure may have on the provision of medical care at events. There is a real risk of this preventing some sports events and activities from going ahead, or going ahead without the medical cover that they currently have, in order to avoid the consequences of the proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made some interesting points on registration. Medics often work in a voluntary capacity across a number of events of various sizes. It is important that these people are not registered multiple times. We should try to avoid some of the failings of DBS checks, where people are registered on lots of different systems. That does not solve the problem that we are trying to solve.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance has called for a commitment to create a specific exemption for all treatment provided to athletes, performers and officials. This is also an important area for us to look at. We should include spectators in that as well, because some events have lots of spectators and some have absolutely none. Many believe that this would not be contrary to the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and could solve many of the issues that the regulations might cause.
Can the Minister explain what further considerations have been given to understanding the impact on sport and sporting events? I wonder if clarification is needed on the definition of different events and the sizes, because they are very different. Also, what is understood by “injury” and “first aid”? People working on the ground might struggle to understand that. I was also wondering whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided a view on this and on its impact.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the founder and director of Cignpost Express Test, which did a lot of Covid testing for sports events and currently does health screening at PGA golf events and Mercedes Formula 1 testing, so I have quite a bit of experience in health screening. As other noble Lords have said, what we are trying to do here is very well intentioned. Ours hearts go out to all those affected by the Manchester Arena bombing. This is designed to try to correct many of those ills. The fact that we have two Ministers here shows the important stress that the Government put on this, and I know that Minister Ahmed has been engaged on this, too.
There are good intentions here but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the devil is in the detail and implementation. Everyone thinks of big events in this context but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned, the small events are the real concern. I have had volunteers at mini rugby tournaments asking, “How are we going to cope with this?” There is a confusion, which perhaps the Minister can clear up, about doctors who are currently CQC-registered through their practice and volunteer at, for example, weekend point-to-point racing events or mini rugby tournaments, who feel that they will no longer be able to do that without being CQC-registered separately for those events, which costs almost £1,000 a time. That drives a lot of the discrepancies we seem to have in the numbers: are we talking about 36 events or many thousands? It would be helpful to get an understanding of that because there is a lot of concern out there.
As a former Health Minister, I know that the CQC already has a lot on its plate. The 1,000 limit on new registrations was mentioned earlier, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, to be honest. I am very concerned about this. Event organisers and chief medical officers have told me that if it becomes too burdensome, we will employ first-aiders instead of having volunteer doctors, because they do not have to be CQC-registered. That, of course, will mean that the care is less good. They gave an example: apparently, during Wimbledon, 4,000 people saw the medical support services during the whole tournament, and only 1% of them ended up being referred onwards to the NHS or hospital services, because good volunteer doctors and medics were there. Clearly, if they were just first-aiders, a lot more of those people would have been pushed straight on down to Kingston Hospital or wherever, which would have put a large burden on the local NHS services, which I am sure we all want to try to avoid.
I have three suggestions, if I may, the first of which is an athlete exemption. Will athletes be exempt from this, since their medical treatment is quite different, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said? Secondly, there is a feeling among the chief medical officers that it would be useful to get the event healthcare standard finalised in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about, before we do this. It would be useful to have this standard, but it is hard to talk about implementation until we know exactly what that standard will be.
Thirdly, I, too, would like to be involved in the meeting, if I may, but a round table with the CQC and all the chief medical officers would be useful. I know that Minister Ahmed said that he was in favour of that and suggested to the CQC that it should meet with all four chief medical officers. However—I appreciate this is hearsay—I have heard from the chief medical officers themselves that the CQC refused to meet them all together and wants only to meet them separately. I do not know why that is, but the meetings would be more valuable as round tables, with everyone in the room, so that the CQC can get the full flavour of the things we are hearing about today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, so it is partly with that hat on that I am asking these questions.
The Manchester Arena inquiry makes harrowing reading, and I expect that there will be some bereaved people watching this debate, because they are aware that these regulations have come out following that inquiry. The deficits that the reports highlighted are really worrying, but I was struck that many of them are in the domain of so-called first aid: the failure to use tourniquets when people were bleeding, and the fact that the tourniquets were locked up in a first aid room anyway, compound the distress and the memories with which people who lost somebody in that event have to live.
So, one of my questions relates specifically to where the boundary defining first aid sits. The initial response of qualified doctors and physiotherapists may be first aid, but they may also start to instigate longer-term treatment for whatever happened at the event that could not be instigated by somebody who was trained in first aid only as a volunteer from a charity or group. I was thinking about the Glastonbury Festival, an event that is extremely well organised for medical emergencies. It is set up to do a lot of treatment on site, but some things mean that people have to be airlifted out sometimes. They go from the very minor—the joke is rashes from all the wellies rubbing on people’s legs—right through to life-threatening adverse reactions to the most bizarre cocktails of drugs. That needs a highly specialised knowledge. If emergency medicine consultants had not been working there, lives would have been lost because this is so complicated.
One of my other questions relates to the people who are to be used or employed. A level of first aid could happen anywhere, but what is needed at a sporting event may be very different from that at a large event where a lot of illicit substances are being used and the expertise required to avoid loss of life will be quite different.
My other main question relates to the boundaries around an event. How big and organised does an event have to be to qualify, or how small not to qualify? What about a local children’s football league that happens on a Saturday morning with lots of different clubs competing? The kids are traveling around with parents, and may cross from Wales to England, England to Wales, into Scotland or wherever. As amateur participants, their risk of a really bad injury is no lower —in fact, it may even be higher—than if they were playing as fully trained professionals with a full support team.
I am also slightly concerned about where the boundaries are around the person. For some of these smaller events, people will have volunteered as doctors. I know one who volunteers to work at football matches: he is employed by a large hospital and is not a sports medicine person, but he brings a lot of experience that you could say all falls within the realm of first aid, or you could say is tipping over the boundary, because general medical emergencies arise from time to time.
Both the national boundaries and the size of the event concern me. I am not quite clear where those physiotherapists sit who are in private practice—possibly solo private practice—but who are then providing support at a sporting event. If they are to register with CQC as a single worker, it might be quite a lot of money out of their practice pocket. They may therefore feel that they are not incentivised to carry on but they have a great deal of skills. The danger is that the skills available on-site at an event might, inadvertently, be lower than one is anticipating. I realise that there have been a lot of questions to the Minister, but we look forward to the answers.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to the comments and questions made by my noble friend Lady Harding about the potential impact of this regulatory change on horseracing. It is a very important sport, as the Minister responsible knows, and a sport that is already under considerable financial pressure, despite its tremendous popularity. There is concern about what the unintended consequences of this significant change may be, the bureaucratic burden that could be created by the extension of the CQC’s jurisdiction into event medicine and the cost, so I seek reassurance that Ministers are alive to these issues.
I want to raise a particular issue, which has also been raised by other noble Lords, about the possibility of exempting from registration the healthcare that is provided to athletes, performers and officials, as opposed to the healthcare provided to the public. I understand that that exemption exists already for treatment provided under arrangements between employers and employees, but not more widely. However, much medical provision might not be on an employer-employee basis and therefore would not be covered by the exemption. That would create an anomaly.
Ministers are of course right to draw attention to the importance of this issue, given the terrible events in the Manchester Arena nearly a decade ago, the awful loss of life and the very large numbers of people injured. But the extension of the CQC’s remit, as a consequence of the inquiry’s recommendation, was precisely to improve healthcare provision for the public. I am not aware that there was any perceived problem with healthcare provided for athletes and competitors—a much narrower group of people. That was not, of course, what the inquiry was thinking about when it proposed this extension, but the extension at the moment covers them, so there may be significant unintended consequences.
We know that one survey suggests that over a third of the doctors who currently provide medical cover for racing may not continue if required to register, because of the bureaucratic burden. There is obviously a tremendous reassurance job that has to be done, at the very least, but it seems that we also need to address the fundamental issue. I wonder whether the Minister would accept that there is a difference between the care that is provided for the public, which is what the inquiry was all about, and the arrangements for athletes and competitors, which are different and where there was not a problem that needed to be addressed. However, accepting that an event healthcare standard is a good thing, and that Ministers will look at the potential for exempting from registration healthcare provided for athletes, performers and officials on that basis, this instrument would seem to be commonsensical.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where you think, “Who do I disagree with?” I am afraid that I have not disagreed with anything from anybody. As I speak for my party, it is important for me to restate that things went wrong with the treatment of the Manchester Arena disaster. We should do something about it—that would be great.
The problem here is that we seem to have gone far too wide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked, how far down do you go when covering an event? For instance, for small rugby union clubs—my own sporting background—you are lucky if there are three men and a dog watching. That is your crowd, but a local cup game could have a couple of thousand. Where does that support structure kick in? That is something that all amateur sport will confront from time to time. This is merely the first opportunity for the Minister to correct these perceptions. We need to have some cut-off points, going from when it is enough simply to have a first-aider within earshot to when we need better medical support and structure. When that changes and how they interact is really what the discussion here is about.
When it comes to sport, please let us not do anything that stops sporting events happening. There is a fear that we will do so inadvertently by providing a greater bureaucratic burden on providing help. We hope that the Government will not do that. I hope that the Department of Health will not do something that will make the country intrinsically less healthy. That is really what we are looking at.
Let us look at other specialist events. This is not an interest, but I live in the village of Lambourn so, even if I did not want to be, I am very aware of things to do with equestrian sport and particularly races. Anything to do with horses is intrinsically dangerous; indeed, we have a rehabilitation centre for neck and back injuries in Lambourn. When it comes to racing, as my wife has often pointed out to me, there are not many events when an ambulance follows you down the course as you are taking part—so there are structures there. If something that organised is raising concerns—it is not because they want it to be there but because it has to be there—there might well be something worth listening to. We must make sure, when we deliver this, that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that good intentions are erased out. We should go through all those things.
The Government need to start doing something to get better information out there about exactly what they are doing, where the barriers are and what will happen. A series of meetings might help—possibly with parliamentarians and certainly with larger groups—and they should get the information out quickly. It will dramatically help to let the information out in dribs and drabs—as and when they see fit as they go forward—setting out their intentions, and we will bring in stuff behind it. That way, if there is a real fault-line here, as opposed to a fear of one, we will find out. Then we can start to do something about it.
Can the Government give us something that reassures us on our worries about the extra bureaucratic burden, given that people are terrified? They are one newspaper report and a few tweets away from people having a panic about everybody being sued every time anybody gets cuts in an amateur football game. What are they doing? Where are the structures going? That is what is required here.
We all want the big events to be safer, but they will have got it wrong if they apply this to an open mic night at a pub and a Sunday league football game at the same time. We must make sure that people know where those fault-lines are. The exemption for people taking part in sports events is a no-brainer. Can we make sure that this happens and that people know about it? It is clear that they do not, at the moment, and that is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as other noble Lords were declaring their interests, I thought, “Oh, that’s good; I have no relevant interests”. But, the last time I thought that, a number of people tweeted at me for not declaring my interests, so I will bore all noble Lords with them. I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the medical school that it is starting and have started co-operating with colleagues in the Faculty of Sport, Technology and Health Sciences. I also teach at the University of Buckingham, but I have no contact with its medical school. I just wanted to touch all the bases.
I thank the Minister for setting out these draft regulations in her usual clear manner. Obviously, they arise from the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack and the subsequent inquiry. Like other noble Lords, my heart goes out to those who were affected; we offer our condolences to the victims and their families, some of whom are probably still in a state of bereavement. Clearly, that inquiry called for a review of healthcare provision at events, as well as clearer standards for public safety, which I think everyone who has spoken is in favour of.
Most of the people who have contacted us said that they support the principle that those attending sporting and cultural events should have access to safe, high-quality medical care—there is no disagreement there—but the question before your Lordships is one not of principle but of implementation and delivery. It is right, therefore, that the detail be scrutinised carefully.
In removing the previous exemption and requiring providers of event healthcare to register with the CQC, the SI clearly extends the CQC’s regulatory remit to a sector that is complex and, in many cases, heavily reliant on volunteers and small providers. You cannot just transplant knowledge from the hospital or mental health sectors into sports events; noble Lords have referred to the range of events that would be covered. This removal, while understandable, has given rise a number of concerns—I am sure that the Minister has heard them—among, but not limited to, small organisations and volunteer-run sports clubs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I share the concerns of the noble Lords on different Benches who have spoken. There is no disagreement here.
The department’s own impact assessment acknowledges the increased costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance, but one of my concerns arose when I saw the estimate for the registration fee. It said that, for newly regulated providers, it will be between—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and I am going just to outline or repeat a few of them. The first is that the department’s own assessment acknowledges that the costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance are estimated, for newly regulated providers, as being between £99,400 and £994,000 per annum. They are quite accurate figures, but let me rephrase that: it could be nearly £100,000 or nearly £1 million. We know that most forecasts are wrong, but a factor of 10 is rather a wide range. I have to admit that that raises concerns about the understanding of these regulations.
But more concerning is the evidence from the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine suggesting that many clinicians working in event medicine may reconsider their involvement if these regulations are implemented as proposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised. As other noble Lords have said, events medical providers support the principle of these regulations but warn that they could lead to a reduction in workforce capacity, with the potential unintended consequence of reducing safety. My noble friend Lord Herbert referred to that unintended consequence.
There are also concerns that, where providers withdraw from delivering this regulated medical care, events may instead have to rely on first aid provision, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. That falls outside the scope of CQC regulation. Well-run events such as Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, the Silverstone Grand Prix and the Glastonbury Festival currently manage most medical incidents on-site. But we could see a shift away from properly staffed medical provision, which risks increasing demand on already stretched NHS services off-site.
Stakeholders, including the Sport and Recreation Alliance, have highlighted a lack of comprehensive engagement with the sector to date. Given the unique characteristics of event medicine, it is essential that any regulatory framework be developed in close consultation with those who deliver care on the ground. However, I have been told by some medical professionals that the CQC is being selective in who it wants. I was told a similar story to that told to my noble friend Lord Markham: when three or four CMOs asked for a joint meeting, the CQC person refused and insisted that they wanted to meet only one of the CMOs. When I hear this, frankly, it gives me no confidence in the CQC or its consultation process. Let me be clear: I do not use those words lightly, but the CQC should be doing proper consultation and not refusing meetings.
I recognise the efforts by the previous and the current Government and the CQC to fix its previously poor reputation. Last year, in the mental health debates, these Benches supported the Government in resisting the appointment of a separate mental health commissioner, because we agreed that the mental health part of the CQC was getting its house in order. Indeed, I met today with some people from the CQC on transitional care, and I was very impressed with them.
However, when I am told that for this regulation the CQC suggested that an additional 36 organisations would require registration, compared to an estimated 25,000 in the survey by the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine, this, as my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said, demonstrates a massive gap in understanding that needs to be addressed. Once again, I am sorry when I say this, but it gives the impression of the CQC being out of its depth.
I am sorry if that is not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Minister was hoping for, but I also know that she has been willing in the past to meet to discuss legislation, and we have worked constructively together in the time we have both been on our respective Front Benches. So, in that constructive spirit, I will make three suggestions, which in fact touch upon those that that were made by other noble Lords.
First, we need to see meaningful CQC engagement with sector representatives, our national governing boards, the chief medical officers in sports groups, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care to ensure that any inspection framework is sector-specific and not simply lifted from the hospital sector. Imposing a CQC regulatory framework suitable for hospitals is inappropriate for pop-up clinics at park runs, cycle races or pitch-side at rugby. Let us be frank: the CQC does not have any existing knowledge of working in these sectors at that level, and it should be listening rather than seeking to impose.
Secondly, we should consider expanding the current employer/employee CQC exemption to athletes, performers and officials whose healthcare providers meet strict occupational health standards regardless of the patient’s contractual arrangement, as other noble Lords suggested.
Thirdly, although I understand that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns about the time taken to bring forward these regulations, given that the CQC is not exactly inspiring confidence from those who organise sports and other events, could the Government possibly ask the CQC to wait until the event healthcare standard being led by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care has been published? In addition, if and when it becomes apparent that the CQC has indeed underestimated the size of this and the cost to the sector, would they be prepared to perhaps extend that December 27 deadline, if appropriate?
However, really to emphasise the point that the Government are listening, I know we have asked for individual meetings, but a much better suggestion would be a round table with interested noble Lords, with the relevant Minister from the department—obviously we would love to have the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, there as we always enjoy her consultations— and the CQC, so it can stop being selective about who it speaks with and can actually listen to CMOs and other medical experts from across the sector. They are not doing this to score points; none of us is doing this for that reason. We agree with the principle, and we want this to work, whichever party and whichever Bench we work on, but we are concerned that the CQC’s approach will lead to the unintended consequence of the withdrawal of appropriate medical provision at these services.
It is quite clear that all noble Lords support the goal of improving public safety at events. All noble Lords have heard the concerns from public events medical experts, and all noble Lords hope that the Minister has listened to their concerns and will agree to the modest requests they have made in today’s debate.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today. I will make a few general points.
I very much welcome the points and the concerns that noble Lords have been willing to outline. I also want to acknowledge that I have heard the understanding of why we are doing this. I know that we all understand the intent, and I understand the numerous questions— I make that as a comment, not as any criticism—trying to understand the workability. I very much welcome them. What I take from this debate and what I will share with Minister Ahmed as the Minister for Patient Safety is that clearly there is considerable concern. To refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about fault lines, I think this is about fear of fault lines, but even fear of fault lines is fear enough, so I absolutely take that point.
Let me say at the outset that, if noble Lords had not asked for it, I would have suggested having a round table for interested Peers. It will indeed include officials from the department and the CQC. Ministerially, because it is Peers, I would want to be there in any case. I am sure that Minister Ahmed would want to be there too, but my anxiety is to get on with the meeting, so I will happily have a discussion with him, but I certainly want to be there. If noble Lords remain concerned about a lot of the points, we can tease them out there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful for the offer of further discussions and a round table, but there are several numbers relating to the number of providers that might be anticipated to require registration. We keep coming back to this figure of 36 in the impact assessment, but I do not understand exactly who those providers are. For example, I imagined it would probably be football clubs but it turns out that it is not. Who are they exactly?
The Minister and the department in their impact assessment have moved from that figure of 36, which presumably had some substance, to a guess of somewhere between 100 and 1,000, which, as my noble friend said, is a very high degree of uncertainty. I still do not know—if there were to be as many as 1,000—who these providers are and how many, for example, would be small charitable organisations or small, sporting voluntary organisations for which £1,000 is not a small matter.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I can add to that. What is the process for notifying those who will come under this regulation? That would be helpful to know as well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If I may add to the list of questions, I think it might be helpful for the Minister to explain how the decisions over the size relate to the Purple Guide that the Health and Safety Executive produced, because I understand from page 114 of volume 2 of the Manchester Arena inquiry report that the Purple Guide for an event of that size set things out quite clearly, but was not adhered to at all. I have a slight concern from the responses that we have had that we may have two completely separate things going on. The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but it would be helpful in this meeting that we are all anticipating if there is a cross-reference to the Purple Guide and if the discussions could include how that would impact and be used by the CQC in regulating.
Lord Markham (Con)
If I may, I hope this may be helpful: the confusion that I have heard is over whether a doctor, for a CQC registration at their GP surgery, can use that to volunteer on a point-to-point racecourse, as an example, or whether they have to separately register with the CQC to be a volunteer on the racecourse and pay the £1,000. Again, if that comes in the letter, that is fine, but that is one of the main points of confusion.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On all these areas, as I said, I am happy to meet with noble Lords in person. To be honest, I think that that would be more helpful, not least because we are talking about scenarios and we have a note of the questions that noble Lords are raising. I would be delighted to go through them. Again, in the responses today, I am probably going to be repeating some of what I said earlier and I am not sure that that will take us forward, so I would rather that we held those points for a meeting, if noble Lords are agreeable.
With that, I thank noble Lords. This has been a very valuable debate. It shows the work that needs to be done and we will be pleased to do that. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions and support of the principle of why we are here.
Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I ask that the Committee considers two statutory instruments made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023: first, the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026; and, secondly, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the UK’s capital framework remains agile and responsive for banks and investment firms. I will first set out the context in which this legislation is being delivered.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 revoked assimilated law in the UK related to financial services, to bring it in line with the UK’s domestic model of regulation. The UK’s domestic model—the Financial Services and Markets Act model—was first established through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That model prioritises the setting of regulatory standards by expert, independent regulators, working within an overall policy framework set by the Government and Parliament. This approach maximises the use of expertise in the policy-making process by allowing regulators with day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to bring their real-world experience into the design of regulatory standards. It also allows regulators to flex and update those standards to ensure that regulation responds to emerging developments.
One area of financial services regulation where the Financial Services and Markets Act model will apply is capital requirements regulation. Capital requirements regulation is an existing body of assimilated law that covers the detailed and technical capital rules that apply to credit institutions, such as banks and building societies, and larger investment firms. Applying the Financial Services and Markets Act model in this area means replacing the existing capital requirements regulation in three ways.
First, some of it is being replaced by rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority. This includes rules in relation to Basel 3.1, the final set of post-crisis reforms designed to strengthen the resilience of the UK banking system. Secondly, provisions relating to prudential equivalence, also contained in the capital requirements regulation, are being replaced by a new overseas prudential requirements regime in legislation. Thirdly, important definitions in the capital requirements regulation are being restated in new legislation because they are essential for ensuring that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended.
The statutory instruments that we are debating relate to the first and third of these areas: the replacement of rules by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1, and the restatement of key definitions in the existing capital requirements regulation. They do not relate to the new overseas prudential requirements regime, which will be legislated for separately.
The first statutory instrument that I will address is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The sole purpose of this instrument is to restate important definitions from the existing capital requirements regulation in law. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated so that it remains in legislation, rather than being defined by the Prudential Regulation Authority rulebook. This is necessary to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of what activities should be regulated.
This instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, neither does it make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended, as we complete the move to the Financial Services and Markets Act model.
I turn to the second statutory instrument, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. This instrument relates to the first part of the capital requirements regulation reform process—namely, the replacement of certain capital requirements regulations with rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1. Most of the work to deliver Basel 3.1 has already been completed and, following extensive consultation, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published the new rules that will apply to credit institutions and larger investment firms. These rules will ensure that the UK banking system is well capitalised, while protecting the ability of firms within scope to support economic growth, including the ability to provide finance to small businesses and infrastructure projects.
The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms. The Prudential Regulation Authority intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027, which will give UK-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and invest in the real economy. The timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions, however, remains unclear, particularly for certain market-risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. This is particularly relevant for internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks causing unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms, including the need to run different systems and processes in parallel across jurisdictions.
That is why the Government, in conjunction with the Prudential Regulation Authority, have decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach. The Government announced last year that implementation of new international model market risk requirements—the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets—will be delayed until 1 January 2028.
This instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated international model market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027. During that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This will apply only to a small number of internationally active firms. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions.
The instrument also provides the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations if international developments warrant it. Any such extension would be time-limited, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.
These statutory instruments are limited in scope and carefully targeted. They restate important provisions in the capital requirements regulation which need to remain on the statute book to ensure that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended. They also enable a flexible and pragmatic approach to Basel 3.1 implementation, minimising disruption and protecting the competitiveness of UK firms while uncertainty over implementation remains in other jurisdictions.
Taken together, these limited changes will help to deliver an agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the definition of a statutory instrument is very technical, and I frankly have nothing to add to it. The capital requirements SI, in that it provides the temporary flexibility to see how other jurisdictions will behave, seems understandable and we on these Benches oppose neither. However, I have some questions for the Minister on the changes that underlie these SIs.
The Minister will know that undue risk taken in their trading activities by internationally active institutions played a significant role in the depth and complexity of the 2007-08 crash and the economic stagnation that followed. I have always been concerned that the regulators will be persuaded by their competitiveness and growth objective to relax the risk requirements on this sector, and these SIs seem to confirm that that is indeed the direction of travel. Am I right?
The finance industry, which is keen to get profits from risk so long as the losses fall on taxpayers, has certainly been calling for scope to take more risk, always assuring us that its genius means that risk is not really risk. The Treasury is strongly encouraging risk-taking in the name of growth, but its view is very short-termist and again there is very little understanding of the way in which risk takes impact.
This SI refers constantly to competitiveness with other jurisdictions, particularly the US and the EU. What assurances can the Minister give me that we have not now entered the world of the lowest common denominator, which of course has been the greatest fear of many of us as we have seen regulation continuously softened?
Some I have talked to have said that the regulator is easing capital requirements, as this SI illustrates, to help the big conventional institutions counter the surge in private credit as the lesser of two evils. Is that correct? Some have said that the reduction in the risk requirement is to counter the pressures that will flow from the EU capital requirements directive 6, which could significantly restrict the ability of non-EU banks to provide core banking services to EU clients from outside the EU, thereby encouraging the further relocation of operations and staff from London to EU locations. Is it correct that this is an anticipative countermeasure to what the Treasury sees coming?
Others are saying that President Trump’s determination to significantly deregulate US banks and financial activities means that we have to enter and accept an era of high-risk banking and serious financial volatility. I am very cautious when the risk profile of British banking is set by President Trump’s definition of what is risk and what is not, but is it the view of the UK Government and regulators that we have to adjust to be competitive with President Trump’s perspective on what risk should be undertaken in the financial sector? I am most concerned that increases in risk across the piece in the financial sector are not being acknowledged and are consequently treated with complacency. The various protections that we have in place are partial, many of them are untested and even those that do exist are consistently being undermined. Does the Minister share my anxiety?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these instruments are being taken together and I shall address them accordingly in the light of the helpful introduction by the Minister. However, before turning to the specific provisions, I would like to raise some broader questions about the Government’s approach to financial services regulation.
First, on the matter of dynamic alignment with the European Union, there has been considerable speculation about whether the Government intend to pursue closer regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s position on this. My understanding is that the City itself has moved away from enthusiasm for dynamic alignment, recognising that regulatory autonomy, properly exercised, offers competitive advantages that should not be lightly surrendered. There is also the important point about regulatory uncertainty, which the Minister mentioned and which we all know stifles growth and deters investment. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether dynamic alignment remains under active consideration in this area and, if so, in what form?
Secondly and relatedly, on progress with EU-related regulatory changes, the Government have previously indicated certain commitments regarding implementation timelines for their reforms. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether these commitments are being maintained and the proportion of EU-derived legislation that has already been replaced, and give some indication of the timescales involved?
I turn to the instruments themselves, which are technical but important for the direction of travel. The first instrument provides transitional relief for the new market risk internal model framework, inserting a one-year pause before full implementation, for reasons that the Minister has set out. The second instrument restates and domesticates EU capital requirements regulation definitions into UK statute, addressing what would otherwise be a gap when existing EU-derived definitions fall away.
I have several questions for the Minister, some of which come from a slightly different perspective to those from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On the definitional instrument, any process of transposition carries some risk that meanings shift in translation. Has any assessment been made of that risk? Have the PRA and FCA reviewed the new definitions from an operational standpoint to identify any areas where domesticated versions could give rise to interpretive uncertainty?
On the transitional instrument, the fact that it is necessary at all implies something concerning about the readiness of firms, the complexity of the new framework or both. The Minister also mentioned developments overseas, but can he confirm whether the new market risk framework, once fully in force, will represent a material increase in compliance burdens? He will know that this is something I am always concerned about. What concrete steps are being taken during 2027 to ensure that firms will genuinely be ready for full implementation, other than finding themselves reaching for another transitional instrument in 12 months’ time?
I should also like to know how much additional regulatory capital banks are likely to have to hold under the new rules, when they are finally implemented. Last year, the Financial Policy Committee concluded— I thought, helpfully—that overall bank capital levels could be 1% lower. Did the FPC take the trading book changes we are discussing into account?
On the questions of regulatory capacity, is there a risk of a bottleneck in the PRA’s model approval process? Has the PRA assessed its own readiness to manage applications without that becoming a practical choke point? Alternatively, and if the answer to that is reassuring, is it because, given the complexity, only big banks with big trading desks will opt for model approval under FTRB?
Turning to broader international comparisons, how does the UK’s implementation timeline approach to approvals compare with other major jurisdictions? If our framework proves materially more demanding than equivalent regimes elsewhere, there is a genuine risk of competitive disadvantage in global wholesale markets.
I heard from some involved that our regulators feel good about implementing international rules, while the US—and, indeed, the EU—are less driven to comply quickly or in detail. Can the Minister give the Committee his assessment of where the UK stands in relation to its peers and reiterate his commitment to growth in financial services, which he mentioned in his introductory remarks?
Finally, on the power to extend the transitional period, can the Minister set out the criteria by which the Treasury would judge whether an extension is warranted and what signals would prompt the Government to consider using that power? The Minister said that it would be time-limited and used only if necessary, but I am not quite sure what that means.
The integrity of our prudential supervisory framework depends on sound legal foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has always emphasised. These instruments appear to address that, but technical competence is not the same as strategic direction. As we build out a domestically rooted regulatory framework, the question of whether that framework is orientated toward competitiveness and growth, and not merely toward prudential conservatism, becomes pressing.
I was glad to hear the Minister mention both growth and the importance of SMEs, but the Committee will no doubt recall the report published by the Financial Services Regulation Committee on this subject and the good debate it prompted in Grand Committee, for which the Minister was sadly unable to be present. As several of us stated, the regulators are still too risk-averse and their culture needs to change. The report by that respected committee found that the competitiveness and growth objectives were “work in progress”.
In conclusion, is the Minister able to tell us how the Government are keeping up pressure on the regulators on these important objectives, and perhaps provide some live examples of what they are actually doing on competitiveness and growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their extensive questions on these relatively modest SIs. I have some answers to the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I do not have all the answers but I will, of course, write with the answers that I do not have to hand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me, as we have debated many times in the past, about risk and growth. She knows my position on this. We are not undermining many of the incredibly important elements of a system that were put in place post financial crash. We are, though, seeking to tilt the system slightly more towards growth and away from regulating purely for risk.
The noble Baroness asked whether this was a race to the bottom to the lowest common denominator and whether we were undermining the strength of standards in the UK regulations. Of course, as she knows, it is an asset to the UK that the PRA is a global leader in promoting strong international standards, having played an important role in developing the Basel standards and now implementing those standards in the UK. The UK’s priority for Basel implementation has always been aligned implementation across the major jurisdictions, in particular the US. The UK is pressing ahead with implementation, as it has committed to do, while putting in place transitional measures to reduce operational complexity while the US finalises its approach.
The uncertainty surrounding the US implementation of Basel 3.1, particularly in relation to the market risk elements of their package, meant that a UK implementation date of 1 January 2027 would be materially out of line. Therefore, the decision was taken to delay the UK’s implementation of the market risk rules for new internal models to facilitate alignment of implementation dates as much as possible.
The noble Baroness asked whether we were adjusting to President Trump’s perspective. I do not believe that is the case at all. She asked me about delaying Basel to defend against CRD VI. The Treasury is aware of developments relating to Article 21c and is monitoring the position. The Treasury engages regularly with EU counterparts on a range of financial services and banking regulatory matters. Strengthening our relationships with international partners, including the EU, is a key focus of the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me initially about dynamic alignment with the EU. She will know that much of the commentary at the moment is speculation about the forthcoming King’s Speech, and I am obviously not going to comment on what may or may not be contained in it. Specifically on financial services and alignment with the EU, the UK is not directly linking our implementation with that of the EU. The UK has published its Basel package and continues to plan to implement a Basel package that aligns with international standards by 1 January 2030. However, if any jurisdiction releases proposals that may have a material impact on the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector, we will work closely with the PRA to address these impacts as needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about definitions and whether they may be changed in any way. We consulted on the legislation at Mansion House last year and sought views from industry and the regulators to ensure that the effect of the definitions remained the same, and no issues were raised throughout that process. The noble Baroness also asked me about increasing admin burdens from market risk rules. The PRA has designed its Basel package to result in an overall capital level that remains stable and will be no more complex to comply with.
The noble Baroness also asked me how the PRA is ensuring that its model approval is effective. The PRA’s work is obviously supported by the Government. We support what it is doing to develop a more responsive and agile approach to banks, using its own internal risk models for capital requirements. This in turn could help improve competition and lending in a mortgage market, allowing banks to invest more into the UK. In March, the PRA set out changes to its approval processes for firms with existing models, including enhanced pre-application engagement, to help resolve difficult issues before formal submission, dedicated submission slots and a commitment to complete quality checks within four weeks and review complete applications within six months.
The noble Baroness also asked me about how UK banks will prepare for implementation. The UK has published proposals for Basel 3.1 which strengthen the resilience of our banking system and deliver the certainty banks need to finance investment and growth in the UK. This announcement is a positive example of the UK’s FSMA model of regulation, providing a package tailored to UK needs and a clear plan for implementation, giving banks the certainty they need to plan and invest for the long term.
The noble Baroness also asked me to restate my commitment to growth in financial services; I am more than happy to do that. I am aware that both noble Baronesses asked me a couple more questions that I do not have answers to immediately, but I promise I will write on the specifics of those. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.
This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.
During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that
“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.
Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.
Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.
Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.
In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.
As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.
These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.
I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.
I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.
On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.
Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?
The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:
“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
He went on to give some examples.
This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:
“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.
We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a short briefing for me yesterday on this measure, which I found very helpful. That was a useful thing to do and I thank him.
The substance of this statutory instrument is not terribly interesting. We could go on about whether the CAA could be trusted to do its job, and exactly how you might define exemptions, but these issues have been raised in the course of debate; there is no point in my belabouring them. Generally speaking, I trust the CAA to do the job that it has done so well for so many years. I do not see any reason to think that it will go wild and start indulging in or approving unsafe practices in the near future.
I think that there are more interesting things about this statutory instrument that relate to its circumstances. The first circumstance that we want to take account of is the EU reset. The third clause of this instrument—the second operative clause in this instrument—is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. It is a relaxation of regulation that could not be brought about had we remained a member of the European Union. The Minister has said this. I am not making a controversial point. We are doing this in a context where the Government have said, without any mandate, that they want to align our laws with the European Union, making us subject to laws that they make without any consideration of what the benefits might be for us. These advantages that we are getting today by passing this statutory instrument could be yanked away at any moment in the next year or so as the reset starts to bite.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.
On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.
The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.
I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.
The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.
The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.
For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.
Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Committee to consider these three instruments together today: the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026, the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
These statutory instruments were laid before this House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If approved, the Department for Work and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies, which have exercised control over that spending in their area. For the most part, these organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved at Cornwall Council one year ago.
In March 2024, the previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. This was to be exercised from the academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions; therefore, these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities, to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments, and that Bill, will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.
Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, these actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.
The specific adult education functions being transferred to these three local areas are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and will be exercisable by these local authorities. These SIs transfer three specific duties set out in the 2009 Act from the Secretary of State to each local authority. These duties are: Section 86, which places a duty to secure appropriate facilities for education for individuals aged 19 or over, excluding those under 25 with an education, health and care plan; Section 87, which places a duty on the authority to secure the provision of facilities for adults who lack particular skills to obtain relevant qualifications; and Section 88, which places a duty on the authority to ensure that these courses of study are free for eligible learners. The duties above, solely exercisable by the local authority, are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
The SIs also confer other powers and duties on each local authority to be exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State. These are also set out in the 2009 Act and are: Section 90, the duty to encourage participation in education and training for persons aged 19 or over; Section 100(1), provision of financial resources, which is the general funding power for the adult skills fund; and Section 100(1B), provision of financial resources in connection with technical education.
The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. Local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area, and they will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges, and address barriers more effectively.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding offers to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups, to work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs, and to set funding rates that incentivise delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region. Within this local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills, and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills.
I recognise that the nature of skills challenges and the solutions will be different in every region. That is why I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and to develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas. If the draft statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocation efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. The DfE and the DWP have worked closely with each area over the last two years to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions and have provided implementation funding to help them to prepare effectively and support a smooth transition.
Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that a permanent skills team is in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities, and I can confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of people who live and work in the region, and a report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met.
To support future devolution and identify best practice, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to hold constructive conversations with existing strategic authorities, other local areas and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how devolution can help to shape future skills provision to meet local needs. I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations, particularly colleagues at Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council, for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.
These statutory instruments will give those three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us that introduction. It is nice to have her back, and I hope she is fully recovered. The most pedantic thing I could think to say is that the Minister said Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire but the regulations are in a different order on the Order Paper, which says Warwickshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire.
Having got that out of the way, my main question is this: we are in a situation where we are reforming local government involving different groups. Could she give us a slightly better idea, as I may have missed this in her initial statement, of how this actually transfers? Which authorities are expected to take it on once the county councils change? That is something that I would like to hear because it would give us an idea of what is going on. I remember from when we discussed this that the idea is that authorities will respond to local needs in their training. I had reservations because I am not quite sure how you define that, who should be moving on and what the structure will be, but that is for another day. Could we have an idea of which group will be taking charge after we have had the changes to local government?
I do not really have any other fundamental objections to these instruments, but I will add that the Minister spoke about those with low attainment. I wonder if one day I will get up in a debate on education and not mention special educational needs—I suppose it is quite possible—but what about identification of those who would benefit from this support and structure in acquiring these local resources? Do we have any development plans for it? That is a speculative question. If the Minister has any information that could be sent to me then I would be grateful to receive it, and if she has it now then I would be grateful to hear it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations, which transfer adult education functions to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils from the 2026-27 academic year and, as the Minister said, from 1 August 2026. I am very grateful for the detail that the Minister has given in setting out these measures.
The principle of devolution in adult skills is well-established and enjoys cross-party support. Bringing decisions closer to local labour markets and employers makes intuitive sense and these regulations build on that foundation. I do not oppose them; indeed, this policy is in line with the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget. However, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on a number of points.
First, on funding, the Department for Education has cut the adult education budget by 60% for this academic year. Devolution is of limited value if it simply transfers responsibility without the resources to deliver. I know that the Minister gave some details on this, but can she confirm the indicative allocations for these authorities and explain how the Government will ensure that funding keeps pace with local demand? What data will the Government collect on devolved adult skills fund money spend and how this is being translated into outcomes? I am aware that industry experts have expressed some concerns about this.
Secondly, on accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this point, but I want to go a little bit further. One of the long-standing concerns with devolved skills funding is the absence of consistent comparable outcome data. Will the Government commit to publishing performance information at local authority level across both devolved and non-devolved areas so that Parliament and the public can assess whether the model is actually working? Can the Minister please tell us more about the lines of accountability and reporting? Who will have oversight of how adult education services in these authorities are performing, and how often will they be kept abreast of outcomes?
Thirdly, on structural stability, Surrey County Council is due to be abolished in 2027. Warwickshire is expected to be reorganised in 2028. The Government have indicated that functions will transfer to successor bodies, but I would welcome further clarity on the providers during this period of change. I know the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this issue. To go further, what safeguards are in place to protect learners and providers during this period? More broadly, why have the Government chosen to devolve these powers to local authorities now on the eve of their abolition?
Finally, on coherence, with some areas now holding devolved powers and others not, there is a real risk of a patchwork system emerging with uneven provision, inconsistent entitlements and fragmented oversight. How do the Government intend to maintain a coherent, national skills strategy while pursuing this localised approach? I am certain that the Minister is well placed to cover this area with her portfolio profile.
These regulations change not what adult education is provided but who controls it. That shift can bring real benefits, but only if accompanied by adequate funding, robust accountability and, of course, stable governance. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points I have raised but, as I have said before, we are broadly behind the measures that are being taken today.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I will endeavour to answer them and to get the SIs in the right order as I do so. Before I turn to the questions and the reasonable points that have been raised, I reiterate the important strategic role that devolution has to play in the growth of our economy across our country. These instruments broaden the scope of devolution, meaning more local decision-making in more areas across England than ever before. I recognise the noble Lord’s point, and I reiterate, as I did in my opening comments, that this was a process for these three authorities, started by the previous Government in 2024 and taken forward by this Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could argue about the figures but, in the academic year 2025-2026, it was the case that the Government made a small cut to the adult skills fund in the very challenging fiscal context that we inherited. There have been no further reductions, nor will there be for this forthcoming academic year.
I do not want to get into a row about this, but adult skills funding has seen a considerable cut, along with its predecessor funds, from 2010 onwards. The job for this Government is to at the very least stabilise this important contribution to developing skills and providing opportunities for adults. We will determine the proportions of funding for each of these areas using historical spending from 2017-2018, with each area’s share calculated as the proportion of the ASF spent on local learners prior to devolution. We will continue to work closely with devolved areas to support them and to ensure efficient use of funding and the long-term sustainability of skills provision.
Noble Lords understandably asked how that accountability and reporting will work. Accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the British devolution accountability framework. As part of this, local areas with devolved powers are required both to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. They will set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year; that will include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Key data against which local areas are expected to report include adult skills fund data on spend and data on the number of learners in their local areas who are taking up their statutory entitlements. Skills England uses the information in each of these reports to undertake annual skills stocktakes with each local area in order to discuss key findings, including how any issues can be addressed.
Finally—I would have been disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had not raised special educational needs and disability—I reiterate the point I made on devolution when I talked about the exception being for young people with education, health and care plans up to the age of 25. Those young people will still be funded through the 16-to-19 funding and will still have the provisions in their education, health and care plans delivered through that funding; the responsibility will remain.
More broadly, the statutory national entitlements focus in particular on those people who, perhaps by virtue of special educational needs or disabilities, have not been able to get a grade 4 in their English or maths GCSE, for example; have not had the opportunity to get to a level 2 or level 3 standard of education; or have not been able to develop digital skills up to level 1. They have a statutory national entitlement that must continue to be funded, regardless of the devolution of funds here. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
Lord Addington (LD)
What I would like to extract is the identification of those who have a learning disability or special educational need and who will require slightly different learning patterns to get the best results. More of the same in a system in which you have already failed will probably lead to more failure. That change in style requires some identification. It is something that we are told we will talk much more about in the next parliamentary Session; I just wondered whether there is any information available to us today about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much of what we will be talking about in the next parliamentary Session will obviously relate to special educational needs and disability funding and provision in schools, both in early years and post-16. What we are talking about today is adult skills funding, which, as I said, for those with special educational needs, will be above the age of 25.
This does not mean that I do not think the noble Lord is making an important point. One of the things that devolution enables authorities to do—and one of the things that the adult skills fund already does—is provide opportunities for people who are a very long way away from the labour market, perhaps by virtue of disability, to get the necessary training for that. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the other routes supported by DWP that would help enable people with learning disabilities, for example, to access work and get the sort of development that they might need in order to succeed in life. I will provide some more detail about that.
I reiterate that this fund carries out a very important function: supporting adults with the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. It can provide a stepping stone to progression and prosperity, particularly for disadvantaged adult learners. We believe that it can be delivered to greater effect, more efficiently and in line with local priorities through these devolution proposals. For that reason, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers these draft regulations. Before I speak to them, I thank both Local Authority Building Control and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising the important issues that led to these regulations coming before us today.
The amendments are technical in nature. The purpose is to maintain legal clarity and make sure that the responsible actors scheme and its associated prohibitions operate as intended. They do not alter in any way the legal requirements on developers to undertake remediation under the responsible actors scheme.
These amendments are made using powers in Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and amend the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating, or paying to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years prior to April 2022. It is an important scheme under which more than 2,500 buildings are being remediated at an estimated cost to developers of around £4.1 billion.
The scheme is underpinned by planning and building control prohibitions. Where an eligible developer decides not to join the scheme or seriously fails to comply with its conditions, those prohibitions can prevent that developer and entities they control from operating freely in the housing market. This incentivises developers to sign up to the scheme and undertake remediation. The amendments in this instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and exceptions to how they are applied would operate in practice if a developer was prohibited, following a failure to join the scheme or live up to the developers’ obligations. It is important that if this eventuality occurs, protections for residents, leaseholders and property purchasers work as intended. These amendments make sure that this will be the case.
First, the instrument clarifies the scope of the building control prohibition. The Building Safety Act 2022 provides that the building control prohibition should prevent prohibited developers from making applications for building control approval. However, as currently drafted, the implementing regulations do not clearly capture applications for building control approval within the prohibition. This creates a risk of ambiguity and inconsistent application. The amendments correct that omission to align the regulations with the intent of the primary legislation and update terminology to reflect current building control processes. The result is greater clarity and certainty for the building control bodies administering the system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before the Committee. As the Minister said, this instrument makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. These amendments are minor and seek to ensure that the exceptions to the building control prohibition are effective and clear to the building control professionals, and that they respond to the drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We support these changes, but I have a couple of questions.
First, I understand that the Government will continue to monitor and publish data on the RAS regulations to determine their effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of these technical changes. I would be grateful if the Minister can provide the Committee with an update on the progress made so far by developers in meeting their obligations under the RAS regulations.
Secondly, the responsible actors scheme is part of a wider range of actions to address building safety, a key part of which is the building safety regulator. In October, only 15 of 193 high-rise applications had been approved. Can the Minister update the Committee on the number of applications and approvals, and the average turnaround times for each of the stages? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information with her and would be very happy if she would write. With that, we support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the instrument and I will pick up his two questions. First, on the publishing of data for developer-led remediation, the ministry carefully monitors developer remediation performance, including through scrutinising detailed quarterly data returns. Data from these quarterly returns is published on GOV.UK and includes information about each developer’s progress. In relation to the BSR, I may have to come back to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that he asked for, but, in general, improving the speed in which remediation applications are approved is an absolute priority for the BSR, which has recently announced a remediation improvement plan.
Before I go on to the rest of the answer, the change in management of the BSR has driven very considerable improvements in its performance and I am very pleased to see that. The improvement plan includes improving internal processes, ramping up capacity to deal with remediation cases and working very closely with the industry to support applicants to improve the quality of their applications. That was one of the issues that was raised when we debated this previously. We expect applicants, particularly large developers, to work with the BSR to improve the quality of their applications, so that remediation can progress without delay. I hope that, with those improvements and the improvements that are taking place within the BSR, we are already starting to see considerable improvement, and I hope that that will continue. I will respond in writing to the noble Lord on the numbers issue.
In closing, this instrument makes technical amendments that clarify, as I said, drafting inconsistencies and defects previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and makes sure that the responsible actors scheme and its prohibitions will function smoothly in practice, should they be applied. It maintains the integrity of the existing system while making sure that residents and other affected parties are protected.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Viscount Bridgeman
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on Friday 10 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Viscount’s family and friends.
Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards banning bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the consultation on the latest round of proposed by-laws to introduce restrictions on bottom trawling in 41 marine protected areas resulted in a very large number of responses being received. The Marine Management Organisation is now carefully considering those responses and reviewing the evidence. When all of that has been considered in full, the decisions will be made. Our environmental improvement plan commits us to finish putting MPA fisheries by-laws in place by the end of this year.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank the Minister for that response. She will know that bottom trawling is a hugely destructive fishing practice that causes widespread, severe and often irreversible environmental damage to our marine ecosystems. I would like to push the Minister a bit more on the response to the consultation; it has been over six months since it closed. Bottom trawling is taking place in our waters every day. It depletes fish populations and habitats, undermining the healthy seas that our fisheries and coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence, and can she say any more on when the consultation response will be published?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I take great comfort from the Minister’s words. This is a hugely complex issue, as we know. On a previous Question in this area, I spoke very much in favour of total banning, but subsequently there have been representations to me about the valuable source of food in this time of the importance of resilience, the targeting of special species that are valuable for the industry, the lower carbon footprint and the economic contribution to the very knocked-back local fishing communities. I very much appreciate the effort that the department is putting into it. I stress that there may be solutions in paying attention to the gear that is used—there are a lot of regulations that can be further enhanced—and regulating the quantity of catch.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some really important and sensible points. The reason we are doing it site-specific and tailored is to ensure that we limit fishing only where genuinely necessary and avoid placing restrictions on activities that do not damage the seabed. Sometimes, management measures will involve a ban across the whole site, but it is important that we get that balance. That is what we are looking to do.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said about the disastrous effects of this practice and the fact that it is now six months since the consultation ended, will the Minister take into account the fact that one of the main campaigners against this awful practice has been Sir David Attenborough? It is his 100th birthday on 8 May. Perhaps the Minister will agree that we could congratulate him by announcing the implementation of this ban for his birthday.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to congratulate David Attenborough, whether we bring in a ban or not. He has been an extraordinary champion for our environment over many years, and I am sure we all wish him a very happy 100th birthday. I watched his film on bottom trawling. It was an extremely important piece of footage.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s agreement with the EU last year surrendered around 40% of UK fishing rights to our European neighbours for the next 12 years. Just 10 EU vessels account for 25% of all bottom trawling in UK waters, with little by British vessels. Under this agreement, is the Minister able to end this damaging EU exploitation of our waters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not able to divulge any of the detail of the current negotiations on the EU reset. Those of us who are involved in that reset process are extremely aware of the sensitivities around fishing, the type of fishing and the fishing gear being used, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s approach will align with their 30 by 30 commitments and nature recovery goals? How will the Government measure that delivery?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons for bringing in this proposal to extend the protections to 41 more areas is entirely to support our ambition of delivering on 30 by 30. As I have said before, it is much more complex to deliver that in a marine environment, which is why it is so important that we get it absolutely right. I do not have the further detail the noble Baroness mentioned, but I am sure we can pick that up another time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to ask why No. 10 is so eco-stupid, but that would be very rude of me, so instead I ask the Minister, because I know she feels strongly on these issues, to please explain to No. 10 or whoever produces these policies that we need nature and that bottom trawling destroys a complete ecosystem that is irrecoverable for decades, so it actually militates against any sort of food stocks for the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps my noble friend would like to answer the question. I know the noble Baroness feels passionately about this. I am very glad that she decided not to be rude about No. 10. We all know the importance of the marine environment and the damage that bottom trawling does, which is why we need to take our time and get this right.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her response about the protection of the fishing industry. In that regard, will she talk to the Isle of Man fisheries and the Northern Ireland Minister for fisheries about the spatial squeeze that is going on in the Irish Sea and the fact that Northern Ireland vessels with foreign crew on skilled worker visas and transit visas are excluded from Isle of Man waters? It is important that a meeting takes place to ensure that the fishing industry, with all the issues that have already been demonstrated, particularly along the east coast of Northern Ireland, is protected and can play a pivotal role in the local economy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that Ministers meet regularly across government and with devolved Governments on how to ensure that we have a thriving, sustainable fishing industry right across the UK. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently met representatives from the Northern Ireland fishing industry and has discussed issues, including those raised by my noble friend. I assure her that skilled worker visas have never been accepted by the Isle of Man and non-UK nationals have always been required to hold the appropriate permission to work on land or in Isle of Man waters. I have recently met the Minister from the Isle of Man, and we have agreed to have regular meetings going forward. This is something I can raise with her at our next meeting.
Zimbabwe: Constitution
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Zimbabwe regarding the proposed change to the constitution which would allow President Mnangagwa to stand for a third term.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, UK officials remain in contact with the Government of Zimbabwe, civil society and other stakeholders as part of our ongoing engagement on this matter. The ambassador raised these issues yesterday with senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, constitutional amendments are a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe. However, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are essential to democracy. We continue to monitor reports of harassment and stress the importance of transparent, inclusive and lawful processes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that response, but does he realise that the constitutional changes proposed will mean that the people of Zimbabwe will no longer elect their president, the electoral commission will be abolished, judicial appointments will become very unsafe, and there will be many more changes, all of which are anti-democratic? This is coupled with continued brutality, beatings, torture and imprisonment against opposition figures and those in civil society. I am glad that our ambassador has been having meetings, but can we have an assurance that he will speak out more strongly against the tyranny of the ZANU-PF regime, which rules by terror and threat of terror and is using these corrupt political processes to change the constitution and stay in power? Is it not time, finally, for a radical reappraisal of the United Kingdom Government’s engagement with SADC and the African Union to impress on them that only when we get free and fair elections throughout Africa and corruption is tackled will there be sustainable economic growth and social development in Africa?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There are a lot of questions there, but I will set out the position as clearly as I can. We share the concerns that have been highlighted in the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission’s report, that the constitutional amendment public consultations —to which the noble Baroness refers—were highly managed, with limited space for dissenting voices, civil society, and the media. I should also say that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is an agency of the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to urge that the constitutional reform processes are inclusive, transparent, and fully consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law. I spoke to the ambassador this morning, and he raised these issues yesterday.
On speaking out more strongly, frankly, the Government’s view is that 20 years of megaphone diplomacy did not get us anywhere, and we are now in the business of engaging, though we do not underestimate the concerns that the noble Baroness is raising.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring that my British wife is also an African Zimbabwean. My father-in-law, who as a young man taught Robert Mugabe, resisted Mugabe’s regime with humour and disparagement. The Zimbabweans have a sophisticated understanding of democracy, which is their cultural tradition. Their democratic sentiments were eloquently expressed in the protests that accompanied Mugabe’s steps to appoint himself president for life. The symbol of the protests was a little red card held aloft. It signified that politics is a game that must be played according to the rules, which Mugabe had violated. It behoves us—
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The question will come. It behoves us to support this spirit of democracy, and to prevail upon other African members of the Commonwealth to exert pressure upon this regime. Might I ask the Minister—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is Question Time, not speech time.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot match my noble friend’s commitment to humour and disparagement as a tool for democracy today. I take seriously what he says about the importance of democracy, and it is no secret that we have a long people-to-people relationship with the people of Zimbabwe, not all of which reflects terribly well on the UK. We will continue to build those relationships.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, ZANU-PF has justified extending the term of the president, and giving him a third term, on the grounds that he is “doing a good job”. It has also said that not having elections from the people, but in parliament, will save money and reduce the risk of violence, which we know is mostly perpetrated against the people by ZANU-PF. What is the price of democracy? Does it not show that ZANU-PF has utter contempt for democracy, and how can we challenge it to reverse its decisions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There is an active civil society in Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord Collins visited last year, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including the Zimbabwean Government. We welcome the president’s re-engagement efforts, and the progress on economic reform, but we understand the concerns about these constitutional reforms as proposed, and we will continue to advocate about that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord regularly raises the Commonwealth, and I appreciate its importance. There was a Commonwealth assessment mission in 2023, and we would welcome another assessment mission. In the end, it will be a matter for the Secretary-General to make a recommendation, and for all members of the Commonwealth to take a view.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, my diocese of Southwark is linked with four of the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe, and I have visited our link dioceses on many occasions. I note that the Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called this week for the withdrawal or amendment of the Bill currently before the Zimbabwean parliament. Would the Minister advise the House what the reaction has been of neighbouring states to this latest development in the governance of Zimbabwe and its wonderful people, so poorly served by those currently in power?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. If he will forgive me, I do not think I should speak on behalf of the other states around Zimbabwe, but I have made clear what this Government’s view is on these proposed constitutional changes, and we shall continue to make that case.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say. These changes are profoundly undemocratic, extending the current presidential mandate and abolishing the elections, with violence and intimidation at the public meetings when it was discussed. What I have heard from the Minister is lots of “consultation” and “listening carefully”, but I have not heard any condemnation in what he had to say.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I have not used the words “consultation” or “listening carefully”. I have said that we will engage with the Zimbabwe Government on these issues, and the ambassador raised our concerns as recently as yesterday. I am sorry, that is a complete travesty of what I have said.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that Zimbabwe’s president is intrinsically involved in the criminality at the heart of the state, the machine of that criminal enterprise being the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, oiled by a business elite—many of whom are the sons and daughters of the white and Asian elite who supported sanctions-busting under the racist regime of Ian Smith—and unchecked today by the independent judiciary, accountability and professional scrutiny that continue to exist in South Africa, enabling the state of Zimbabwe to either sponsor or turn a blind eye to massive gold and tobacco smuggling?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. We recognise the economic reforms undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, including—this is an important point that I have not made before—the signing of the IMF staff-monitored programme, as an important step towards greater macroeconomic stability, which, frankly, is greater than it was under Mugabe. However, for these reforms to be sustainable, tackling corruption must remain a central part of the reform agenda. We are very clear about that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, as a former resident of Zimbabwe, I ask what is being done in terms of working with other countries on representations to the Zimbabwean Government. Surely it is better that we work not alone but with many other countries right around the world.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Indeed it is. I often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord on this and other matters. The most important thing that will help to transform the lives of the people of Zimbabwe is progress on debt distress, and that is what we are working on through the arrears clearance dialogue in which we are taking a very active part. Despite what lots of noble Lords have said, we welcome the progress on economic reform.
NHS Adult Gender Identity Clinics
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many patients under the age of 25 have been referred to NHS adult gender identity clinics in each of the last three years; and what safeguarding measures are in place for those individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, 5,624 patients under 25 were referred to adult gender dysphoria clinics in 2023-24, 6,355 were referred in 2024-25 and initial figures show that 6,167 were referred in 2025-26. There are strong safeguards within the existing service provision and specification that was agreed following public consultation, including with the medical royal colleges. These include specialist assessment, accounting for complex co-morbidities and care delivered by a multidisciplinary team with a wide range of expertise, including in neurodiversity and endocrinology.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wonder if she has had a chance to review the landmark study from Finland recently, which suggests very strongly that gender medicine actually has a very negative impact on vulnerable young people with complex needs and, far from actually helping them, in fact is harming them. Can I urge her to expedite one of the most important recommendations from the Cass Review, which is to bring in a separate set of services for 17 to 25 year-old young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria? She will know that, currently, the adult clinics operate an affirmative model; that can be very worrying because young people can access life-altering and irreversible hormones after only two appointments. For young people with a whole set of complex needs, I do not think that is right.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we are indeed committed to developing services for 17 to 25 year-olds, and I certainly recognise that this is a potentially very vulnerable time in a young person’s journey, as was clearly outlined in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. I can say to the noble Baroness that we recognise changing patient demographics, and therefore a holistic biopsychosocial assessment framework is being developed for use across all services, including a complexity measure to support understanding of the impact of any co-occurring conditions, as the noble Baroness refers to.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, we know that the 18 to 25 year-olds have many of the same complex problems as the under-18s and, as the Minister has said, they need similar holistic wraparound care, although that is not necessarily yet in place. However, Dr Levy’s review had a narrower remit than mine, focused on quality improvement rather than the model of care, so as a next step would the Minister agree to ask departmental and NHSE colleagues to convene a group, which should include independent experts, representatives of professional groups and representatives of the new children’s and young people’s services as well as service users, to consider how we best understand and, importantly, improve clinical outcomes for this group of young adults?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I remain grateful to the noble Baroness for her work and her expertise in this area, which I know has been acknowledged both by the previous Government and this Government. I will certainly take on board what she has said and ask my officials to discuss this further with NHS England.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I can assure my noble friend that patients are treated as individuals and their care is personalised. It is important, as my noble friend says, to recognise that the law presumes that patients aged 16 and over have capacity to consent to medical treatment. I can also give the reassurance, acknowledging as I have already that patients may have co-existing conditions that warrant additional safeguarding measures, that this will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are concerned with safeguarding those aged 18 to 25, can the Minister set out what assessment has been made of the documented harms caused by multi-year waiting lists, including serious impacts on mental health, physical well-being and life outcomes? Given the evidence that regret or detransition among those accessing gender-affirming care is rare, can the Minister clarify what specific risk this proposed safeguarding framework is intended to address?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It might be helpful if I speak in general terms. The Levy review highlighted multi-year waits for adult gender clinics. We recognise that waiting times are too long, and that is why we have increased the number of adult gender services from seven to 12 and we will be establishing a national waiting list. Dr Levy’s report did not make specific reference to concerns about safeguarding, and it is important to see it in that context. I emphasise once again that, where there are additional safeguarding matters, they will be dealt with on an individual basis as is right and proper.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this is a highly sensitive topic, and I think we have to be very careful about how we talk about it. Evidence published in the BMJ shows a fiftyfold increase in recorded cases of gender dysphoria among children and young people between 2011 and 2021. While we should show compassion and not generalise about individuals presenting with gender dysphoria, what assessment has the Minister’s department made of the drivers for this rise in presentations? It is a sensitive issue, as I said, but are the Government assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the most vulnerable young adults are not irreversibly medicalised, only for some, even if just a small number, to regret it later?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a number of points. Let me be quite clear that surgical interventions are only for adults—that is for those aged 18 and over. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, I also refer to the fact that the strong safeguards in place include, among a whole range of others, specialist assessment, access to a multidisciplinary team and assessment of capacity. These are strong safeguards, and it is right that this is the case in order to support patients to get the care that is appropriate to them and which they need.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, NHS England’s Levy review catalogued failings in relation to a lack of data and tracking outcomes from gender dysphoria clinics. Can the Minister explain how the NHS can offer any treatment without such evidence relating to efficacy, benefits, harms, regret and detransition? Can the Minister also comment on the criticism that clinicians are reluctant to correct patients’ unrealistic expectations, often those of young women, about medical transition. They believe that hormones and surgery can change biological sex; they cannot. That is a scientific fact and surely NHS doctors should explain that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not quite clear about the questions I am being asked. However, I return to the point about safeguards and say to your Lordships’ House that I have already outlined the strong safeguards, the professionalism and the medically informed evidence. Contrary to what is being suggested, there is no casualisation at all about decision-making.
Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of the recent survey by the NASUWT on masculinity and misogyny in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, misogyny has no place in our society or in our schools. The NASUWT survey is deeply concerning and underscores why delivering on the freedom from violence 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls is a necessity and a government priority. This Government are committed to tackling misogyny and the spread of toxic influences, with new misogyny resources for both teachers and parents, dedicated school programmes through the new VAWG strategy, and online safety resources.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the NASUWT survey indicates that misogyny is on the rise among our young people. Some 23% of female teachers have experienced misogyny in our classrooms; this figure has increased year on year and is up 6% since 2023. Teachers are pointing to the influence of the manosphere, online misogyny and AI in spreading harmful narratives, and evidence indicates that social media use by young men is driving this growth in misogynistic beliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the role social media is playing in this worrying trend?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Government start with children in primary school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The new RSHE guidance that we published and the curriculum are clear that there is important work to be done at key stage 2 to support children to develop their ideas and approach to healthy relationships. That is a really important baseline from which to talk more explicitly later in their school life about misogyny and how it is tackled.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, this report makes for quite harrowing reading, and it points to two particular things: one is misogyny and the other is a breakdown of discipline and respect for authority in school. What work are the Government doing to address this issue, which covers both girls and boys? In speaking to young boys about their behaviour, how are we going to avoid demonising boyhood?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes two important points. On the latter point, it is important that we recognise that the vast majority of boys and young men abhor misogyny as much as anybody else. Supporting them to be strong allies and to challenge their friends where necessary is an important part of the work. As the noble Lord suggests, one of the shocking elements of the NASUWT report is the suggestion that students are using misogyny to abuse teachers. Good behaviour in all our schools is the right of pupils and teachers. That is why every school has a legal responsibility to have a strong behaviour policy, and why we would expect strong action to be taken to protect staff, just as we would expect for students.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately, girls are not always able to feel safe in calling out sexist or abusive behaviour that they experience from other pupils in schools. What more can be done in schools, and after school, to give girls the confidence to speak out and feel safe?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point—we want girls to be able to feel safe and to report, as she suggests. However, it should be not only the responsibility of girls to stand up for themselves in the face of misogyny; it should be part of the whole-school approach to challenge that and part of a school’s safeguarding process. Support for that is clearly spelled out in the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, for staff to understand how to support girls when they report incidents and how to identify what is happening even if those incidents are not reported.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is there any evidence that the problem is worse with a decline of single-sex schools? Would things be better if there were more single-sex schools, at least for girls?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The truth is that I do not know whether there is any evidence that supports that contention. The vast majority of children in this country do not go to single-sex schools. We need to ensure that every school, single-sex or not, recognises the need to tackle misogyny and is supported, as this Government will do, with the resources to be able to do that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the impact of harmful social media on our children’s attitudes and behaviour, so I am puzzled why the Government will not commit in primary legislation to restricting access to social media for under-16s. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, the Secretary of State for DSIT, and the Prime Minister have all said that they intend to, but the government amendment does not include that commitment. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Can I say how much I am enjoying getting back to this in the next stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Monday? We will have the opportunity, once again, to discuss the action that this Government have already taken to understand the concerns that there are about social media and to recognise the different views on how, in detail, we should respond. That is why, on 2 March, this Government launched the consultation on how, not whether, we should take action, with further measures to ensure that children have healthy relationships with technology, mobile phones and social media. It is why we tabled new powers that mean that we can act fast on the consultation’s findings—in months, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation every time technology evolves. I do not think it is unreasonable for a Government to act on the basis of consultation and detailed consideration.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, last week, I attended the Cambridge Disinformation Summit run by the Judge Business School, where a key takeaway for me was that restricting young people’s access to social media is not on its own a sufficient response to the risks that we are discussing today. Does the Minister agree that we need accountability from social media companies on algorithms that promote and target extremist content to both adults and children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I largely agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that the strong powers within the Online Safety Act are implemented. However, the logic of her argument is that we need to make sure that we support children and young people and our schools to be able to challenge misogyny and avoid falling for the toxic influencers, while strengthening the good values and attitudes that most young people have. That is what we will be supporting our schools to do.
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 110: Commencement
Amendment 1
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in my name. These are minor and technical amendments, which I understand have been agreed by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Pidgeon
“(ia) section 17 (Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6);”
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I beg to move Amendment 3, following advice about the need for a technical amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments following amendments made to the Bill on Report. The Government will not oppose them today.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(ka) section 40 (brownfield land priority);”
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, to be clear, Amendment 5 removes a reference to a clause and a schedule that were removed from the Bill on Report on Monday. It is a consequential amendment, which I beg to move formally.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(za1) section 63 (promotion of parish governance);”
Lord Freyberg
“(z2a) section 70 (agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities);”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Moylan, for their constructive challenge throughout the debates. I am very aware of the challenges facing an Opposition Front Bench, and let me say how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and all the work that goes on behind the scenes with me and officials, as well as with opposition Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, deserves much credit from the House for her approach.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pidgeon, for all their work. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when she could not get her own shoes on because she had a fracture. I thank him very much for his last-minute work on the Bill; his contribution was highly valued. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me in the Whips’ role throughout the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxis and licensing has made this Bill a lot easier for me to deal with.
Many noble Lords from across the House have shared their valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this Bill. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Bassam. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the Bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the Day v Shropshire case. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.
We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so that they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. The Bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this Bill: the Bill manager, Hannah, Caragh, Jenna-Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel; and to Nadja, Beth and Anna in my private office. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House: the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, the Public Bill Office and our excellent Whips’ team. We have not had as many late nights on this Bill as we did on the planning Bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here until 1 am that we had a whole team supporting us.
I am pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex Bill, both in Committee and on Report. While there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I think there has been a shared sense that this Bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we are seeing regional centralisation and, instead of community empowerment, we are seeing yet more direction from central government.
To many, it is still not clear why the Government have decided to pursue this course of action or what the underlying vision is behind the Bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, as we are seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe that we are beginning to see it now.
That said, we on these Benches believe that the Bill as amended on Report leaves this House as better legislation than when it came to your Lordships. I am pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land for development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas and to amend Schedule 1 to safeguard local consent in local government changes. In addition, in the light of the Government’s amendments to increase the number of commissioners that mayors can appoint, I am glad that our amendment to ensure that they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I extend the thanks of these Benches to the Minister, all her staff and the Bill office. She was right to point to the amount of work that has gone into getting the Bill to Third Reading. I thank her for her engagement with the Bill; it is of major constitutional importance and therefore has to be as good as we can make it. I am personally grateful for all she did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and audit, which will make a big difference. I extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, where a number of people have done a lot of detailed work. I pay tribute to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his excellent support to the Bill team over many months.
I see the Bill as a work in progress. I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and that we want it to succeed. Everything we have said at each stage of its passage has been about trying to make it better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled “devolution”, but actually it is about decentralisation and does not say very much at all about community empowerment. We are a glass-half-full group on these Benches, and we want the Government to succeed. You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy, and I wish the Government well.
I just hope when the amendments, which are not many in number, are considered in the other place that our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which should become a strategic authority competence. As I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, moved one on the appointment processes for commissioners. How they are appointed needs to be in the Bill, not in guidance. It is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them, rather than having a single model which is imposed out of Whitehall by the Government.
Crucially, to demonstrate that the Government are serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance. With the Bill, the Government are creating very large democratic units that are increasingly remote from people. All that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance is trying to bring decision-making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it.
With those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping-pong. These Benches are pretty firm on some of these issues, so I hope the Government will be flexible in their approach. With that, I thank the Minister for the leadership that she has shown, and her staff. We have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for those contributions. They were in the same tone that we have had all through the Bill of constructive challenge where it is appropriate. I say to both opposition Benches that there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping-pong and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we have dealt with the rest of the Bill.
I have been in local government for a very long time and there have been numerous attempts at reorganising and devolving over the years, but most of the power still sits here in this very small part of London when it should be out there with local people. I hope, as we go through the final processes of the Bill, that we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that power, funding and decision-making are devolved out of Whitehall back to local areas where the people taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level to take the right decisions for the people who we all serve. That is what we all want to do, and I hope, as we progress through the final stages of the Bill, that we will get to a good place on that.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:31 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 260 - Motion C1 disagreed.
17:11 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 200 - Motion D1 agreed.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.
That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.
With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.
The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.
How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?
By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.
I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.
That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the justice department, officials and staff, who have been available for conversations both during the passage of the Bill, especially since Report, and the helpful discussions reflected in the Government’s Motions in front of us today.
My Motion B1 on the horrendous issue of homicide abroad differs from the amendment that I laid at earlier stages of the Bill, because I listened carefully to the Minister, both in the Chamber and in our meetings. I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families—of course, they are also victims, because their loved one was murdered—in the victims’ code. I still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that, but time is not on our side.
I pay tribute to the Government in that the new code of practice—just brought in for use by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other government departments and officials such as coroners—is much more comprehensive and should, as it is now being implemented, improve the experience of families found in this horrendous position.
The one area that I do not want us to lose is the ability to review how the new code of practice is actually working. My amendments today set out a mechanism to ensure that within 18 months of the section on these arrangements coming into force,
“the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of how the victims’ code applies to victims … who are close family members of a British National resident in England and Wales”
who is murdered or a victim of manslaughter or infanticide, and that the Secretary of State must lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for our discussions and note what she has said at the Dispatch Box, that the Government will set up a joint review with the FCDO and the Home Office that will focus on access and experience for the families of those murdered abroad, to be published next year. It is especially welcome that the Government will work with the Victims’ Commissioner and, I hope, with victims’ organisations that help these families too.
The Minister knows that from these Benches we will continue to talk to victims’ groups and that if concerns remain in the future, we will raise questions and, as appropriate, amendments in future legislation, but until then we look forward to seeing the Government’s review next year. I will not take my Motion any further today.
I now turn to Motion A on court transcripts. Over the years, we have tabled amendments about the ability of victims to access parts of court transcripts. It has been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. This can be through poor advice. For example, victims are told—far too frequently, I am afraid—that if they sit in the court after they have given evidence, it is a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury, because victims are seen as ghoulish or, worse, vindictive.
Also, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. Here, I pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at the Dispatch Box during an earlier stage of the Bill when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court. In theory, this should not happen, but it does. For those who also do not have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement and often a lack of knowledge. It really affects whether they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant.
The amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to unduly lenient sentences, but because of parliamentary procedure and the way the Bill is laid out, they are separated. However, access to information and support to understand it is at the heart of whether a victim feels the need to submit an appeal to the Attorney-General for a sentence to be considered unduly lenient. I will talk about this more on the next group, but that link is there, so getting both matters right is vital.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims, and for the announcement yesterday, which she has just outlined in her contribution, that the Government will conduct a study to look at how AI transcription can be used accurately—including, importantly, appropriate redactions for the safety of victims and witnesses—and considerably more cheaply than the vastly expensive current arrangements. From these Benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current expensive system further.
We will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. As the Minister knows, we will hold the Government to account from our Benches in both this House and the Commons. This includes an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already tabled to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but I am very grateful for the progress we have made. That is why I did not retable my original amendment today.
Motion C1 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone. On Report, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals we have been discussing on other amendments, where the transcripts are specifically for the victims and would have to be carefully redacted to keep them safe. This amendment would take us back a complete step, leaving a victim having to receive notification within a short period of time—we know this fails on other issues—and having to formally request anonymity. This makes victims the afterthought in the process rather than putting their safety, as judged by experts, at the heart of publication of any information. I am afraid that is why we cannot support it today.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.
Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.
As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.
In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government
“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]
Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:
“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]
There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.
As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.
Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Keen of Elie
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 3.”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.
In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.
Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.
Lord Keen of Elie
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion D1 as an amendment to Motion D. I begin by thanking the Minister for Motions E and F, which are an important step forward for victims. They provide for more time to submit an unduly lenient sentence application and create an exceptional circumstances clause when it is in the interest of justice to do so. Motion F will ensure that the victims’ code is amended to ensure that victims are notified of their right of access to the ULS scheme—an issue that unfortunately has acted as a barrier to the scheme in previous cases.
I must confess I am a little surprised to see Motion E in the name of the Minister. She said in response to my own amendment on Report:
“The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so”. —[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 244.]
I wonder whether that is still the view of the victims now that we have an extension to six months.
Motion D1 in my name concerns the issue of private prosecutions and, while it is not my intention to repeat the debate in Committee and on Report on the importance of private prosecutions for charities or for dealing with the scourge of shoplifting, we on these Benches continue to harbour serious concerns about the manner in which Clause 12 is drafted. It was therefore unfortunate that the Government have not acted on any of the arguments raised by me, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regard to these issues.
The Government have stated that, before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stake- holders and a full public consultation, yet Clause 12 as drafted will give the Government the power to cap the amounts payable for prosecutors for their costs prior to any consultation actually taking place. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said on Report,
“that is the wrong way round”.—[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 224.]
We on these Benches agree with that sentiment entirely.
However, as the Government have cited financial privilege as a reason for opposing our amendment to leave out Clause 12 from the Bill, I have instead tabled Motion D1, which contains two amendments in lieu. The effect of these amendments is threefold and seeks to mitigate the consequences of Clause 12. First, they would ensure that an impact assessment is launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims regarding access to justice. That need is underlined by the observations that the Minister made about there being some reservation about the way in which private prosecutions are being pursued. It is only appropriate, therefore, that these matters should be addressed. Secondly, my amendments would ensure that the Government publish a response to that impact assessment before they exercise the regulatory-making powers under Clause 12. Thirdly, the amendments would ensure that such regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses, which is entirely appropriate in these circumstances. The Government have said that they have no intention of exercising the regulatory powers under Clause 12 until after their own public consultation, so I see no reason why they should oppose these amendments. They have been drafted with transparency and open justice in mind. If it is the Government’s intention to resist these simple amendments, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I turn first to the issue of private prosecutions, which is the contentious area in this group. I say at the outset that we on these Benches agree with Motion D1, and the Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.
I start with a brief general point that we have made before. Private prosecutions are important, particularly against a background that police and other prosecuting authorities often have insufficient resources, or in some cases insufficient will, to investigate and prosecute offences themselves. It is wrong that decisions to invoke the criminal law should be exclusively in the hands of the state and its agencies. Private prosecutions offer a way for commercial organisations and for charities and others to bring prosecutions. That is important in the cases of shop theft in particular, but also in cases of fraud against charities and in other criminal matters. It is essential, however, that those who bring such prosecution successfully should be able to recover their reasonable costs. Otherwise, we risk their being deterred from doing so by having to bear the whole cost themselves without the prospect of objectively reasonable reimbursement.
As it stands, Clause 12 looks like an attempt to give the Government power to bring in regulations to limit the costs to be reimbursed. It may be that there are some private prosecutions where lawyers are overcharging for those prosecutions, and if that is the case, and there is evidence to establish that, then there may be some need for further regulation. But as a general rule it is unwise for Parliament to give Ministers the power to make regulations without their first establishing that such regulations are necessary. In this case, there is no hard evidence that we have seen to establish that regulations limiting the recoverable costs of private prosecutions are necessary. Ministers should not be able to bring such regulations into effect to limit recovery of such costs without their first establishing the necessity for such regulations.
Hence, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord are right, I suggest. They are right to insist that an impact assessment, considering the likely effect of the regulations, and a response by the Government to that impact assessment, are made public before any regulations can be brought into effect. That would mean that Parliament can be properly informed of the need for them. The accompanying amendment, requiring an affirmative resolution, is entirely consistent with that principle, so we will support those amendments in lieu.
I turn next to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We fully support the Government’s amendments in lieu, and we are very grateful to the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lady Brinton and me to consider our concern about the rights of victims and their families to refer sentences for consideration in circumstances where they have not been informed about the detail of the scheme or have not had reasonable time to consider making such a referral, at a time when circumstances for those victims are traumatic in the extreme.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, on the Motion that has been proposed as regards private prosecutions, it is very urgent that this is brought into effect as soon as possible. If the proposal goes ahead for an extensive consultation of the kind envisaged, together with impact assessments and responses, I fear this would be a regrettable move, given the tremendous impact on the criminal justice system of the loss of funds.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.
I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.
I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.
I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:
“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.
I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.
That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.
Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.
I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.
It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.
Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.
I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.
I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Keen of Elie
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, in the light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—
“(d) after sub-paragraph (4) (inserted by subsection (2)(c)) insert—
“(5) The Court of Appeal may allow notice of an application for leave to refer a case to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)) where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that—
(a) notice of the application is given pursuant to a request, by a person who is a victim in the case falling within section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of “victim”), to review the sentencing of a person,
(b) notice of the application is given—
(i) within six months from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed, or
(ii) where the request is received by the Attorney General within the last 14 days of the six-month period mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), within 14 days from the day on which the request is received, and
(c) it is in the interests of justice to allow notice to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)).””
“(4) The amendment made by subsection (2)(d) applies only in relation to cases where the sentence, or the last of the sentences, was passed after it came into force.”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—
“Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims
(1) Section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (victims’ code) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about informing victims of the opportunity to ask the Attorney General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (unduly lenient sentences).
(3B) Subsection (3A) applies only in respect of—
(a) a person who is a victim by virtue of section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c), and
(b) cases relating to the criminal conduct as a result of which that person is such a victim.”
(3) In subsection (13), after “references in” insert “subsection (3A) and”.
(4) In section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in subsection (1), at the end insert “(for requests for referrals by victims of crime in England and Wales, see section 2(3A) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)”.”
“(ca) section (Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims) (reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims);”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Southport Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for today’s Statement. There are many things to learn but our foremost concern must be with the victims and their families. This report is littered with evidence of institutional failure. Time and again, public bodies were presented with the evidence and given the chance to intercept Rudakubana, and yet they failed to act. It is, in retrospect, unfathomable that Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times and each time the referral was closed. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now updated their Prevent assessment framework and that oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened. That basis must now be built upon, beginning by reviewing Sir Adrian Fulford’s Prevent recommendations. The importance of investigating online activity and ensuring that neurodivergence has a place within practitioner training must now be prioritised. When can this House expect an update from the new Prevent commissioner on incorporating these suggestions into the system?
There is also evidence that shortfalls in information sharing between agencies represented one of the key failures among public services, particularly on behalf of the police. Sir Adrian has outlined that the police should have progressed Rudakubana to the multi-agency Channel programme and has made several other important suggestions on general police practice. Given that the Secretary of State acknowledges that this step should have been taken, can the Minister offer a timescale in which we can expect to see measures to ensure that guidance on Channel referrals is followed consistently?
It was also noted that Rudakubana’s autism was a key factor in the police not taking action on early warning signs. Following a report by his parents in 2021, the police concluded that the
“suspect suffers with autism and it is not in [the] public interest to prosecute”.
The report found that Lancashire Constabulary, despite responding appropriately to calls, did so
“without any real consideration or understanding of what”
his autism
“might mean for his criminal responsibility or risk”.
This approach was mirrored by the social services. The child and youth justice service reduced its contact time with Rudakubana and later began to accept his attendance at school as qualifying contact time due to his autism. This was despite the fact that he had failed to adequately engage with his social worker.
It is clear that there exists an institutionalised practice to defer to disabilities as an explanation for misconduct and to focus on the individual’s vulnerability over the risk they may pose. In this case, inaction on behalf of the authorities was in part caused by the attacker’s autism diagnosis. Can the Minister say whether, in the light of this report, the Government are now reviewing their position on sectioning and whether there are lessons to be learned that should be applied to our approach relating to neurodivergent people more generally?
Another important revelation of this report—one that was missing from the Home Secretary’s Statement—was a similarly institutionalised practice to consider race as an important factor in agency work. Rudakubana’s head teacher, Joanne Hodson, was encouraged to water down his education, health and care plan by both his father and social services. His social worker at the time even went so far as to accuse Mrs Hodson of “racially stereotyping” Axel Rudakubana as
“a black boy with a knife”.
This is becoming a worrying trend. The same practices were made apparent in the inquiry into the tragic murders in Nottingham in 2023. Mental health care professionals had not sectioned Valdo Calocane due to the concern they placed on the “over-representation” of young Black men in detention. This mindset within institutions filters through into the public conscience. A security guard present at the Manchester Arena suicide bombing avoided confronting Salman Abedi for fear of being called a racist, despite having a “bad feeling” about the soon-to-be suicide bomber.
The institutional obsession with ethnic or racial parity must end. Immutable identity cannot play a role in agency work concerned with protecting the public. Public bodies must act if and when there is ample evidence to suggest a risk to the individual or to the public, as was the case with Rudakubana, regardless of who they are. If that leads to disproportionality then so be it. If outcomes suggest an overrepresentation of this or that community then I am afraid the responsibility must lie with the individuals in question, not the public bodies reacting to their actions. We cannot continue with this current mindset; the consequences are far too dire. That much has been made tragically clear. I hope the Minister can agree on this specific point.
I hope that, in the light of these findings, the relevant agencies will now be spurred on to making the necessary changes to their operations to ensure that an atrocity like this will not result from their failings again. In particular, information-sharing must be made a priority. I hope the Minister will make this assurance today.
I also acknowledge the monumental shortcomings of the attacker’s parents. Past the failure to seek adequate help regarding Rudakubana’s behaviour, the refusal to alert the police of his purchase of weapons and the lack of accountability that Sir Adrian Fulford highlighted in their testimonies, their actions in the week leading up to the attack are unforgivable. The report leaves no doubt that the parents had the express knowledge that Rudakubana was planning to commit an attack, yet they did nothing to prevent it. It will do little to prompt criminal proceedings, nor will it offer much comfort to the families of the victims, but it is an important point to place on the record.
This report must serve as an inflection point. We owe it to the victims, survivors, families and communities affected by this atrocity. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?
The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.
The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.
When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.
Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.
It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and, I know, those of the whole House will be with the families of the three girls who were killed and with the victims who are still suffering the trauma of those events. The events in Southport on 29 July 2024 were completely shocking, and I welcome Sir Adrian Fulford’s report on his findings. I thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during the first stage of the inquiry. I say to the House as a whole that the Government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase 1 of the report by the summer. I thank Sir Adrian again for his work.
Sir Adrian’s inquiry identified five main areas of failings, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms, which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. Sir Adrian indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing, there were excuses for the behaviour of the perpetrator due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and there was a failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator’s online behaviours. The role of the perpetrator’s parents, as the noble Lord identified, was a major failure. As I said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer.
I note and appreciate the comments and the pressure put on me by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but it is important that we get this right and consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is coming back tomorrow. It will potentially, subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage by the end of the Session. I do not want to use that week to rush to a decision, which is why we have said that we will respond to the inquiry by the summer.
As the House will know, we have also established phase 2 of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We have issued terms of reference for phase 2, which will look at whether multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence. I expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. It is certainly important to look not just at the case of the individual—who, I remind the House, faces a 52-year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes—but at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has made 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to rush those responses today.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, also mentioned Prevent. Since the attack, we have already made improvements to the Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk that the perpetrator posed. To strengthen Prevent, we have launched a new Prevent risk assessment tool, changed the approach to repeat referrals, looked at new guidance to individuals working with people under the Prevent framework and expanded the range of interventions available. We have also introduced the role of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, which was initially held by a colleague—a noble Lord in this House—but has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jacques being appointed as the Prevent commissioner.
The Government will examine those issues in detail and continue to learn, and will look at the responses to the recommendations in due course. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who holds that role at the moment. I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the Prevent response.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the question of autism. That was identified by Fulford’s initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. However, autism itself did not necessarily cause the events that happened on 29 July 2024. Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Southport perpetrator, autism spectrum disorder clearly added to the risk he posed. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse his behaviour because of this. We will make sure that practitioners, particularly those working in Prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. This behaviour should not have been excused because of autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns.
For the noble Lord’s information, independently of this inquiry, the Government are committed to developing a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009. Work is under way to develop a cross-government national autism strategy. The inquiry’s findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the parents. The inquiry examined the role of the perpetrator’s family and has been extremely critical of them. Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported regarding the perpetrator’s behaviour, his collecting of weapons, and his approach to family life and the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether any criminal action is taken in relation to the parents. The parents are British citizens and have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as does the perpetrator. There are certainly lessons to be learned from that and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the question of race. In this case, that may be a factor, where people have not taken the action that they should have because of the individual’s race. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the action taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race. I do not want to bring the issue of race into this, but I understand the point that the noble Lord has made—namely, that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual. That is the important point that has come out of this report.
Finally, the Government have already taken further action to ensure that we establish an internal working group to look at the recommendations that have been made. As I have said to the House, we will report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase 2 has begun now and it has our full support. As the Minister sponsoring the inquiry, I will continue to meet Sir Adrian to ensure that he has the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations.
It is clear to the House that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the families of the victims. It is our duty as the Government to look at where failures existed that contributed to this attack. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but there are factors that contributed to the attack. With due respect to all Members of the House, we need to reflect on the recommendations. We will bring back government proposals in due course for phases 1 and 2.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answers. He is of course absolutely right that, for many of the recommendations, the Government must take the time to think through their response to get it right. However, people looking at the Fulford report will have noticed the systemic failures. One of the things they will be concerned about is whether there are currently people who present a risk to the community, who may not have been referred to Prevent, who are going to fall through the cracks. That is an urgent matter.
Is the Minister confident that the welcome steps that the Government have already taken to strengthen the way Prevent works, and the other changes they have made, will capture any of those individuals in the system? Can he provide that assurance to the House—or is there more in a short-term way that the Government need to do to check that no-one has already fallen through the cracks who may present a risk to the public?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an absolutely fair point. Again I put to the House that Sir Adrian’s recommendations are clear. There are five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and will report on them in the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture. We will look at those recommendations in due course.
However, the Home Office is not complacent. We have established a violence fixation taskforce, which is looking at a range of issues in the Home Office: the recommendations, the Government’s response and the development of the very issue that the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk and looking with other agencies at what we need to do, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.
It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere. We cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that, if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly and quickly. The Home Office taskforce is now being commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish some general examination of the very issues that the noble Lord mentions. I hope to report back to the House in due course.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and Southport. In the immediate days after this unspeakable tragedy, additional resources were put into Southport in terms of policing and counselling for young people in the local community and local schools. The support provided by the local community after this tragedy was immense: the local authority, schools and the voluntary sector. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what his plans are to ensure that this support is continued to a community in Southport that is still in mourning and in shock?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes the valid point that the whole community in Southport and in Merseyside, and the religious community in the area, came together to give support to the families. This happened two weeks after the general election. The local MP, Patrick Hurley, had just been elected. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has helped support the local community in Southport. The churches, the imams and the local Jewish community have all come together to give that support. The Government recognised the needs of Southport by putting additional resources into the local council and the local community and will continue to monitor that.
This is a major, traumatic event for the families and for the community as a whole. It is important that we do what we can to maintain community cohesion and support the local community. The Government stand ready to continue to give help and support where required, during both the second stage of these recommendations and the whole process of Southport healing and remembering the victims of this despicable crime.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I cannot imagine what it is like for the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry: that these events were “preventable”. That is the most chilling idea: they could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight—a known risk since 13—but, somehow, state bodies did nothing, zilch. So how will those state agencies that failed here be held to account? Will people be sacked? Surely, there must be some consequences. It cannot just be a vague, “Lessons must be learned”.
The Minister said that we should not bring race in to this. I do not think anyone did, except the state agencies that said action should not be taken because of the race of the individual. I am referring as well to the ongoing Nottingham inquiry—I am sure the Minister is following it—where Calocane also murdered three innocent people. Nobody wants to talk about race but, as Emma, the mother of Barnaby, one of the murdered people, said, “I don’t want to talk about race”, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it might be seen as being because he was Black. A bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and will not help us hold people to account, either. We must be honest and frank. We are not bringing race into this; the institutions and state bodies did.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I was clear and I thought I made it clear to the House when I talked about the issue of race and said that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack were mental health issues, obsession and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. There was an element of people using the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the race of the perpetrator is an issue that we need to be very careful about examining per se. There are obviously issues within that.
When we look at Adrian Fulford’s recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We will look at those recommendations. On the individuals who have been criticised, I am sure there will be discussion with local authorities and others about how they improve that performance. But I say to the noble Baroness that we had this report yesterday at noon. It is important that we look at and assess the recommendations. I have given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So, if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues she has raised pending the examination of the inquiry in detail.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, after what happened in Southport, is it fair to say that the parameters within which Prevent operates are too narrowly drawn? What I mean by that is that the perpetrator’s obsession with violence was drawn to the attention of Prevent three times, but Prevent’s response was, “Well, because he doesn’t fall within these narrow parameters, there is basically nothing we can do”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.
We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, this has been one of the most horrendous cases that we have witnessed. I believe that the public have lost confidence in so many authorities which should be looking after our children, and all of us, frankly. I recall the Victoria Climbié case and the many children over the years who were murdered and tortured, and there were always lessons to be learned. This is not pointed at just one Government by the way; it is just a fact of life. Latterly, we had the Manchester Arena bomber and all those children who were murdered, and we have had rape gangs, a situation that has gone on for the past 20 or 30 years. Here we are now in Southport. My view is that the public have lost confidence because nobody is ever held to account. This is not about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody in authority end up in court, but the cover-ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody brought to account or feeling the full force of the law, cannot continue. Until this is dealt with in a far more open manner and those who are accountable feel the full force of the law, I do not think we are going to get any further forward, and there will be no lessons learned because we will probably be having this sort of conversation in another year or two’s time. I know that the noble Lord is a good Minister and very thorough and that all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He has our full support, but we need to regain the confidence of the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to give confidence to the public, and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper launched was to ensure that we drew out some lessons. There will always be, in the cycle of any Government at any time, things thrown up that show failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency, or multi-agency arrangement, took ownership of the risk; that is unacceptable. There was poor information recording management and sharing of agencies and professions; that is unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused based on his autism; that should not have happened. There was a failure to understand and intervene in online behaviours, both at home and at school, and his parents in particular had major failings in excusing his behaviour.
Can we make changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are guidance for us. In answer to the earlier question of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we are going to reflect on those in due course. A range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. The key thing, having had those recommendations at 12 noon yesterday, is that the Government have time to consider them properly, and to bring back a plan for both Houses of Parliament. As soon as those recommendations were received by Government, we brought them to this House, and the House of Commons, to share them in an open and public way, so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns. We have, I hope, the full support of the House to address them, and will do our best to ensure systemic failures are addressed and, if need be, individuals are held to account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not usually call for bans, but I would like to call for a ban on the phrase “lessons must be learned”. That is what makes the public feel cynical. I have been here for a few years, and “lessons must be learned” has been said so often to me, but none has ever been learned, as far as I can see. Can we just stop saying that phrase, because everyone just rolls their eyes? That was a joke.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me, but it is not time for a joke. Statements should be about questions to the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me give the noble Baroness an answer. If she thinks that we are not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a plan, respond to the recommendations and, yes, learn some lessons, then she is dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective and constructive way. I am trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations. I will report back and, if lessons have to be learned—I will use that phrase again—the whole purpose of the Government’s actions will be to prevent this happening in the future as far as possible. That is what this Government are trying to do.
Knife Crime
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we meet at a time when too many people in this country still feel less safe in their streets and less confident in the criminal justice system. We know the threat of knife crime; in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we on this side of the House pointed out that, in the year ending March 2025, there were 528,582 stop and searches in England and Wales, including 5,572 under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In the year ending June 2025, there were 51,527 knife offences, and 1.1 million incidents of violence, with or without injury, recorded by the police.
The Government now say that they will halve knife crime in a decade, and we all want that, but targets without a clear plan are not enough. Can the Minister say how they are going to empower police to tackle knife crime with confidence? If the Government want officers to act decisively to prevent violence, they must also ensure that officers who act lawfully and proportionately feel properly backed. That is why we must prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from reopening an investigation into the same conduct after a police officer has been prosecuted and acquitted, unless there is substantial new evidence. We have made that argument forcefully in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill, and we will revisit that tomorrow.
The Government must not undermine police confidence when we need more proactive policing. Although the Government speak of neighbourhood policing expansion, the fact is that overall police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300 since the Government took office, including particularly sharp falls in the Metropolitan Police when knife crime is at its worst in London. What impact has the fall in police numbers had on overall crime levels and on perceptions of safety in communities? What steps are Ministers taking to expand the numbers of police officers, and when will they deliver on their manifesto commitment to recruit more police?
In Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we proposed lowering the threshold for Section 60 from “anticipated serious violence” to “anticipated violence”. Unfortunately, the Government declined. What was their answer? The Minister said in response that
“if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 150.]
I can say with confidence that hotspot policing and targeted funds are all very well but hotspots cannot police themselves, and the Government have still not gone far enough in strengthening police powers or in giving forces the numbers they need.
We need stronger controls on dangerous weapons and tougher restrictions on knife sales. In government, we Conservatives banned zombie knives. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in measurable terms the new ban on ninja swords has had on knife crime? Disappointingly, the Government have also opposed a Conservative amendment that would have increased the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. Of course prevention matters, but it is complementary to, not a replacement for, a tough sentencing policy.
That brings me to youth hubs, youth centres and the wider youth offer. We want there to be investment in youth outreach and early intervention. How will the money be spent, how will success be measured and how will resources be redirected if schemes do not work?
This matters all the more because the Government’s broader economic policy risks undermining the very stability that they claim to be building. Young men do not drift into gang culture and street violence in a vacuum. Where there are few opportunities to prosper, young people are more vulnerable to exploitation and more likely to join illegal gangs. That is why it is entirely proper for this House to ask whether the Government’s wider tax-and-spend choices are making matters worse. If you make it more expensive to hire and to take a chance on a younger worker, it is entry- level jobs that disappear first, and the vulnerable young person finds legitimate work just out of reach. Gangs do not recruit in prosperous conditions; they recruit where the formal economy has receded and the illicit economy looks, to a teenager, like the only market left.
I am not claiming that every unemployed young person turns to crime—that is not true; far from it—nor do I diminish the individual’s responsibility for their actions, but a weaker youth labour market creates more fertile ground for exploitation, including by county lines gangs and organised criminal networks. Indeed, we have consistently challenged Ministers directly on youth unemployment and the effect of the Government’s economic choices on hiring. The public deserve better and I believe this Government have some way to go yet.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.
Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.
Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.
Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.
The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.
One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.
This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the broad support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the Government’s approach. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve it in the period of the action plan that we have brought forward today.
I just want to say to the House as an opener that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament—2023-24—knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this Parliament, overall knife crime is down 8% and knife-related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11% respectively. Knife-enabled assaults are down by 9%, knife-enabled robberies are down by 10%, and more than 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including in ninja sword surrender schemes that that we introduced following the ban on ninja swords last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned London. Since this Government were elected, knife crime in London has fallen by 7%. There were 15,981 offences in the last year of his Government, compared with 14,860 offences in the first year of this Government. So there is success but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility is still required.
The knife crime action plan is a very substantial document and I recommend that noble Lords look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns mentioned by both Front Benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, targeted hotspot work and supporting young people, particularly to avoid them getting involved in gangs. That is not just an aspiration from this Government. We will launch 50 Young Futures hubs by the end of this Parliament; the initial eight opened last week. We are putting an extra £66 million into the serious violence reduction programme. We are rolling out 50 Young Futures panels. We have provided £1.2 million for safety through school partnerships in 250 schools in knife crime hotspots, and have put £26 million into the knife crime concentrations fund.
It might interest the House to know that 27 police force areas make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country. It makes sense, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. In this plan, we have now put £34 million into funding the county lines programme. We have put money into the pupil premium to look at funding violence-reduction programmes in those hotspot areas. We have put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system but who should be moved away from it; and we are putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole. As can be seen, this involves the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office: this is a cross-government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime by half, as in the plan before us.
The question of stop and search is important, and we need to use it proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. It may surprise the House, and I hope will not horrify it, to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search. Without stop and search, those 15,955 knives would have been in people’s pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack, in either a robbery or an assault, or being used for defensive purposes leading to injury or death as a result of knife crime. We certainly need to look at the challenges of stop and search to make sure that it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. I cannot, however, get away from the fact that almost 16,000 knives were found on people through both random stop and search and through intelligence-led policing, where we know that individuals may be knife carriers. Finding some 15,955 knives in one year is a deterrent, but it is also an important issue.
The question of sentencing is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The Government have reflected on the concerns that he put, legitimately, on behalf of HMG Opposition. Tomorrow, there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole. He will also know that the Government have a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online, stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery—all of which are in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I hope will receive favourable consideration for Royal Assent shortly. By autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both Houses to help increase the restriction on knives as a whole.
On 16 December last year, we also launched a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers. That follows recommendations made in the end-to-end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard and that we can monitor those issues. We also have a range of measures going forward on the police numbers issue that the noble Lord mentioned. One of the purposes of the Government’s action was to focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we have put 3,100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year. We have a plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this Parliament.
That is the most important thing. Neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses and know the individuals in their community. They can gather intelligence, provide support to individuals, look at where gangs are operating and help co-ordinate interventions, along with the funding that we are providing in this plan. We will have a debate about police numbers, but the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that is what the Government are trying to do with this proposal, in parallel to the action plan as a whole.
The House will know that this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned, reflect on those and, if need be, respond to her by letter. This is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives, it is cross-government, it is paralleled with legislation currently before this House, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament. Can we stop all knife crime? No, we cannot. Can we have an objective of achieving a halving of knife crime? Yes, we can. I pay tribute not just to Home Office officials but the police, community groups, campaigners and victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. I hope that the House will give it its full support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a really scary figure of 16,000 knives having been confiscated—I take it that is what happened—as a result of stop and search. My noble friend may not have it available, but is there information on the ages of those who have been stopped? Is it just young men or have older men also been stopped? Does my noble friend have any information—he may need to research it, and I do not expect him to give me an answer right now—on what happened to those 16,000 persons who were found to be carrying a knife? It must have been in some form of illegal circumstances. What follow-through has been achieved out of this really scary figure of nearly 16,000 knives being confiscated following stop and search?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I gave that figure to the House because it is accurate and it shows the value of stop and search as a policing exercise for prevention. I do not have to hand the figures on age distribution but I can probably find those for my noble friend. If I can, I will write to him accordingly and place a copy of that letter in the House Library. I also do not have at my fingertips the criminal justice outcome information regarding the 16,000 individuals who have been found in possession of a knife, but, if it has been collated, I am sure that I can find it and give it to my noble friend. These are figures for last year. We know the stop and search outcomes: there are severe penalties for knife possession without a legitimate purpose. I will certainly examine the points my noble friend has made and, if I can, respond to him by letter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this good and comprehensive plan. However, the important thing is that it is sustained and is not just a flash in the pan where, in a few years’ time, we start cutting away the funding and looking at other approaches. It has to be maintained. I turn to the point about youth work that the Minister made. Youth work must be an important part of the package. Young people need to be able to relate to people—I think the Minister used the expression “human contact”—wherever they gather, whether it is in the park, the street corner, et cetera. That is why detached youth work is so important. Will the detached youth workers be qualified, and how many detached youth workers are we talking about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s broad support for the action plan. It is an ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it is one that we think is worth achieving. As I said in what I outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, about policing and about stop and search, but there is also a great emphasis on prevention. The prevention estimates are predominantly dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Education. We are trying to open the 50 young future hubs by the end of this Parliament. The initial eight opened last week; they have long-term funding and back-up for the course of this Parliament.
The noble Lord makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I do not have statistics on that in front of me, and I would not wish to second-guess what they may be, but I shall examine that issue and talk to colleagues in the Department for Education, and if I have information that I can share with the noble Lord I shall do so in writing. The important point is that in this measure that we have here there are the youth future hubs, £66 million for the violence reduction units, and the 50 youth future panels. There is the money going into schools in the hotspot areas and the diversion of £26 million of resources to the 27 police forces in the areas where 90% of knife crime occurs. That is a way of trying to focus it down. It is very important that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, which is to use intelligent information to determine where this is a problem and therefore look, with neighbourhood police, youth workers and youth hubs, at what interventions are required. That is not for me to second-guess, but it is the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. If I can give him the specific information, I shall do so.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I greatly admire the Minister and his approach to these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the issue of the 16,000 knives that had been taken. The dilemma that those responsible have to face is that, for some young people, they are set on a career of crime and they are dangerous people who need to be handled with the greatest severity. However, the House will also agree that many young people are terrified and, although they are by no means criminals, they carry a knife for protection. I would only say that trying to get that balance right is extraordinarily difficult, although we have all those preventive and youth support programmes. When my noble friend spoke at the beginning he talked of the importance of work and about keeping young people in school—anything to give young people gainful occupation and stop them slipping into the vicious cycle of knife crime. That is really important, but I for one do not think that every vulnerable young person who is picked up carrying a knife is necessarily a criminal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness on that. As I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work that the MoJ is doing and is for individuals who are on that cusp and who might well be getting involved in a gang and carrying a knife. There are resources in the knife crime action plan for the Ministry of Justice not to have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals but to try to find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle and break with that gang culture.
Interestingly, some 63,611 knives have been taken out of circulation since the general election through the surrender scheme; that includes weapons through the ninja sword surrender scheme, which had cross-party support, as well as the schemes for zombie knives and machetes, and knives seized by Border Force when they entered the country. We are trying to reduce the types of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work or life; we have to look at what we do with the ninja knives that we have banned and with the import of the wrong type of knife and the measures that we have taken on registration. The noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way in which to help them to have a lifetime free of criminal activity, which is key to the plan.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the strategy and specifically on the collaboration across government, which is fundamental to ensuring that this knife crime plan works, as I am sure it will. I draw attention to the big increase in school attendance that the DfE and Ministers there achieved in 2024-25. I know that they are building on that now—5 million extra days of school attendance in that single year, which must make a contribution. Can we encourage the DfE to focus specifically on the most persistent truants in the most dangerous hotspot areas? That would make a significant contribution to the strategy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The ambition of the Government through the Department for Education is to look at improving attendance at schools across the board. I have sat on a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to prove successful. That is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. My noble friend makes a valuable point. I mentioned earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that the pupil premium funding led by the Department for Education is now available to fund particular challenges in state schools that have disadvantaged children and where school attendance is down and there are interventions to support pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs. The pupil premium grant is £3.2 billion this year, and there is significant evidence that, as my noble friend has mentioned, it is an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime. That is a Department for Education-led approach but, as I have said, the knife crime plan is a prime ministerial objective. The Home Office is leading this, but all departments involved—the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care—are playing a role to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the fact that it seems that some of these youngsters are putting in orders with companies that are not asking enough questions of the people who are buying these weapons—they are likely to be e-commerce companies. Is anybody looking at the record of some of these companies and the fact that they do not ask sufficient questions about some of the people who are purchasing these dangerous weapons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an extremely valuable point. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House now but requires Royal Assent, which I hope will be completed in the next couple of weeks, we are putting measures in place requiring online sellers of knives to include age verification controls, checks at sale and also checks at delivery. There are penalties in the Bill for organisations that fail to meet those objectives. The Bill recognises that there are legitimate uses for knives but, at the same time, age verification, checks at sale and delivery are key; they are not in place now but, subject to Royal Assent, will be in place by autumn 2026, when we hope to have rolled out any legislation that is finally passed by this House and the House of Commons before Prorogation.