House of Commons
Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make. I would like to draw Members’ attention to the fact that the book for entering the private Members’ Bill ballot is now open. It will be open until the House rises today and while the House is sitting tomorrow. On both days, the book will be available for Members to sign in the No Lobby until 6 pm. It will then be taken to the Public Bill Office and remain open for signatures until the rise of the House.
The ballot itself will be drawn at 9 am this Thursday in Committee Room 16. An announcement setting out these and other arrangements, and the dates when ten-minute rule motions can be made and presentation Bills introduced, is published in the Order Paper.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government are reforming the family justice system to better support families and children. We are rolling out the child-focused model nationally, developing a cross-system family justice strategy and legislating for new child safety measures that ensure that child welfare continues to be prioritised.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful for that response. My constituent Olivia is an extraordinary survivor of sustained coercive control involving psychological, physical and financial abuse—a set of abuses that continued even after her separation from her partner, because of child contact arrangements, which left her in persistent fear for both her safety and that of her child. What steps are the Secretary of State and his Front Bench team taking to strengthen safeguarding in the family courts and to protect domestic abuse survivors from re-traumatisation, particularly when perpetrators use mechanisms such as child contact arrangements to continue their abuse?
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have sympathy for Olivia. The family courts must never be a place for perpetrators to continue their abuse. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement will ensure that children’s wellbeing continues to be the court’s primary focus when considering contact. Under the child-focused model, independent domestic violence advisers can provide victims with specialist family support.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
One of the successes of the family justice system is the family mediation voucher scheme. Two thirds of families who use the scheme avoid going to court, which takes a lot of pressure off the family courts. It started in 2021 and gets renewed every year, often at the end of the year or even when the next year has started, which creates huge uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State just say that he will make the scheme permanent from now on?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm to the Chair of the Select Committee that the family mediation voucher scheme will be extended for another year, giving separating families £500 towards their mediation costs to help them solve issues with childcare and finances without going to court. I will look carefully at the permanency of those arrangements.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are giving offenders the tools to move away from a life of crime. We are led by the evidence when addressing needs such as housing, employment and substance misuse treatment and support in order to develop personal skills and behaviours. We are also investing £700 million in probation and expanding intensive supervision courts for prolific offenders.
Tony Vaughan
Reach Out and Recover Kent, a brilliant organisation that I met in Folkestone over the weekend, helps people, including ex-offenders, to recover and stay away from addiction so they can gain skills and work to reintegrate into society. However, Ministry of Justice figures show that at the six-month post-release point, the reoffending rate is twice as high for unemployed adults as for those in employment. What are the Government doing to ensure that more ex-offenders in my constituency get tailored and timely support, particularly for addiction, to get them back into work and enable them to leave offending behind them once and for all?
Jake Richards
My hon. and learned Friend is right to raise those issues and the good work that is happening in his constituency. As he knows, Lord Timpson is leading work on what happens when inmates are in custody. That means working with health services to ensure that our prisoners are getting the support they need, as well as with private sector employers to ensure that there are opportunities afterwards. I will ask Lord Timpson to write to him with the specifics about what is happening in his area.
Tim Farron
I had the honour of taking part as a volunteer in a restorative justice programme at His Majesty’s Prison Haverigg in Cumbria a few years ago. Restorative justice gives victims the opportunity to share with offenders the real impact of their crimes and gives offenders the opportunity to take serious responsibility. Studies show that restorative justice reduces reoffending rates by up to 28%, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that restorative justice programmes are delivered in every prison?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is an important role for restorative justice in our criminal justice system. Just yesterday we made an announcement on the use of restorative justice in our youth courts, as well as the appointment of Jacob Dunne as an expert adviser. Jacob Dunne, who will be known to many Members of the House, is a great champion of restorative justice, and someone who has experienced it. There is more to do in the adult estate, and the Government will announce measures on re:hub, which is an essential cog of the restorative justice system, in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right to raise the importance of education in our prisons. The scandal with education in our prisons is that there are classrooms and workshops that are left empty day in, day out, because the prison system remains unstable and capacity is going through the roof. This Government have been rightly focused on getting stability into the prison system. We will make announcements about investment into education, but we will also be using the private sector and the third sector, not just Government contracts. Again, Lord Timpson will be making announcements on that in due course.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls. Baroness Harman will report directly to the Prime Minister and work across Government to ensure that we deliver the urgent change that is needed. There are few who can match Baroness Harman’s decades-long commitment to women and girls. She has consistently driven change, and I look forward to working closely with her in our new roles.
Dave Robertson
In March, the Prime Minister agreed to meet survivors of abuse by Mohammed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, Fulham football club and other businesses. Almost 500 survivors have come forward, all of whom have been waiting for years, and in many cases decades, for justice. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister’s adviser on women and girls will attend that meeting, and what progress has been made on scheduling it?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued leadership as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. I was in contact with Baroness Harman yesterday and will raise the possibility of her joining the Prime Minister’s meeting with victims and survivors. I too would be humbled to meet those for whom my hon. Friend has advocated so powerfully both in and outside this Chamber.
Dr Gardner
I welcome the announcement of a record £100 million expansion of GPS tagging for domestic abusers following a pilot by the Greater London Authority that saw reoffending fall by up to 63%. However, the current plans will apply only to the highest-risk offenders. Given that all domestic abuse is serious and many perpetrators escalate their violence on release, I am concerned that this will allow abusers to slip through the net. Will the Minister consider extending GPS tagging to all convicted offenders of domestic abuse, not just those deemed high risk?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent and proactive support for domestic abuse victims. Ensuring that it is perpetrators and not victims who are punished and restricted is key to the DAPOL—domestic abuse perpetrators on licence—pilot that will be rolled out nationally from September. Offenders are tagged on release and subjected to strict conditions, such as exclusion zones and curfews. DAPOL will allow the Probation Service to tag any and all offenders who are considered to be at risk of perpetrating domestic abuse. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Further to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied, will she seek to use her good offices with the Home Office to ensure that the Metropolitan police expedite their investigations so that the hundreds of women who suffered at the hands of Fayed can at last have the justice that they deserve?
Catherine Atkinson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that justice delayed is justice denied, which is why this Government are taking such proactive steps to reduce the delays that victims are experiencing. I would be happy to meet him and other Members who I know are hugely concerned about the impact of these cases on victims and survivors.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her place. Almost the first thing the Prime Minister’s new adviser on women and girls did after she was appointed was to say on social media that Arooj Shah, the recently defeated leader of Oldham council, should be given a peerage. She did so despite the fact that Shah spent years trying to block a full inquiry into rape and grooming gangs in Oldham. What does the Minister think that says to victims and survivors, and how can they and the public trust the new adviser now? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister agrees that Shah should be made a life peer.
Catherine Atkinson
Baroness Harman’s record speaks for itself. She has spent decades turning words into action, whether by passing landmark legislation, strengthening protections or relentlessly pushing this issue, which should never be used for party political point scoring, up the political agenda. It is this Prime Minister and this Government who are determined to halve violence against women and girls. Our VAWG strategy sets out the plan to do so, and we are getting on with the job of delivering it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister to her post. For all the policies she might be glad to inherit, she is also inheriting a plan later this year to let out potentially thousands of the worst offenders against women and girls, including rapists and those responsible for sexual assault. The Government are refusing to be transparent about this and are not answering freedom of information requests and written questions about how many rapists and sexual assault offenders will be allowed out of prison earlier. Will this new Minister turn over a new leaf and at least be transparent about how many rapists the Government will be letting out of prison early later this year?
Catherine Atkinson
The Conservatives left a criminal justice system in which victims wait years for trials and feel traumatised by their experiences in court and in which our prisons were full, with the system at risk of collapse. That is not to mention the Probation Service, which, after the Conservatives’ failed privatisation attempts, was on its knees. It is this Labour Government who are taking action to halve violence against women and girls, reduce the time that victims wait to see justice and better support victims with record investment in victim support services.
Dr Mullan
I ask the Minister to think about a situation in which a victim of rape comes to her constituency surgery whose rapist is currently in prison but will now get out of prison earlier. I wonder what that victim would think about the answer the Minister has just given to a serious question about a serious issue. If she refuses to tell the House that information, will she—at the very least—commit to writing to all the women and girls whose offender is currently not due to come out of prison for two or three years, but who will now be getting out this year? Will she at least have the good grace to tell the victims when that is going to happen?
Catherine Atkinson
I meet constituents every week, and victims will always be my priority. The hon. Gentleman has come to this House time and again to list horrific offences, but he has not once apologised for the damage that his party did to our justice system. Victims will not forget the mess the Conservatives created, forgive their failure to take action or be fooled by their claims to care now. It is this Labour Government who have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and this Labour Government who have the plan to make it happen.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
Perpetrators must not be allowed to use the family courts to further their abuse. While the family courts already have a range of tools designed to protect victims, we are going further by rolling out the child-focused courts model nationally.
Richard Quigley
While I welcome the steps the Department has already taken to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse from using the family courts to continue coercive control, will the Minister look to ensure that legal aid is accessible to victims in pathfinder courts, particularly at decision hearings, given the worrying reports that it has become nearly impossible to access it in practice, so that perpetrators cannot exploit this process and continue their campaigns of harassment?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for again speaking up on behalf of domestic abuse victims. I remember the powerful debate that he secured on protecting children from domestic abuse. The Government recognise the vital role that legal aid plays in supporting victims of abuse. Child-focused courts, otherwise known as pathfinder courts, have been rolled out to 10 court areas, most recently the Isle of Wight in January. Legal aid is available in child-focused courts for victims of domestic violence or those at risk of abuse, but we are aware that there are challenges affecting timely access. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend on this issue, and I assure the House that we are working to resolve this matter swiftly.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
About one in 20 rural households experience some form of domestic abuse, although experts believe that this figure is significantly understated owing to chronic under-reporting. Evidence shows that financial control and exclusion from business decisions are a particular feature in rural areas. The pressures of multigenerational living, the unique stresses of farming life and the combination of geographic and digital isolation can all heighten vulnerability. Will the Minister set out what specific steps the Government are taking to address those rural risk factors and improve reporting pathways, and will she consider setting up a special committee to look into this issue?
Catherine Atkinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. Alongside the roll-out of child-focused courts, more work needs to be done to look at coercive control. I know it is an issue of real interest to many across the House, and it is something that the Government take very seriously.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of over 80,000 cases—double what it was in the pre-covid era—and with victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for justice. That is what truly undermines confidence in our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied. Only by pulling every lever—investment, efficiency and reform—can we turn the tide.
Gregory Stafford
On the Secretary of State’s watch, the courts backlog has reached record levels, yet his answer is to weaken one of the oldest rights in our justice system: trial by jury. The backlog was not caused by juries and it will not be solved by scrapping juries. The Bar Council says there is very little evidence for the Government’s approach, while the Institute for Government estimates that it would save at most about 2% of court time, and even that may be generous. Why will the Government not drop this ill-judged proposal and focus instead on the serious reforms needed to cut the backlog and speed up justice for victims?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman were serious, he would get on top of the detail. We are not scrapping juries; juries remain a cornerstone of our system. Just as Margaret Thatcher made changes to the jury system, and just as the Blair Government made changes to the jury system, we are making changes to bring down the backlog.
Sarah Pochin
On Saturday, the Secretary of State promised extra court time for anyone arrested at the “Unite the Kingdom” march, yet there are grooming gang survivors who have waited more than 20 years for their cases to come to court. How is it that he is able to find court time to arrest protesters, yet some victims of vile sexual abuse are waiting decades to have their cases heard in court?
Mr Lammy
I would have thought that the hon. Lady, as a magistrate, would recognise that the right to protest exists in our country and we defend it, but that where people spew hate or incite violence and where anyone causes criminal damage or harm, of course the courts will bear down on them in the strongest possible way.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Hon. Members fairly hold strong views on these reforms. It is notable that, in Scotland, the right to elect between solemn and summary procedure for certain offences does not sit with the accused but with the procurator fiscal, but the people of Scotland are listening to this salient debate. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must conduct the debate on the Government’s reforms without feeding the increasingly malignant narratives of certain groups who are seeking to undermine public confidence in prosecutions and convictions in every corner of the United Kingdom?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is fundamental that people have confidence in our justice system, wherever they are across these isles. That is why this Government are seeking to do all they can to get both the court system and the prison system out of the crisis that we inherited.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea. The leader of Scottish Labour was opposed to this idea—and it does not even involve Scotland. The former Welsh First Minister was apparently opposed to it. When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with real force. However, he never talks about victims, and has not explained how we should bring down the backlog. The truth is that we are determined to bring down the backlog, and that is why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, I took the question; I expect you to hear the answer as well.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that we have seen a small reduction because of the increased investment I have put in, and because of the extra sitting days; the modernisation that we have talked about, and enlisting artificial intelligence in particular, will also make a difference. However, given the size of the backlog, if we are serious about bringing it down over the next few years, we will need reform as well.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Prisoners are moved to an open prison as part of the rehabilitation process, but only after they pass a thorough risk assessment. Every prisoner, including those serving a sentence for a sexual offence, is subject to an individual risk assessment. They will not be allowed to move to an open prison unless they are assessed as presenting a low enough risk. A prisoner can be immediately returned from an open prison to closed conditions if their risk increases.
Alicia Kearns
Paedophiles should be behind bars, not roaming our communities. I am afraid that the Minister’s words will ring hollow for my constituent who received a call in January and was told that her abuser, the paedophile, who was only two years into a nine-year sentence, had been moved into an open prison, and now had the right to leave the site freely, and even stay out overnight. Will the Government review these moves? Clearly something is not working. Will the Minister also specifically look into this case, which is utterly unacceptable?
Jake Richards
As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate.
We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?
Jake Richards
This Government are undertaking the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. We will be building 13,000 new places by 2031. We inherited a prison capacity crisis from the Conservatives, so it takes some chutzpah for them to start asking questions about prison building. We are committed to the prison building programme that we announced in 2024, and we are confident that we will match it. We are fixing the mess that they created.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am delighted to be working with the Home Secretary and other Cabinet colleagues to deliver our ambitious goal of halving knife crime within a decade. In February, we published the youth knife possession guidance, which delivers tougher consequences for knife carriers. The youth justice White Paper published yesterday sets out how the Government will intervene earlier to stop children becoming involved in offending, and ensure that those who do are dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I welcome the Government’s knife crime strategy, with its ambitious goal of halving knife crime in a decade, and its recognition that serious violence is both a criminal justice issue and a social failure. I commend Thames Valley police on their hard work to tackle knife crime in Aylesbury and the villages. We have seen some really good measures, such as the knife crime amnesty bins, which have had a positive effect. As the Secretary of State knows, the challenge of knife crime starts with its root causes, which include poverty and a lack of opportunity for young people. We still struggle with that in Aylesbury and the villages. What more is the Secretary of State doing across Government to address these two root causes?
Mr Lammy
I agree that poverty, exclusion and a lack of opportunity are all root causes of crime. Our youth justice White Paper focuses on intervening earlier to address risks before they escalate, working across Government to tackle the root causes of crime, and ensuring that every child has the support and opportunities that they need to thrive.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Has the Secretary of State established the success or otherwise of knife amnesties introduced by previous Administrations in reducing knife crime, given the prevalence—and increase—of knife crime in many large urban centres across the country?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a role for knife amnesties. As it happens, I was out last week in Deptford looking at a knife amnesty programme. If he looks at the first item on my Instagram, he will see me doing that.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?
Mr Lammy
The outrage under the last Government was watching knife crime go up year on year, while the hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Home Office—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you get two questions. Can you at least wait half a minute before you jump in?
Mr Lammy
It is a serious subject, and I am pleased that after 22 months in office, we have seen falls in knife crime in the last year. We will continue with our knife crime strategy.
Nick Timothy
What the Justice Secretary just said about the record of the last Government was factually untrue, and he should withdraw it. He does not want to admit it, but it is his policy to send fewer knife criminals to jail. That is why he just said what he did. His White Paper was announced yesterday, and buried in it, on page 46—he can read it again—is his plan to not just go soft on young criminals, but make others,
“including vulnerable adults and young adults…subject to a different process”.
That is wrong. Can the Justice Secretary rule out weaker sentences, and a target of reducing imprisonment rates for any adult criminals?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman left us with a prison capacity crisis. The last Government had success in reducing the number of young people in prison—he knows it, and the record is there—and I worked with Michael Gove and David Cameron as they set out on that mission. The strategy we published yesterday puts public protection first. There will always be young people who have to be in custody, but we are determined to reduce the number of young people on remand in particular by working with the most vulnerable.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
The Victims’ Commissioner will deliver a new, strengthened victims code. We have engaged with victims, support services and criminal justice professionals in a consultation that closed on 30 April, and we are now taking time to consider nearly 200 responses. We will issue a public response ahead of finalising the new code and bringing it into force.
Patrick Hurley
In my constituency, an acknowledged victim of violent crime is being alleged to be contributorily negligent in the civil courts. That is retraumatising, and appears to be contrary to natural justice. Will the Minister meet me and my constituents to discuss this further, and see what measures can be put in place to address concerns about how the civil law system deals with such cases?
Catherine Atkinson
The new victims code will ensure that victims know what services, support and information they are entitled to in the criminal justice system, but our civil and family courts should never be used to perpetuate the trauma that victims have suffered. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, or to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that we can better understand the case that my hon. Friend raises, and what his constituent faces.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In 1990, Dr David Birkett was brutally murdered in a crime that shocked the Teesside community. He was discovered by his young daughter, who is a constituent of mine. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s very welcome opposition, the murderer was recently released. May I thank the Ministry of Justice for agreeing to a request from me and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for a meeting with my constituent to hear her concerns about the process, and about her interactions with the Parole Board leading up to the murderer’s release? I know that the matter is subject to an ongoing judicial review, but I thank the Ministry of Justice for its continued attention to this case, and urge it to learn what we can do to support victims in the future.
Catherine Atkinson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this deeply distressing case. I pay tribute to Dr Birkett’s daughter for her courage in continuing to engage, which is truly commendable. He is right that the Parole Board is independent of Government. The Deputy Prime Minister’s application for reconsideration was not considered to have reached the threshold. He decided to seek permission not to set aside the Parole Board’s decision, but for judicial review of the decision, and that has been filed. I await the response, and hope that permission is granted, but I reassure the right hon. Member and Dr Birkett’s family that this Department will continue to seek to mitigate the hurt that they are feeling.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Far too many care-experienced people end up in the criminal justice system. Last November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the national protocol for reducing the criminalisation of that cohort. Officials are actively working on that, and we will publish a strengthened protocol later this year.
John Whitby
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Children in care have often faced significant trauma, instability, neglect or abuse. As a result, many of them end up in the criminal justice system, and care leavers are 10 times more likely to end up in prison. Counselling has been shown to help keep children in care out of prison, which is obviously better for the young people, and saves the state money in the long term. Will the Minister consider changing national protocol guidelines to ensure that trauma counselling is provided to children in care who are identified as being at risk of engaging in criminality?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. The disproportionate number of care leavers and children who have been in our criminal justice system is a national disgrace. Just yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—the Minister responsible for children’s social care—to look at the issues in the round. As I said, we are looking at strengthening the protocol, and we will publish that in due course.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course, the youngest children in care are babies. It might shock the House to learn that there are 36 babies residing, through no fault of their own, in mother and baby units around the country. Given that babies are taken away from their mothers on a case-by-case basis after 18 months, I wonder whether part of the sentencing review should be about whether it is appropriate at all for mothers and babies—particularly the babies—to be imprisoned, apart from in the most serious criminal cases.
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for that important question; he is right to raise the matter. Indeed, he raised a similar theme in the Commons just yesterday. Lord Timpson has a particular focus on female offenders and women inmates in prison, and he will make an announcement in due course.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Prime Minister asked me to lead work across Government to improve outcomes for boys and men. That includes a specific focus on convening and co-ordinating the brilliant work being done across Departments, including on health and wellbeing, education and employment, and masculinities and connection. Furthermore, yesterday we set out a plan for youth justice reform, which was the first in many years.
Alistair Strathern
The Anti-Slavery Commissioner recently called out the targeted online grooming of young men by county lines gangs. That is far from being an isolated case of such targeting. Young men growing up in Britain today are all too often targeted by those in the worst corners of the internet—from those in the manosphere to predatory gambling companies to get-rich-quick schemes. However, while Ofcom rightly has guidance for platforms about how to better protect women and girls from the specific harms that they can be exposed to, no such parallel guidance exists for young men and boys growing up in Britain. We are all worse off as a result. We recently convened over 60 MPs to write to Ofcom to urge it to put that right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join us today in calling on Ofcom to step up? It is in its gift to do so. Let us get this done.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Secretary of State knows what the question is.
Mr Lammy
It is an excellent question. My hon. Friend is quite right; there are many concerns about the online space and what it means for men and boys in a modern society, and there is an important role for Ofcom. I encourage him to write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will take a close interest. I hope that he gets a meeting with a Minister.
Amanda Martin
As the founding member of the Labour group for men and boys, I welcome the Government’s focus on prevention opportunity, because supporting men and boys is not zero sum; it benefits women, girls, families and communities, too. In Portsmouth, too many boys and young men are struggling with education, mental health and pathways into work, while many older men tell me that they increasingly feel isolated, overlooked and mistrustful of institution and politics. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with Cabinet colleagues about rebuilding purpose, trust and opportunity for men and boys across our communities? Will he work with me to turn this ambition into meaningful action for men and boys in Portsmouth?
Mr Lammy
I am keen to work with my hon. Friend on this issue. I recognise that there are real issues in her constituency in this regard. She will be pleased to hear that last month I attended a roundtable with some of the leading figures in the men and boys sector to hear their concerns directly from them. I am also chairing the interministerial group on men and boys. There is real excitement, right across Whitehall, about the fact that we can do something about this over the next two years.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
An often under-appreciated element of the criminal justice system is the impact that it has on fathers’ ability to stay part of their family. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) shared research conducted by the University of Plymouth about fathers separated from their children, and the impact of that on family life. If we are to rehabilitate people in prison, we must help them maintain their family relationships. Will the Secretary of State take steps to tackle communication barriers for those with young children, and improve the way in which children can integrate with parents in prison?
Mr Lammy
A few years ago, I set up the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood. The hon. Lady is right: the role of fathers in all children’s lives is vital. There is nothing more affecting than programmes in prison, for example, where fathers who are illiterate and unable to write are helped to do so in order to stay in communication with their children. I will look closely.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the former Minister for victims, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for her amazing work. I wish the new Minister the best of luck in the role.
Some 90% of young men and boys incarcerated for violent offences have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse or another form of abuse at home. The Government are investing in increasing the number of independent domestic violence advisers available to adult survivors, but there is no like-for-like equivalent for children to access that kind of direct advocacy. Will the Justice Secretary consider that proposal, which a number of victims charities have advocated for, to ensure that young men and boys have the domestic abuse support that they need and deserve?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her tremendous work. I think the whole House will recognise that, as a Minister, she was entirely on top of her brief and she commanded the respect of victims groups right across our country. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I will look closely at what more we can do for young people who experience domestic violence.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are committed to transparency on this issue. We publish data on releases in error each July in the HM Prison and Probation Service annual digest. On 15 April we also published ad hoc data for April 2025 to March 2026, alongside Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review and the Government’s response, accepting, in principle, all the recommendations.
Joe Robertson
Oh dear. My question was about how many prisoners have been released in error under this Government, and the Minister does not seem to know the answer. That is okay, as I can tell him. It is 441, which over a two-year period is the worst on record. Will he now apologise, or will he provide a convoluted excuse about why it is not his Government’s fault?
Jake Richards
That question is a very good example of someone not listening to my answer but assuming that he had. We will release the data for this very serious and important issue, as we should, in due course. We released the data earlier this year on an ad hoc basis. By the way, in 14 years the Conservative Government never released data on prisoner releases in error, so we will take no lectures from the Opposition Benches on that issue. Fundamentally, Dame Lynne Owens has conducted a review of this important issue and set out a series of recommendations on how to solve it, which we have accepted and will begin to implement, so I will take no lessons from the Opposition Benches on this issue.
James Wild
Despite implementing what the Justice Secretary said were the strongest ever checks, every week criminals are being given a “Get out of jail free” card. How many of those 441 prisoners, wrongly let out of prison on Labour’s watch, remain at large, and why is it still taking days for the Prison Service to let the police know when it has wrongly released people?
Jake Richards
The truth is that this is a long-standing issue in our criminal justice system, and it is a disgrace—any release in error is a disgrace. How do we solve the issue? We solve it by investing in our prison system. That is why we are building more prisons than we have done since the Victorian era. We are investing in stabilising the prison population. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, so finally we have some sustainability in our prison system, after the Conservatives did absolutely nothing. We are taking action, as recommended by Dame Lynne Owens, and that action will be undertaken rapidly.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Since the last Justice questions, the Victims and Courts Act 2026 and the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which both put victims at the heart of the justice system, have received Royal Assent. In the Gracious Speech, His Majesty the King confirmed that we will proceed with the Courts and Tribunals Bill to turn the tide on the Crown court backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims, and that we remain committed to a Hillsborough law to bring in a duty of candour for public service and rebuild confidence in the justice system. Those are yet more examples of this Government getting on with delivering justice for the British people.
Ben Maguire
Cornwall continues to face some of the UK’s worst legal aid deserts, with rurality and lack of transport adding to the postcode lottery. According to the Law Society, a third of domestic abuse survivors were forced to represent themselves in court, as even when advice is available, eligibility criteria often stand in their way. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss raising the income threshold for the legal aid means test in line with inflation and removing the capital assets requirement altogether to ensure that victims of economic abuse can access justice?
Mr Lammy
It is of course important that those who need legal aid can access it, including those in rural communities and victims of domestic abuse. We work with the market to mitigate localised pressures where they exist, by supporting a mix of face-to-face, telephone and remote advice provision. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a meeting with the Minister.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Let me be absolutely clear: prisoners are not permitted to have access to social media in any circumstances and face punishment if they do so. All cases are investigated by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service if they are discovered. A few weeks ago I visited our state-of-the-art digital forensics lab, which interrogates any phones found and provides evidence to bring successful prosecutions in court. I hope that reassures his constituent.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?
Mr Lammy
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that everyone inciting violence against Jewish communities in our country must face the full force of the law. I know he will recognise that I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, with its significant Orthodox Jewish community, and I am grateful that he has raised this. Can I just remind him that the CPS updated its guidance on hate crimes on 5 May, to ensure that people face the law as they should?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot allow the rich and powerful to use their resources to stop proper investigation, and I will be bringing forward legislation as soon as time allows.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
As I said earlier, all prisoners, including those convicted of domestic violence and stalking offences, will be allowed to move to an open prison only when they have been assessed and risk assessed. I am very happy to organise a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the relevant Minister to discuss this case.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
There is nothing more tragic than seeing young people, often from deprived backgrounds, preyed on by adults to run drugs and all sorts of contraband across the country. We will be bringing that offence forward as soon as possible.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising caseload. He also knows that the last Government closed courts right across the country. We are legislating for structural reform. We are investing £2.78 billion to bring down the backlog. We will continue to look closely at the needs in Kendal, but he recognises that it will take some time to address what we inherited.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent efforts to raise the issue of online harms. Whether it is physical, verbal or online, abuse is abuse, and this Government are determined to tackle violence against women and girls online as well as off. We are making it illegal to take or make intimate images without consent, including deepfakes. Our new deletion orders will ensure that courts can require offenders convicted of intimate image offences to delete images of their victims. The VAWG strategy sets out our plan across Government to tackle digitally facilitated violence.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is right to raise this and has done so consistently. I meet justice counterparts from the devolved Governments regularly, and I will ensure that this issue is high on the agenda for our next meeting, because it is very important. There is a lot of good work happening in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We need to ensure that it is joined up, to address that particular mischief, which is incredibly serious.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure me and my constituents back home that the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme will ensure that victims of crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the kingdom are better supported at every stage of the criminal justice system?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I am very proud that this Government have listened to victims. I have met with the Victims’ Commissioner and an array of victims who have been complaining about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We have been able to modernise it by allowing an out-of-time route for victims and bereaved family members to refer sentences outside the 28-day limit. Clearly, 28 days is sometimes not appropriate for families who are deeply distressed, so we have been able to make that change, working on a cross-party basis. I am proud that this Government are putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mr Lammy
Magistrates play a hugely important role. I was sad that they were cut back under the previous Government. There used to be about 29,000. The hon. Gentleman will see the recruitment campaign right across the country. We need a new generation of magistrates, and I want them to come from all backgrounds.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Half of all prisoners lack the basic literacy skills needed to navigate everyday life, only one in three secure employment within six months of release, and a third reoffend within a year. Rehabilitation, reducing reoffending, and improving public safety must be at the heart of our criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State please commit to increasing funding for prison education, so that offenders can access the basic skills and support they need to rebuild their lives, reintegrate, and contribute positively to society when they leave prison?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I represent a very rural area, and people have to drive many miles to get to a court. With fuel prices currently so high, why are ordinary citizens reimbursed for jury service at the rate of only 31.4p per mile for travel by car, yet the standard HMRC approved rate is 45p per mile? It does not cover the cost of travel, and penalises those who live in rural areas.
Jake Richards
The hon. Member is a member of the Justice Committee, and she raises an important and practical point. The Government recognise the hugely important civic duty role that jurors play day in, day out across the country, and we will always keep remuneration and travel costs under review. We have heard the question.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am sure it has not missed anybody’s radar that I recently launched a campaign for lifelong sex education, and last week I met some parish councillors, one of whom works in the Probation Service. She thanked me for the campaign because of the amount of re-education they have to do, particularly for young men, on what is acceptable within sexual relationships. Will the Secretary of State, or a relevant Minister, meet me to talk about the importance of lifelong sex education in re-educating potential reoffenders?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and work in this area. It is important that prisoners and those on probation are re-educated about codes of conduct, and I am happy for her to arrange a meeting with the Prisons Minister.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking through the criminal justice system to support victims of violence against women, particularly those who report historical cases of sexual violence? Several of my young constituents have faced terrible communication, years of delay, and ultimately the Crown Prosecution Service not progressing with prosecution.
Catherine Atkinson
Those of us who have spent years campaigning to address violence against women and girls know that we are building on the work of pioneers. Baroness Harman was one of those pioneers, and I am looking forward to working closely with her across Government to deliver our VAWG strategy. As part of that we will be delivering the new victims’ code, which will set out the service, support and information that victims are entitled to. We are supporting victims with the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support services.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
In the past six months, the black country was rocked by two horrific cases of Sikh women being raped in racially aggravated assaults. The two attacks shook the entire community to our core, but it recently came to light that a Reform party election candidate celebrated those appalling attacks. Thankfully, he has now stood down after being elected just two weeks ago. Will the Minister say more about how women will be supported in such cases, where not only were they victims of horrific sexual attacks, but racial hatred was also involved?
Catherine Atkinson
It is unsurprising, but yet again we do not have any Reform MPs in the Chamber. People will be shocked to hear about those cases of racially aggravated sexual violence, and any comments celebrating them are utterly repugnant. The Government are determined to support victims of violence against women and girls. We are committed to supporting victims not only with £550 million for victim support, but we are also introducing independent legal advisers for adult rape victims.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
What assessment has the Minister made of the report concerning communication between the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, and the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan, regarding the court investigation into war crimes in Gaza? What steps is he taking to uphold the independence of the international judicial institutions that we set up?
Jake Richards
Some of the matters that the hon. Member has raised are perhaps matters for the Foreign Secretary, rather than the Justice Secretary. As he said, we clearly always respect international law and the principle of the rule of law more generally.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Sexual assaults and harassment on trains have risen by more than a third over the past 10 years, yet too many trains and stations still lack adequate CCTV. That evidence gap lets criminals evade justice and fails victims. What steps are the Secretary of State and his colleagues taking to improve CCTV coverage across the whole rail network, so that perpetrators of violence against women and girls can be brought to justice?
Catherine Atkinson
My hon. Friend and neighbour shares with me a keen interest in rail, as we represent a city that is at the centre of the largest cluster of rail companies in Europe. We have launched a new campaign to drive up reporting of harassment on trains, and the new safer railway scheme, under which train operators must show what they are doing to tackle violence against women and girls so that they can travel with confidence. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that initiative.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The former Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls said that real change in combating violence usually came only after threats from her following “catastrophic mistakes”. Does that not confirm that the Government are unwilling to take the tough decisions necessary to tackle violence against women and girls?
Catherine Atkinson
I am honoured to take up the role and build on the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) undertook. She was absolutely essential to the development of the VAWG strategy, “Freedom from violence and abuse”, so that this Government have a plan to prevent violence, pursue and prosecute perpetrators and support victims. We will be working across Government to deliver the strongest crackdown in British history.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituent Tam is a mental health legal aid lawyer who has seen demand in the sector rise while fees fail to keep up. As a result, many have left that line of work, despite the Government’s Mental Health Act 2025 increasing the workload. This is unacceptable when people’s liberty is at stake, so what specific assessments has the Department made of the current sustainability of the mental health legal aid sector, and what concrete steps is it taking to ensure the financial viability of that sector?
Mr Lammy
We have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates, and an additional £92 million beyond that for criminal legal aid solicitors. The hon. Lady has mentioned the important issue of legal aid in relation to mental health cases, which we will look closely at in the next funding period.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box. On Friday, I met Jimmy, an imprisonment for public protection prisoner whose case I have previously raised with the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister. Despite good progress, he still does not have a firm release date after more than 20 years in prison and over a decade since IPP sentences were abolished. Will the Justice Secretary urge his Department to do all it can to expedite Jimmy’s release and that of the estimated other 2,800 people who remain in prison on IPP sentences?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the real issues that exist for IPP prisoners—we have discussed those issues at length, and will continue to do so. The Prisons Minister has done a lot of work in this area, engaging with all of those who raise these issues on an almost weekly basis, including in another place. Of course, we want to do more and see those prisoners who are not going to cause public harm released.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February 2026.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today.
The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents we have collected to make sure that all of those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the Committee. As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that we felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and we immediately submitted those documents to the Committee. As Friday’s statement from the Committee set out, it has now considered all those documents.
As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest Government publications ever laid in this House. That is reflective of the breadth of the motion, and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across Government. The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues, such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC.
Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the Government questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would have deemed that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. [Interruption.] To refer back to my previous comments, this will be the largest publication—other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report—ever published to the House.
When the Government publish the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and the basis on which content has been redacted will be clear from the published information. The targeted redactions made to the material, beyond those relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous Administrations in responding to Humble Addresses.
As I set out to the House on 23 February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on 11 March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where that is not in scope of the motion, and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. That has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. Those resolutions state:
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute”.
I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that there is no public interest in the Government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers.
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, you have been in the House for some time. Ministers have three minutes to respond to an urgent question, and it is over three and a half minutes now. I was not given notice of extra time being needed, and other people would obviously need to know that, too. I set out the rules of the House, and we should adhere to them. We have broken them once again, and we have only been back a few days.
Darren Jones
Forgive me, Mr Speaker. In that case, I will sit down and provide further detail in answer to questions from Members.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. As you and the House know, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been considering redactions to documents on the grounds that, if unredacted, those documents may prejudice national security or international relations. It has become apparent to us that the Government also intend to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the Humble Address or, in some cases, to withhold documents altogether.
As the Minister says, the Government issued a list of further grounds on which they intended to redact along with the first tranche of documents that they published. Those grounds include email addresses, phone numbers and what is described as personal data. There is no mechanism for the House to confirm that those redactions are limited only to what is necessary, but I want to ask the Minister about material that the Government intend to withhold for yet further reasons, such as commercial confidentiality or to protect the monarch. The Government also intend to withhold some documents related to vetting in their entirety.
I should make it clear that my Committee has considerable sympathy with the substantive arguments that the Government may make for withholding information beyond that currently justified in the Humble Address. There are, for example, valid concerns about the disclosure of information given in a vetting process inhibiting future subjects of vetting, or those who are asked about them, from being as open and forthcoming as they need to be for vetting to be effective. However, we cannot accept that the Government are entitled to ignore, or unilaterally alter, the terms of the Humble Address.
Does the Minister accept that if the Government want to argue that the Humble Address is too broad as drafted and needs to be refined, they must come to the House and make that argument, and secure the House’s consent to any alteration? Does he further accept that without doing so, when the next set of documents is published with information withheld, the Government will not succeed in persuading the House or the wider world that this matter is closed? Finally, does he accept that if the Government took it upon themselves to redact or withhold information contrary to the terms of the Humble Address by which they agreed to be bound in February, that would be an issue not just of process, but of parliamentary sovereignty?
Darren Jones
In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perhaps relating to how much money someone has in a particular account, or with whom that person may have had a personal relationship in the past—would never be published, because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?
Darren Jones
I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The House gave the Government a clear instruction that the only documents that could be redacted were those that might prejudice UK national security or international relations, and all those documents were to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so for my incredibly respected right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to say that the Government have applied redactions to documents sent to the ISC, beyond the scope agreed by the House, and have also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what the House agreed. There may be legitimate reasons why the Government do not want to place certain matters in the public domain, but if the Humble Address motion does not allow for redaction on those grounds, the Government cannot just unilaterally decide to ignore the will of the House.
Sadly, this pattern of backsliding fits a pattern of behaviour. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff had to resign over the Mandelson scandal, but apparently he is already back and advising the Prime Minister. We forced the Government to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs, but then they sabotaged it and dragged their feet for a whole year. We said that it needed to be harder to obtain indefinite leave to remain; the Home Secretary said she would do it, but Labour Back Benchers did not like it, and now it is not in the King’s Speech. Again and again, as soon as attention moves elsewhere, the Government start backsliding.
We now expect the Government to discuss their approach to the Humble Address constructively, and we would welcome such discussions. Let me therefore ask the Minister some questions. Now that the ISC has reviewed all the documents, when will the Government release all the rest of the Mandelson files? The Minister has said “after Whitsun”; when after Whitsun? Will the Government return to the House to ask permission for the redactions that they clearly wish to make which go beyond the scope of the Humble Address? Will the Minister brief Opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the broader redactions that the Government clearly wish to make?
Labour Members voted for a cover-up when they voted against referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee over this matter. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true. This House, and the people of this country, deserve better than yet another cover-up.
Darren Jones
I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand.
On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I rise to support the ISC in its carefully considered concerns, and I am disappointed at the answer that the Government have given. It seems to me that one of the questions on the Mandelson appointment is: why, when the United Kingdom Security Vetting document had two red boxes ticked, including “This man should not be appointed”, was that somehow or other translated into “He should be appointed”?
It is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that lessons have been learned unless the documents are checked. My Committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth, and we are having obstacles put in our way. For that reason, I believe that the ISC should be allowed to look at the file, with proper redactions, to understand how mitigations could be put in place to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Darren Jones
To confirm, the documents that relate to the recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to it have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. What has not been referred is the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstances we would not share in relation to any appointment. I confirm that neither I nor any decision maker in this process has seen that level of personal detail, because it is kept so securely to ensure that, when people go through this process, they feel able to give full and frank answers, without a wide range of politicians or others seeing their deeply personal information.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This House did not pass the motion on the Humble Address so that Ministers could decide, four months later, which inconvenient information they would prefer that Parliament did not see. Given the ISC’s concerns that the Government are redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that the Government are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asks for transparency, Epstein’s victims deserve justice and the public deserve answers, not redactions. The point is not that any Member of this House wants a junior civil servant’s personal data to be published, but that it is not the Government’s decision where the line is to be drawn.
Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?
Darren Jones
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question on the assumptions about the Government withholding information that we should not withhold, I am afraid that that is just incorrect. This is the most extensive disclosure of information, I think ever, in relation to a Humble Address. The sheer depth of the document when it is published will illustrate the point that the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are complying with the Humble Address. That is why we established the process with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with independent KC oversight: to ensure that the process is done properly.
On the hon. Lady’s question about the motion in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that Humble Address is being administered by the Department for Business and Trade, and I understand the document is due to be published very shortly.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have asked the Minister, both in this House and through written questions on numerous occasions, to give the House reassurances that Morgan McSweeney only ever handled documents for which he had the appropriate level of security vetting when working in Downing Street. The vagueness of the Minister’s replies has been noted by Members of this House and journalists, so today I again give the Minister a chance to put this issue to bed by stating clearly on the record that, at all times while working in Downing Street, Morgan McSweeney had the appropriate level of security clearance for all the documents he handled.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I refer him to my previous answer.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that on 21 April the ISC, on which I sit, made it clear that the
“Humble Address does not allow for documents to be withheld from Parliament, only for redactions to be made where the ISC has agreed to them.”
Last week, we were obliged to issue a further statement saying that it had come to our attention that documents were being withheld from the ISC. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that that is justified, but the Humble Address does not permit it. The point is that he is confusing scrutiny with disclosure. The ISC is well used to making judgments about what is made public. That is why the House chose the ISC as the mechanism to deal with these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in line with the Humble Address, all material will be submitted to the ISC? In particular, will he confirm that there was no document or any communication—emails and so on—related to the mitigation of any risks associated with Peter Mandelson’s appointment?
Darren Jones
All documents that are in the scope of the Humble Address will be published in the normal way. On the right hon. Member’s question about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, any redactions that had any relationship with international relations or national security have been submitted to the Committee for its consideration. As he knows, and as I have confirmed to the House, that process has concluded. I think he is asking me again about personal data, and I refer him to my statement, which makes the point that compliance with the Humble Address sits in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, the ministerial code and motions passed by both Houses about how to comply with such a motion. As I have said, all further information will be published in due course.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I am very concerned that it appears that No. 10 is still continuing to cover up Mandelson’s dodgy dealings by redacting and withholding certain information. What was Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s meeting with Palantir, why did the former Health Secretary grant Palantir unlimited access to identifiable NHS patient data, and what assurances can the Minister give us that any information relating to Mandelson’s involvement with Palantir will be exposed to full public transparency and scrutiny?
Darren Jones
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that all documents will be published in relation to the Humble Address, as I have set out today and previously, but I again reassert the fact that any suggestion of a cover-up is merely a conspiracy theory.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
When Olly Robbins appeared before us on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he was asked why he did not view the summary document produced by UK Security Vetting. He pointed to the sensitivity of the vetting interviews—what the Minister calls the raw detail—and said that those detailed vetting files should remain in a “hermetically sealed box”. We have heard that that box was not opened for sharing with the Prime Minister, and it has not been opened for sharing with those of us who sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government do need the consent of Parliament to keep the full details sealed and inaccessible to the ISC. In the future, does the Minister intend the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to have the discretion to award developed vetting, or will that sit solely with UKSV?
Darren Jones
As I have said, any summary documentation and recommendation that was put by UKSV to the Foreign Office has been shared with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. What has not been shared was the raw data collected in interviews with Peter Mandelson. As I have said repeatedly to the House, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, there is not such a mechanism for that level of personal detail—I am talking about how much money someone has in personal accounts, and who they may or may not have had a relationship with in the past—because if it was known that that could be made public to politicians, people going through the security process would not feel able to give full and frank answers, and that would undermine the very nature of our national security system. I am sure that, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he would not wish to advocate for that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I would like to thank the ISC and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their roles in this process. Although it has not been mentioned today, would the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister provide the House with an update on the Government’s proposed legislation to remove peerages from those disgraced peers?
Darren Jones
I was delighted to see it confirmed last week in the King’s Speech that that legislation will be introduced in this Session. We will be bringing it forward shortly.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I press the Minister on his lack of answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). When it became apparent that Mandelson posed an obvious and serious security risk to the state, it was said that ongoing mitigations were put in place to control that risk. Will the ISC see those ongoing mitigations? And if not, why not?
Darren Jones
I think this is a question specifically to the Foreign Office in relation to evidence given by the former permanent secretary, and it is about how mitigations can be put in place to manage risks. For example, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, if you previously had a client in a commercial relationship with a business, you would not be allowed to meet them privately while you held public office. These are the types of mitigations to which I think the Foreign Office was referring, and I think they sound legitimate in the circumstances.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and for the way he conducts himself on this very sensitive issue. I know that when he stands at the Dispatch Box to talk about it, his thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Will the second tranche of materials include materials that have previously been referred to the ISC?
Darren Jones
The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan police in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I said to the House, this will be a very significant publication, which will warrant careful consideration from Members across the House. We want to publish it with sufficient notice to allow Members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the Government, which is why we are now publishing it after the Whitsun recess.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In more than 30 years of its existence, the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security vetting process if such raw data were published does not arise, because the ISC is the one parliamentary body guaranteed to ensure that that does not happen. So can the Minister stop obfuscating on that aspect and can he confirm that, irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC, if it has not been already, are the annotations and the documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that all documents that need to be referred to the ISC have now been referred to it. That process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister must accept that there is no more august Committee in this place than the ISC. He must further accept that it is the least partisan organ of this Parliament. It is against that incomprehensible reality that the pedlars of chaos in No. 10 have sought to confound the ISC by withholding information and deviating unilaterally from the terms of the Humble Address. The Minister has given himself and No. 10 till after the Whitsun recess. Will he say very clearly when after Whitsun recess he will release the next tranche of documents?
Darren Jones
Let me reassert: I really do not think Members are advocating that the raw information collected as part of national security screening interviews with people who are becoming public servants ought to be shared with Parliament. The summary of those recommendations and the advice put to Departments should be and have been shared, and I think that is the appropriate way to handle that. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically when after the Whitsun recess the document will be published. We stand ready to do so as soon as we are able to secure the time in the House.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
This is a deeply unhappy and unacceptable situation. It is completely unacceptable, after writing and raising questions informally with officials and the Minister himself, for the Chair and members of the ISC to have to come to this House to pose an urgent question. Will the Minister confirm that if there are any changes to permissions, he will come to this House and seek approval from the House for those changes?
Darren Jones
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who secured the urgent question, made the point that the Committee was in some agreement in relation to the Government’s argument about sharing raw data. I do not think that is the issue in dispute, so I am not sure that any suggestion of withholding information against the will of the motion is in contention. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) asks me about compliance with the motion more generally; I refer him to my previous answer.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I simply repeat that the House, surely, has a right to know when we are going to get the report. The ISC said that it was unhappy with the amount of WhatsApp messaging being used by the Government. The image being created among the public is that of a Government who are avoiding the issue and are incompetent, and that is undermining public confidence. The Minister started off by saying he could have presented the document this Thursday. If he knows he could have done that on Thursday, will he tell us when after Whitsun we will see it?
Darren Jones
As I say and as the House will see when the document is published, if I had published the document on Thursday, with the House rising on Thursday afternoon, Members would rightly have criticised the Government for not being able to have sufficient time to read it and ask questions of the Government. I am keen for it to be published as soon as possible after the Whitsun recess and I am arranging that with business managers.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am afraid that the answers about publication simply are not good enough. The Minister may think that he is putting an argument to this House, but he is treating this House and the public as a bunch of mugs. The reality is that one of his own Back Benchers said that, as a result of what has happened, his party is being called the paedo protectors party. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the data before the unnecessary and costly by-election—yes or no?
Darren Jones
The information will be published to the House after the Whitsun recess, as I set out. I am afraid that I just disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I add to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). The Minister outlined a date this week that the information could have been published, so why can he not commit to a timetable so we can hold him to account? That is the key point. This whole grubby saga has highlighted why the public do not seem to think that the ministerial code and responsibility in government count for anything any more. As a lesson from this grubby saga, will the Minister bring forward legislation to make the ministerial code binding and ensure consequences, so that action is taken when Ministers fall short and do not honour their end of the deal?
Darren Jones
The Government believe the ministerial code is functioning as it should. We have increased the accountability measures associated with it. Where legislation is required—for example to remove peerages from disgraced peers in the other place—we will bring it forward shortly.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Do Labour MPs not realise that it is because of high-handed behaviour like this that they suffered such a drubbing on 7 May? The Minister has said that the documents will be published after we return from Whit on 1 June, but he has repeatedly refused to answer whether or not they will be published by the Makerfield by-election on 18 June. Let me ask him yet again: can he guarantee to the House and the constituents we represent that this large batch of documents will be published in advance of the Makerfield by-election on 18 June—yes or no?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman knows we have to secure time in the House with business managers. I am ready for the document to be published as soon as we are ready to do so, and I have committed to do so after the recess.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
One thing this sorry episode has achieved is to make the Minister an absolute expert on warm words and platitudes. I want to go back to the issue of disappearing messages, which was raised earlier. Obviously, those messages are not retrievable, but the very minimum we should get is a detailed breakdown of all those who were asked to supply information and said they could not do so because they had disappearing messages on their phones. We are entitled to know which Ministers’ communications and which conversations are no longer accessible to us.
Darren Jones
All of the documents that have been made available through the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In 2021, the Prime Minister wrote an essay in which he said,
“Where the current Tory government has muddied the waters of transparency…I want to make it easier to hold government to account.”
He said that a Labour Government must
“play its role in restoring honesty, decency and transparency in public life”—
and yet here we are. Does the Minister agree that after all the redacting of messages, it is not only the Labour party that is being damaged, but democracy itself?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about redactions that he has neither seen nor read. Redactions have been made in relation to personal data or national security and international relations—that is it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Government stand accused by not one but two of the most august Committees in this House of not playing fair in giving across the information. The Minister’s argument is simply that the Government have done nothing wrong. If that is the case, why would both of those Committees come to this House and lay those accusations?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Foreign Affairs Committee heard about the pressure that the Foreign Office was under to move quickly on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Now, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency surrounding the papers connected to that appointment. If the Government have nothing to hide, why are they changing the terms and scope of the Humble Address, and withholding and redacting documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the Minster ensure that the UKSV summary document will be shared with the ISC?
Darren Jones
The Government are not trying to amend the terms or scope of the Humble Address—that is a factually incorrect statement. The hon. Member asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV’s recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I can confirm that those documents have been shared.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. Constituents have contacted me regarding the overreach of Government bodies and their refusal to stay within their parameters, as displayed in the last few days by the legal judgment that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s claim of collusion in the Royal Ulster Constabulary exceeded the ombudsman’s legal powers. Today we have an urgent question, and constituents are again highlighting overreach and a refusal to be accountable to the public. Rebuilding trust is vital, and I believe the Minister is committed to doing that, but will he start the process of rebuilding trust in all aspects of public life when appointed individuals refuse to stay within their limits? What steps can be taken at every level of public service?
Darren Jones
I share the hon. Member’s sentiment on public trust, which is why the Government have initiated the Ethics and Integrity Commission, updated the ministerial code, and are bringing forward legislation on the removal of peerages from disgraced peers in the other place. We are undertaking what is probably the most wide-ranging work on ethics and standards in public life for many decades.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
When Parliament passed the Humble Address, it was very clear that the House did not trust the Government on this issue, which is why we wanted the ISC involved. It is clear that there are redactions happening beyond the will of Parliament. If that is the case, does the Minister accept that he has to come to the House to ask for permission, and if he does not do so, then he needs to tell us why?
Darren Jones
I refer to my opening statement in relation to compliance with the Humble Address and the right for the Government to withhold information subject to public interest duties—for example, the names and contact details of junior officials. All redactions that are in relation to national security and international relations have been submitted to the Intelligence and Security Committee and agreed in line with the Humble Address.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Given the scale and significance of the Mandelson files due to be released, why does the Minister not accept that the review of those files over the Whitsun recess would be a good use of everyone’s time, with questions to Ministers being put after 1 June when we return? Is it because Ministers intend to limit scrutiny by this House? That is exactly what it looks like to me and to my constituents.
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The intent is to increase scrutiny, not to decrease it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise just how damning it is of the Government’s lack of regard for transparency and accountability that the ISC finds itself in the position of having to publicly condemn their actions?
Darren Jones
Questions about the Committee’s statement are for the Committee. As I have set out, we have complied fully with the Humble Address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
David Davis
On a point of order, given that this applies directly to the Minster, I draw the House’s attention to the motion tabled by the now Prime Minister on 4 December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous Humble Address. It starts:
“That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018”. —[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 668.]
That motion was passed by this House.
We have just debated an area where the Government may potentially be in contempt of the House; indeed, the obfuscation we have heard looks like that. It is important that the House and the Government know that there is precedent in this area. I give notice that if, after we have received the next tranche of documents, the Humble Address has not been met in full, or if we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I will seek to table such a motion.
Mr Speaker
I do not want to continue the debate, so this is advice for other Members who are trying to catch my eye: an experienced Member like Sir David will not leave it here, but will pursue this through the many other avenues that are available. I suggest that the issue will be coming back at some point. I have also had a letter from the ISC, and at some point I will also need to respond to it, so it is not quite the end as we sit here.
Dr Mullan
Further to that point of order, while I do not have the same experience as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Minister has said that the documents are ready to publish and that the only issue is securing Government time to do that on 1 June, the first day back after recess. What advice can the Speaker provide to the House on what other mechanisms are available to ensure that there is time on that day, if the Government are unwilling to allocate it?
Mr Speaker
It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government, thankfully. As I understand it, there is a very large number of documents. What has not been mentioned in this debate is the ability to print such a large number and make them available to the House. I have been advised that publication will be coming as soon as possible—I do not want to speak for the Minister, but rest assured that it will not be left. It is important that we have time to go through those documents. They may be good reading for Whitsun; other Members may be campaigning. I am keeping a very close eye on it, but I understand that there is a big issue with printing such a high number of documents, so it is not as straightforward as has been presented.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, the Minister’s excuse for not guaranteeing that the documents will be available by 18 June is that he would need to secure parliamentary time. This is news to some of us, who have been here a while and understand that the Government effectively control the timetable of Parliament. Indeed, every Thursday when the House is sitting they make a business statement to tell us what is coming up in the next two weeks. Mr Speaker, are you aware of anything in the Standing Orders or Erskine May that would prevent the Government from making a business statement on Thursday, naming a day for publication after the Whitsun recess?
Mr Speaker
We love speculation. I did not quite hear the Minister say that he was worried about the by-election. I know that the Minister will want to ensure that this House is informed as soon as possible. I will look to ensure that that happens. Let us calm down and not speculate too much. Hopefully, Whitsun may bring some generosity to some Members—I think they need a little bit more sunshine.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Nominations closed at 1 pm yesterday for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination was received, and a ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate Bob Blackman on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Well done, Bob.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the House for the confidence it has shown in me. I will endeavour to ensure that Back Benchers get the opportunity to debate the issues they wish to debate in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall as much as possible. I ask you to use your good offices, Mr Speaker, to prevail on the Government Whips, the Opposition Whips and indeed the Liberal Whips to ensure that they nominate their members of the Committee as fast as possible—preferably by tomorrow—so that the Committee can get up and working in the new Session to formulate those debates as soon as the Government allow us time.
Mr Speaker
I can only endorse what the hon. Gentleman says: the sooner we get the Committee working, the sooner we get the debates coming through. Once again, I thank him for the work he has put in already and the experience he has brought to this position.
High Speed 2 Reset
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, I will make a statement on High Speed 2.
Last summer, I stood at this Dispatch Box and promised that we would be straight with the British people not just about the appalling mess we inherited, but about how we would fundamentally reset the HS2 project. Today I am publishing the latest parliamentary report and the Lovegrove report—an assessment of what past failings in the delivery of HS2 mean for the civil service and the wider public sector. This was a Cabinet Secretary investigation commissioned by the Prime Minister last year. I will also take this opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest stage of the HS2 reset.
However, I will first remind the House of the litany of failures we inherited in July 2024. Costs soared by £37 billion under the previous Government alone, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money sunk into phase 2 work for the sections north of Birmingham before they were abruptly cancelled. Huge contracts were handed out without improvements in price, despite the Oakervee review’s recommendation to negotiate a better position.
Instead of signalling the country’s ambition, HS2 became a symbol of this country’s decline. After more than five years of construction and more than £40 billion spent, the country was no closer to having an operational HS2 railway than when construction first began. That is the shocking legacy of the previous Government, and I am afraid it gets worse: I can today confirm that the previous Government spent most of HS2’s budget without laying a single metre of its track. Today is about ending that era of neglect.
New chief executive officer Mark Wild and chair Mike Brown have an almost impossible task on their hands; as Mark put it to me recently, it is like changing the engine of an aeroplane mid-flight. However, the new leadership team at HS2 is turning things around, with six major construction milestones reached earlier than planned in the past year. The organisation is more focused on the things that matter, with 300 back-office roles removed. HS2 Ltd is reviewing its supply chain contracts and the incentives within them to ensure that we finish the job at the lowest reasonable cost, and it is managing those contractors properly now to ensure that supplier performance is up to scratch. Finally, we are seeing improved oversight, with HS2’s leadership now receiving real-time updates, helping to prevent delays and keep construction to time.
However, there is no getting away from the fact that the vast majority of HS2’s previous budget was blown on completing around a third of the entire project. Over the past year, Mark Wild and HS2 Ltd have worked closely with me and my Department to assess the remaining work to be done. They have now provided me with updated costs and timescales, which I can share with the House.
It gives me no pleasure to say that the expected cost of completing HS2 is now between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion, priced in 2025. Two thirds of that increase is down to past misunderstanding of the work required, underestimation and inefficiency—issues within the control of HS2 Ltd, some of its suppliers and previous Governments. The remaining third is linked to inflation, which was not factored into previous cost estimates regularly enough.
On timings, I said last year that I could see no route by which trains could be running by 2033. We now expect the first services to run from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street between May 2036 and October 2039. Where the previous Government could not say when the full HS2 scheme between Euston and Handsacre Junction would be delivered, I now expect it to happen between May 2040 and December 2043. Lessons have been learned from the Stewart review, meaning that HS2’s cost and schedules are now built on more solid foundations, with credible estimates published as ranges to ensure that they better stand the test of time.
Colleagues may feel that they have heard this all before; I understand that scepticism, but it is different this time. HS2 Ltd has now used the same experts and methods behind the successful Crossrail reset. It has priced future work against what we have learned so far, and its homework has been checked by an independent panel of experts.
However, if this seems like an obscene increase in time and costs, it is because it is. If it seems that I am angry, it is because I am. I am angry on behalf of taxpayers and affected communities who have been swindled by the failures of successive Conservative Governments; I am angry on behalf of the thousands of rail and construction workers who are giving their all on this project, and who do not deserve to have their industry tarnished in this way; and I am angry on behalf of passengers who continue to wait for the new services and new opportunities that they deserve.
Despite this sorry situation, we are determined to claw back as much time and money as possible. The Lovegrove report not only corroborates the Stewart review’s damning assessment of the decision-making environment under the previous Government, but talks about the original “gold plating” of HS2 and a focus on
“the highest possible speeds, resulting in bespoke and highly engineered design”.
To translate: it was a massively over-specced folly, with the prospect of the fastest trains anywhere in the world tickling the fancy of Conservative Ministers. If we were a country the size of China, I could understand it—but we are not. Passengers just want reliable trains that turn up when they are supposed to, more services and more seats. They want a common-sense approach that gets them the railway they deserve, not a vanity project with trains so fast that proper testing could not be done until track and railway systems were complete.
I therefore asked Mark Wild to remove the gold-plating and complexity from this project, and I have today accepted his recommendation to align HS2 with speeds already delivered on other European high-speed networks. That means we will still run some of the fastest trains in Europe, with speeds reaching 320 kph; but, crucially, it will lower the cost of testing and make delivering the project less risky. It could realise savings of up to £2.5 billion and save at least a year in delivery time.
I realise that there will be those who will say that this is all too much and that we should just cancel the whole thing. However, I can confirm today that it could cost almost as much to cancel the line as it would to finish it, while delivering none of the benefits, with half-finished structures strewn across the English countryside, a relic of what could have been.
This Labour Government are clear that we will deliver HS2 to completion, because this country can build big things; we just need competent people at the helm to deliver them. Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not mean to use the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak).
Heidi Alexander
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Previous Prime Ministers, in my view, created the world’s most expensive slow-motion car crash, and they barely batted an eyelid. This Government have rolled up our sleeves and done the hard yards, putting the right team in place and being honest about the scale of the challenge.
I understand that this statement today will be met with cynicism and anger, but I say with genuine pride and conviction that I believe we are finally starting to see real delivery. Tunnelling machines are currently working under Londoners’ feet to make HS2 to Euston a reality, and Birmingham’s skyline is changing before our eyes, with new film studios, a sports quarter and housing all being built around the new Curzon Street station. This is national renewal in action. When I last worked with Mark Wild and Mike Brown, we took the delayed and over-budget Crossrail project and turned it into the Elizabeth line, which has now served more than half a billion passengers. We have done it before, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Secretary of State’s comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons that action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2, but the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. It is true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns, with HS2 Ltd failing to maintain tight control of the budget and, frankly, the Department for Transport allowing it to get away with it. It was for that reason that the previous Government appointed Mark Wild OBE as the new chief executive of HS2 Ltd with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee the project. It is apparent from today’s statement that HS2’s leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try to achieve that.
Where there are actions that can reduce costs in the long run, the Opposition will clearly support them, but given concerns about trust in the project, I hope that the Government and HS2 Ltd will set out in detail how they believe these measures will save money and deliver even on this new extended timetable.
In addition, we have to acknowledge the deep-seated infrastructure challenges we face in this country. When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals, but they completely foundered when they came into contact with reality. That is why the Opposition propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red tape, both for business and large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a £100-million bat tunnel—does the Secretary of State?
This issue must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements. If she is angry, as she says she is, those statements must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that prevent cost overruns from occurring in future.
Turning to the specifics, I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector have indicated they want assurances. For example, what do the new project cost figures include? Do they include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is funding for Euston included in the new estimates, and do they include signalling? Do the Government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered under their new timetable? Can the Secretary of State also explain what steps the Government have taken to improve HS2 Ltd’s performance on settling claims with those impacted by construction, since she has highlighted separately that this is an area that requires improvement?
Of course, HS2 does not operate in a vacuum. On the same day that this statement is being made to the House, it has been announced that Government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one of Avanti West Coast’s routes following a Government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that services on the west coast will offer fewer services to passengers?
Ultimately, the Government are right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be rectified, and I am glad that the Government continue to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the shadow Rail Minister for his questions and the tone in which he presented his case. He was not quite as bombastic at the Dispatch Box as he normally is, so I can only assume that perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous Government left this project in. I did not hear one, but I accept the manner in which he made his points. I do question where the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), is today. This is not the first time that he has run scared from an oral statement, and I can only assume that it is because he is embarrassed by his party’s abject record on transport.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous Government. I gently say to him that it is a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for calling the fire brigade. Let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days after he started in his job:
“we are in a completely unacceptable position…we have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed in its mission to control costs.”
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I will answer them directly. He asks how reducing the speed to 320 kph will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, that will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We are making three scope changes in this announcement today: first, reducing the speed; secondly, reducing automatic train operation; and thirdly, ensuring that the signalling we put in on HS2 is aligned with the European train control system that is being rolled out on the trans-Pennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies; we are not taking a punt on world firsts. That is the way to reduce risk in the delivery of this programme and potentially reduce cost as well by up to £2.5 billion.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about bat tunnels. I can tell him that we are building no more bat tunnels on HS2 and that this Government have changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which could mean a different approach to protected species in future. I gently ask him who was overseeing the project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the bat tunnel. It was not this Government; it was his Government, and we have taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas. I can confirm that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston, though we have also gone out to market to attract private investment, given that in the 10-year infrastructure strategy we set out our ambition to deliver the new HS2 station through a public-private partnership. The signalling costs are also included in those cost ranges.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked me what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance on settling claims on land and property. I know that there are very many hon. Members in this House whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in that regard. In the letter I recently wrote to the chair of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast has made recently to its summer timetable. It came to me with a proposition to better optimise its service pattern to meet the demand in the summer months. If we can save money because we are not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible Government I think it is reasonable for us to look at that. On the timetable introduced on Sunday, we have seen significant enhancements, including additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We are seeing the most regular Mid Cornwall Metro service in 60 years. Where his Government failed to invest in Britain’s rail network, this Government are doing exactly the opposite and ensuring that people across the country have the trains they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for being honest with the House and for grasping the nub of the problem. We should not need the publication of the Lovegrove report or today’s statement to know that the cost and timetable overruns on HS2 started long before, because the previous Government wanted spades in the ground before the designs, costs and permits were ready. They then cancelled half the project, so we have the Aston to Old Oak Common project. I am glad that the Government picked that up and are moving ahead on the Euston element as well. We also had the Stewart review and the Oakervee report to tell us what went wrong.
My question is not actually on HS2, because the Rail Minister and the HS2 chief exec are coming to the Committee tomorrow, but on elements that are picked up in the Lovegrove report. What is the Secretary of State doing now to ensure that essential transport projects, starting with the lower Thames crossing and the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, do not go the same way? Will she assure me that she will not put on the high-vis and the hard hat for the photo opportunities until all the detail, permits and cost budgets are in place first?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right that the problems of HS2 were born many years ago. The fact that the civil engineering was delayed for four years is not the product of decisions by this Government or the current management of HS2, but is, as she says, about overly optimistic cost estimates, construction starting before designs were mature, insufficiently controlled delivery, poor contractual arrangements, gold-plating, and constant changes in policy and scope. She is entirely right on that.
My hon. Friend asked me what lessons we are learning about the delivery of future transport infrastructure. On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have worked closely with local leaders to agree scope, priorities and sequencing in advance, so that we know what elements of the overall programme will be delivered first. We have set an overall budget cap for that, and are securing local contributions to ensure that we maximise the economic and regeneration potential of the new transport infrastructure in those places. We are learning the lessons.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her candour on the scale of the HS2 disaster and for the specificity of the range of dates she provided. The Liberal Democrats certainly agree with her intent: we need to make the most of this shambles, and it would be better to do something with what has been built rather than scrap it and hope that doing so resets the past. It is also good news that the Secretary of State has outlined a commitment to proven technology, rather than the innovations of the future—warp drive and whatever else was being talked about before. In particular, the use of the ETCS for signalling is welcome.
We in this country know how to build high-speed lines, because we did it between London St Pancras and the channel tunnel at a reasonable cost. Of course, our French and Spanish allies also know how to do it. The high-speed line from Tours to Bordeaux in France took 15 years, including all the planning and construction. The Secretary of State highlighted Crossrail’s expertise on the expert panel, which is welcome, but is she sure that that expertise is the same as is needed in the more specialised case of high-speed rail construction? Is she confident that her expert panel has the specific high-speed rail construction and commissioning skills that we need, from either the UK or abroad, to turn the situation around?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our overall approach. I am reassured that we have the capability and capacity that is needed in the executive leadership of HS2. That was not the case previously. A new financial director and new commercial director are in place, and I am reassured that the six new appointments to the HS2 board, which the new chair has led over the past year, have the right skills.
On the expert panel, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are the multiple layers of assurance as regards the new plan and who has looked at it. We have real expertise on the third line of defence panel, including Kenny Laird, Andrew Paul, Rachel McLean, Colin Brown, Laurent Troger and Miles Ashley. We have also included a rep from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, and the project representative is involved as well. This is a substantial group of people, who are all putting their shoulder to the wheel to make this project a success.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The consequences of the Conservative party’s failure to manage this project effectively are nowhere felt more deeply than in Crewe and Nantwich, where jobs and regeneration benefits have been lost and Cheshire East council has £11 million in sunk costs. I welcome the shift in emphasis from speed to capacity, but the network between Birmingham and Crewe is at capacity now, let alone in 10 or 20 years’ time. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking more urgently at how we address capacity constraints between Birmingham and Crewe? Will her Department engage with Cheshire East council on its plans to mitigate its losses as a result of the decision to cancel the line in the midlands?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a great advocate for his constituents, and I totally agree that the focus now, as it should have been all along, is on delivering more seats, and more trains that run on time. We will conduct a further feasibility study on connectivity north of Birmingham. That will consider all options and the impact of each option on economic growth, housing, capacity on the rail network, journey times and resilience, as well as looking at how we might design, consent and fund any future specified scheme. I am willing to continue a dialogue with him about those issues.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In her statement, the Secretary of State said that she was angry, and I can assure her that I have been consistently angry about this unaffordable, unwanted railway ever since it was green lit—angry on behalf of my constituents, who have to live in hellish conditions while it is constructed. Landowners are still waiting for payment for land taken, and our roads are churned up by construction traffic, and still unfixed. There is still not the money to deliver mitigation projects that were promised a decade ago. I heard nothing about any of those challenges in her statement.
May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about noise modelling? Modelling has found that in Wendover—where trains were already going to come through at 320 kph—hundreds of homes will face noise that is above the permitted decibel limit set down by the World Health Organisation. Will she commit to the Government fully remodelling the noise impacts on real people—certainly in Buckinghamshire—of the new speed that she has set for HS2, and come back to the House with a commitment that the noise level will not be above the level set out in WHO guidance?
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s Buckinghamshire constituents will have experienced considerable disruption to their lives as a result of this construction project, and I know that those who live nearest to infrastructure schemes tend to take more of the pain before the gain from the new service is delivered. I will look into the matter of the noise impacts of a lower-speed railway. My instinct is that the noise is likely to be less, but if what I learn is any different from that, I will write to him and let him know.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will not be surprised to see me rise yet again to raise issues with HS2. She is right to be angry about the scale of the failings laid out in the reports published today. She is angry, and I am angry, but our anger pales into insignificance when compared to the anger of my constituents, who have had to fight for 17 years as a result of the failures of HS2 Ltd. We heard today in the announcement that we potentially face another 13 years before we even carry on with the work north of Curzon Street to connect to Handsacre junction—and all of that, by the way, is north of Birmingham.
The community is furious. My constituents are the most, or certainly some of the most, impacted by HS2. Just last month, the A38 going past Lichfield was closed, forcing 70,000 vehicles a day on to roads in the city. My constituents are fed up. Can the Secretary of State give some reassurance that the ongoing works at Streethay—that is one of only two places north of Curzon Street where work is continuing—will be completed on time, by October? What mitigations will the Department put in place for communities like mine, who are significantly impacted? By the sounds of it, it could be a third of a century from the start of this process before the trains actually start travelling through our part of the world.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a fearsome advocate for his constituents on this issue, and I know that he is meeting the Rail Minister later today to talk about the impact on his constituency.
I have heard nothing to suggest that the works at Streethay will not be delivered on time. If there is any new information that I have not been apprised of, I will come back to my hon. Friend and let him know. It is important that we continue with the works north of Birmingham up to Handsacre junction, because that is how HS2 will connect to the wider rail network. In the short term, this project will improve connections between London and Birmingham; in the longer term, this is about improving the frequency, capacity and reliability of connections to the north-west, and beyond to Scotland. I appreciate his constituents’ patience with this project, because it is in the national interest.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I have to say, I share a good deal of the Secretary of State’s frustration, not least because I was one of those who argued at the time that if the speed of the railway was reduced to roughly what she is proposing, it would open up a number of alternative route options, avoiding the open countryside that the line now cuts across.
Can I counter-intuitively ask her to be a little more ambitious, despite everything she has said about high-speed rail? She will recognise that the strategic benefits of high-speed rail, as they were put to this House originally, were about a nationwide network, not simply a line between London and Birmingham. Can she confirm that this Government—and future Governments, hopefully—will seek to expand that network, so that high-speed rail focuses not on going faster, but on going further?
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very interesting point. One of the things that I am most keen to do is ensure that the huge investment that we are putting into HS2 between London and Birmingham results in an improved passenger experience for people across the rest of the country more broadly. That is one of the reasons why, when we made the announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail earlier this year, we also announced a feasibility study on a new connection between Birmingham and Manchester. While it is slightly too soon to get into the specifics of what that would look like, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is thinking and planning under way in the Department on ensuring that this investment unlocks the maximum benefit across the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Given the huge sums that the Secretary of State is talking about, what I want to raise might appear relatively trivial, but for my community it is quite significant. We have a charity called Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which used a lake where local young people in particular could learn to sail and canoe. That lake was taken over by HS2 as part of the route and has not been available for six years. An alternative was not identified until very recently—again, that is part of the decision making on HS2. All the charity’s reserves have now gone, and staff are being laid off. Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting for me with her officials and HS2, so that I can talk through the opportunities that there might be to assist the charity in continuing to provide an excellent service to our community?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to ask relevant officers from HS2 to meet my right hon. Friend and look at options for the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre. When I look at the scale of some of the structures being built on the outskirts of London—the 2.1-mile-long Colne valley viaduct, for example—it is evident what a huge and ambitious construction project this is. I am sorry that there have been some impacts on communities and community groups, and I would be happy to look at alternatives.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
My constituents did not want HS2, and they have been putting up with the disruption of construction for years. Some of them warned that this would be a colossal waste of money, and they were right. This railway is costing nearly a billion pounds a mile. Every pound of cost overrun is a pound not spent on the local infrastructure that my constituents actually use and need. Given the Department’s complete failure to date to hold HS2 Ltd to account, what commitment can the Secretary of State give that we will not be here again in a few years’ time, talking about HS2 overspend?
Heidi Alexander
We have taken a different approach this time; our estimates are informed by the work done over the last five years. I am committed to ensuring that the scope remains the same, and that we do not have the chopping and changing that characterised the previous Government’s approach to this project.
Although I recognise that there will be some impacts in the hon. Lady’s constituency, this is a great engineering feat that we are involved in delivering. It will be the first new terminus station that this country has built in 125 years, and there will be new stations at Birmingham Interchange, Old Oak Common and Euston. Although I am always happy to talk to her about the local impacts, HS2 can provide very significant improvements to the rail network, and the Government are entirely right to be committed to completing this project.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My Chesterfield constituents at one time hoped that they might be beneficiaries of HS2. That feels like many years ago. I share the Secretary of State’s fury about the incompetence that has got us to this stage. We would not have supported a programme like this, had we known that the line would go only to Birmingham. The line should be going to Manchester and Leeds, at the very least; any serious country that had high-speed rail would agree.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has laid out how she will get a grip on this, but I would like to add to what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said: once she has demonstrated that this Government have got a grip of the costs and the timescales, can we be more ambitious and reopen discussions about extending the line beyond Birmingham, and up to Manchester and Leeds?
Heidi Alexander
As I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), in our announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail a couple of months ago, we committed to doing a feasibility study on what a future link between Birmingham and Manchester might look like. We have not taken any decisions on the route, the specification, or the speed that the new line would facilitate. I recognise that there are significant capacity constraints north of Birmingham, but as we set up Great British Railways and renationalise our railways, I am keen to ensure that HS2 becomes the spine of the network and unlocks capacity, frequency and reliability improvements elsewhere in the country.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
If the Secretary of State decides to scrap HS2 in a year’s time, or in a few months’ time, she will have my full support. What assurances can she offer on providing better services to our residents, on unpaid land claims and on the destruction of roads? In Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, we have seen nothing from HS2 but a negative impact.
Heidi Alexander
I am keen that HS2 should always engage with the community and local businesses with care, respect and rigour. If that has not been the hon. Lady’s experience locally, I know that I and other Ministers will be only too happy to take that issue away. I am aware that she has an Adjournment debate on the matter later today.
I have to disagree with the hon. Lady on the idea that we should cancel the project. In his letter to my Department’s permanent secretary, the chief executive of HS2 made it very clear that cancelling this project and doing the necessary remediation could cost almost as much as completing the line. We would have half-completed structures strewn across the English countryside, and I am sure that her constituents would not wish to see that. That is why it is right to reset this project and to complete HS2, as I have set out today.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
This shocking overspend is equivalent to more than £1,000 per household in the United Kingdom. Families in my constituency and across Britain work very hard to earn money to pay the bills and to try to have a reasonable standard of living. HS2 was meant to bring considerable benefits to the north of England and to Scotland; more reliable and quicker services to Glasgow and the west and central belt of Scotland; more passenger capacity and opportunities for people in the north of Scotland; economic growth; and the reduction of emissions by displacing flights. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss what the long-term plan is to improve rail services between Scotland, the north of England and the rest of our family of nations, so that we have appropriate and reduced journey times, passenger capacity at an appropriate level and services becoming more reliable?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right. This is shocking, and the truth of the matter is that this Government are picking up the bill for the mess created by the previous Government. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss how we can improve the capacity, frequency and reliability of services between England and his constituents in Glasgow, and I look forward to discussing that with him in more detail soon.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I can sense the Secretary of State’s anger at the scale, width and depth of the failures in this project, but it was initiated in 2009, when Labour was in power. I am looking at the collective failure on both sides of the House. Labour Members are so quick to point out the ferries problem in Scotland, but it pales into insignificance before the scale of this incompetence.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme yesterday that the most important thing is that HS2 will create a high-speed link between London and the north-west, and eventually to Scotland. Scottish taxpayers are paying for this folly. The Secretary of State can say the rest of the project will come in 2043, but will she explain when the project will extend to Scotland, as was suggested yesterday? How much more will we in Scotland be expected to pay? How many years after 2043 will it be delivered?
Heidi Alexander
I have been clear and remain clear that we will not extend HS2 north of the west midlands. When I made the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement a couple of months ago, I announced that we will do a feasibility study about the longer term, after the delivery of HS2 to Birmingham and the delivery of east-west connectivity across the north of England through Northern Powerhouse Rail, and about how we can look to invest in improving the infrastructure between Birmingham and Manchester. That work will start this summer, and I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the clarity and determination to deliver on HS2. Rail investment is infrastructure investment, which drives growth, but may I urge the Secretary of State to look at driving growth between towns as well as between cities, for example by bringing lines such as the Calder Valley line into the 21st century?
Heidi Alexander
That approach certainly lies behind much of the work that we have done in our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. My hon. Friend will be aware that at the spending review we announced more than £15 billion for mayors in our city regions to improve connectivity between towns and cities, which are major centres of employment. His aspirations for his area and for his constituents align very closely with ours.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
My communities in Balsall Common and Berkswell have taken huge amounts of pain since long before I was first elected in 2019. That pain has been exacerbated by the conduct of HS2 and its subcontractors towards communities. I have met Mark Wild, who knows my concerns about that. I take heart from the level of engagement he has given, and I hope that it continues.
One of the key issues affecting my communities is the land being taken by HS2 that is yet to be released, including around Arden Cross—a project worth hundreds of millions of pounds that includes a health campus and is in conjunction with the local mayor, local councils and the University of Warwick. I am told that it might take four years, but I think it could be done in two years. Will the Secretary of State take a look at this issue?
Heidi Alexander
I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that I am already looking at this matter and have discussed it with HS2’s leadership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has certainly raised it with me as well. Where possible, I am keen to release land to enable development and regeneration and to unlock new homes and workspaces. If that can take place without compromising the delivery of HS2, I am keen that it should happen. A piece of work is under way within HS2 to look at the specific issues relating to Arden Cross.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I welcome the honesty and clarity, after years of sitting opposite the Conservatives and not knowing whether HS2 was happening at all, or where it would start and stop—it was going to be a Y-shape in the beginning. This is good news, in a way. I echo the praise for Mark Wild, who has met with my residents, and for Lord Hendy in the other place. However, for my residents in Old Oak Common—this fabled area that was once going to be the terminus—the ever-lengthening timeline is disappointing. Will the Secretary of State consider opening the Elizabeth line station a bit earlier? Some new builds, such as Oaklands Rise, were promised that there would be a brand-new station in 2026, so surely there should be something in it for them before 2039.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that development around Old Oak Common is proceeding in advance of the completion of the rail network. I am pleased that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation has gone out to find a development partner to build 8,000 new homes in the area, with potentially 1,000 of them starting in this Parliament. We need to ensure that there is adequate public transport provision for any homes and development that happen to provide for new residents. I will take away her specific point about the Elizabeth line; I am not entirely sure of its feasibility, but I will come back to her with more detail.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Many farmers, small businesses and residents have had access to their properties disrupted by the construction of HS2. The Wilcoxes in my constituency have been battling for more than five years to get a simple deed of easement to guarantee access to their property. As a former property lawyer, I know that is a very simple document that should have been agreed; without it, properties become unmortgageable and unsellable. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps she is taking to ensure that these deeds of easement are entered into without further delay?
Heidi Alexander
I am sorry to hear of the situation that the hon. Lady describes. If she wants to write to me about that specific case, I will raise it with the leadership of HS2 for her.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I thank the Secretary of State for her honesty in coming to the House with this update. Wales is, of course, footing the bill for HS2, a project based entirely in England now costing up to £103 billion. While Scotland and Northern Ireland have their fair share of Barnett consequentials, Wales has nothing. People in Wales have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens—they recently elected a Senedd with a majority of Members within it committed to ending this injustice. Will the Secretary of State respect the wishes of the people of Wales and be open to talks with the Welsh Government on reclassifying HS2 so that Wales no longer pays for it, or at least gets its fair share of the Barnett consequentials?
Heidi Alexander
It is not true to say that Wales is getting nothing. At the spending review last year we announced £445 million in direct funding to modernise and upgrade Welsh rail, and only a couple of months ago, in February, the UK Government, with the former Welsh Government, announced a long-term pipeline of rail enhancements that could total up to £14 billion. I would be happy to discuss rail enhancements with the new leadership of the Senedd, and I look forward to having a constructive working relationship with the First Minister and his Cabinet.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on rail for the last nine or 10 years, I have seen a procession of Ministers and officials come along and give reassurances such as those we have heard from the Secretary of State today. It is hard to believe that her successors will not come to the House in the distant future to talk about further resets of the project. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the spending on HS2 will not affect the announcement she made a few weeks ago about improving other rail services in the north? I know that she would be disappointed if I did not also mention the campaign by me and the Father of the House to improve services to northern Lincolnshire.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman would expect me to have comprehensive discussions with my colleagues in the Treasury before announcing rail enhancements, and that is what we have done over the past couple of months, whether about Northern Powerhouse Rail—we set out those really ambitious plans at the start of the year—or indeed the anticipated profile of expenditure required over the next 10 years. I assure him that nothing I have announced today changes what I announced in January on Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Before being elected to this place, I was a member of the independent panel for the community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund for HS2, which was responsible for disbursing funding to communities disrupted by the building of a whacking great railway line. Communities rightly and understandably get grumpy when large-scale infrastructure projects affect their communities but there is no obvious benefit to them—a railway line goes through, but there is no station for them to benefit from. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that she is looking at what can be learned positively from what has happened with HS2, and in particular at how we can strengthen and make clearer the link between community benefit and large-scale infrastructure projects when the immediate benefit is not obvious to those communities?
Heidi Alexander
One of the failings of HS2 has been to focus on the speed of the line and the four stations, when actually one of its major benefits is to free up capacity on the existing west coast main line between London and Birmingham to enable better regional services and to enable more freight to transfer from lorries on the road to the rail network. For too long the project has been about speed and not about seats and reliability. Through this reset, we are changing that. As I said earlier, we are determined to ensure that this will be the spine of the Great British Rail network that we will deliver as we renationalise the railways.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. It is outrageous to hear about the waste, with money thrown away by successive Conservative Governments. Even now, the eye-watering level of money required to reset HS2 grates on people up in Yorkshire and the north, where the northern legs were cancelled. We also get comparatively less funding per head for transport than counterparts in the south. Does she agree that the small amount of money to be saved from reducing the scope and speed would be better spent on schemes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail and reinstating the York area capacity scheme, estimated at only around £150 million, which would unlock the bottleneck at York station and deliver benefit across the north?
Heidi Alexander
I cannot spend the money twice. I have taken the decision to reduce the speed of HS2 to 320 kph, which we believe could save up to £2.5 billion and result in delivery a year earlier. Given how long people have been waiting for this new railway, I think that is the responsible thing to do so that people can get on these trains sooner than they otherwise would. I understand that the hon. Member is a fearsome advocate for those rail improvements for his constituency, and I am sure that we will talk about them more at the next Transport questions.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The truth of the matter is that despite spending over £103 billion of taxpayers’ money, my son has laid more rail track from his Lego set than the previous Government did under the HS2 programme. But seriously, whistleblowers have alleged that costs were deliberately hidden from Parliament, documents were shredded and staff who spoke out were sacked. Before another penny is spent by the British taxpayer, how will the Secretary of State ensure that in the future there are accountable binding mechanisms to stop contractors and executives from misleading the House again?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Member is right to raise those important issues. We will always treat any whistleblowing complaints with the utmost seriousness. When it comes to fraud, I reassure him that, as part of the reset, HS2 is strengthening its counter-fraud capability and its internal controls and processes. When spending this amount of taxpayers money, it should be treated it as if it were our own, with the care and attention that we would apply to our own money. We are therefore taking all necessary steps to ensure that we strengthen the controls within the organisation to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for reeling off a list of depressing dates in the far future, leading all but the youngest of us to contemplate our mortality. What is also depressing is the serious lack of investment in rail infrastructure in the north-west north of Manchester; it is an ongoing issue. I get that HS2 has sucked up money, energy and attention, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State might seek to put that right by being creative with use of the existing main line. For instance, will she work with Network Rail, me and Westmorland and Furness council to advance the cause for reopening stations such as Shap and Tebay, ensuring massively improved public transport links for rural north Westmorland?
Heidi Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the case for reopening Shap and Tebay, I would gladly consider that. We are reopening some rail stations across the north of England. The Northumberland line, which I visited at the start of last year, has been an enormous success, with new stations at places like Ashington and Blyth. We are investing in rail in the north of England—that was demonstrated by our commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail—but I am happy to look at the specifics of the scheme that he suggests.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I thank the Minister for delivering this really important update in the House, rather than at party conference as the previous Tory Prime Minister did. What has really struck me about this statement is that the cost of HS2 is now measured in the hundreds of billions, but what we are spending on active travel is measured in the hundreds of millions. I think the Government previously committed only £600 million until 2030 on active travel. Projects such as the Thame to Haddenham greenway would deliver an enormous benefit to my constituents. Will she reflect on the differential between how much is being spent on active travel and this project?
Heidi Alexander
I will gently correct the hon. Member. When it comes to HS2, we may be talking about tens of billions, but we are not talking about hundreds of billions. He makes a fair point about the importance of investment in walking and cycling. The Government are due to launch the third iteration of the cycling and walking strategy, and we are backing that with £600 million-worth of investment. We realise the benefits that active travel—people walking and cycling more, and using public transport —can have not just for people’s own health, but for the environment and the economy. It is something that the local transport Minister and I care deeply about and will ensure that we make progress on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for her positivity and for trying to make matters better. She talked about maximising international standards and reshaping governance to find efficiencies, yet my constituents in Northern Ireland are facing critical infrastructure deficits of their own. If the fundamental reset is truly about driving economic growth and maximising value across the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State please, very genuinely, explicitly outline how the billions clawed back from streamlining HS2 will be used to support Union connectivity and in particular air passenger duty, which hampers connectivity within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Heidi Alexander
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on levering in a question on air passenger duty into a statement on HS2.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My hon. Friend is right; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never misses an opportunity. I am very concerned about ensuring that connectivity between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland remains and that it is reliable and affordable for people. I will be sure to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about what more can be done—aside from air passenger duty, which is a matter for the Treasury. If there is anything that my Department can do to improve the situation for his constituents, I will be only too happy to talk to him.
Debate on the Address
Energy Security
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (i) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (i), at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech commits to banning the issuance of licences to explore new oil and gas fields; recognise that this proposal will have a particularly negative impact on Aberdeen, the North East of Scotland and the wider UK economy; believe instead the Government must approve the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field, which would boost UK energy security; urge the Government to drop its opposition to new oil and gas licences and instead legislate for a presumption in favour of approving new licences, and permit the exporting of oil and gas technology overseas; further regret the cancellation of a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa; and further urge the Government to abolish the ‘carbon tax’ regime to avoid more refinery closures, protect the domestic supply of refined products, and reduce the tax burden on UK industry.”
This may be our last meeting across the Dispatch Box, because the Secretary of State is once again on manoeuvres. Considering that he is gunning for a promotion, let us review his record, shall we? He promised in the election that he would cut everybody’s energy bills by £300. What has he delivered? Energy bills are up by £200 thanks to his plans. He said that he would protect pensioners, but weeks into office he axed the winter fuel payment—a policy that many Labour MPs have cited as their worst political decision in power.
The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a mind-blowing reduction in bills. Yet, two years in, it has not taken a penny off household bills, but has given a six-figure salary to one of his mates. Now, we learn that Great British Energy has been putting solar panels, made by Chinese slave labour, on British primary schools—something that the Secretary of State promised to this House that he would not do. What is next? Oh, that’s right: the Secretary of State said that he could control the price of wind. However, his botched wind auction signed us up to the highest prices in a decade—way more than the cost of electricity that he inherited.
Promise after broken promise, bills up, pensioners betrayed, six-figure salaries for his mates and eye-watering contracts for wind developers—now, to top it all off, a so-called energy independence Bill that would shut down the North sea, in the greatest act of industrial self-harm in a generation. If that is what gets someone a promotion in the Labour party, Lord help us all.
Let us turn to the so-called energy independence Bill. For true energy independence, we need our own oil and gas, but the Bill enforces the wilful destruction of the North sea. We need our own petrol, diesel and jet fuel, but the Bill does nothing to save our refineries, which are being taxed into oblivion. We need an electricity system that keeps the lights on for British households and industry, but his plan will leave us at the mercy of foreign imports. That is not independence; it doesn’t even come close. It is an energy dependence Bill that would leave us weaker, poorer and more reliant on foreign regimes.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State said that for energy independence we need our own oil and gas, rather than investing in renewables. She will know that her Government paid £44 billion to subsidise our energy during the time of the Ukraine price spike. Will she tell us by how much our bills were reduced as a result of having our own oil and gas when the Ukraine crisis happened?
Claire Coutinho
First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that bills came down £500 under me; they have gone up by £200 because of the Secretary of State’s plans. Secondly, let me tell him another hard truth. He should listen to this; he might learn something. Cutting off production in the North sea does not mean that we use any less oil and gas. Production is not linked to consumption. All it means is that we will import more of that gas from abroad. That is weaker and it makes us more reliant on imports.
Claire Coutinho
He used up his chance; he should have asked a better question.
There are some parts of this work that I welcome. The Fingleton review is impressive. I thank those involved and, as I have made clear before, we will support that work going forward. Nuclear is the only form of energy that can provide round-the-clock, totally clean power, and I will always support policies that make it as easy as possible to build.
There is a catch, however. The Secretary of State says he wants to ease nuclear regulations while, at the very same time, he has cancelled the project that they would be used on. By cancelling the third large-scale nuclear power station that I signed off, he has killed the nuclear pipeline. He is repeating his own mistakes. We are set to have yet another Labour Government who fail to start a single new large-scale nuclear power plant, and now we hear that Natural England is adding yet more delays to Hinkley Point C for little environmental gain. Is he fighting that? No. He is defending the status quo.
By the end of this Parliament we will still be waiting for a decision as to whether small modular reactors will go ahead, by 2030 there will be less nuclear online than there is now, and in 2035, which is 10 years away, the Government still will not have started any new large-scale nuclear power plants in this country. That is the same old stop-start approach that killed the industry to begin with. If that is what the Secretary of State calls being ambitious for nuclear, he needs to give his head a wobble.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituency has the Heysham 1 and Heysham 2 power plants. The reason why nuclear power will possibly go down is because plants are coming to the end of their lives and the right hon. Lady’s Government did nothing about that for 14 years. Why did she not deliver when she was in government?
Claire Coutinho
Let me tell the hon. Lady. Under the last Labour Government, which the Energy Secretary was part of—[Interruption.] Let me explain. Not a single new nuclear power plant was started. When we came into power in 2015 and got control of the energy brief, there was one nuclear welder left in the country. It is the stop-start approach that kills the nuclear industry. Here is the problem: the Government have killed the pipeline again. These are the same old mistakes, and I am raising them because we are getting into the same trouble again—[Interruption.] The Ministers say that those were not mistakes and that it was not a mistake not to start a single new nuclear power plant. That is what they think, on the record.
On to the North Sea. Andy Burnham, who is hoping to be Labour leader, talked yesterday about reindustrialisation. Meanwhile, today the Secretary of State is asking his Back Benchers to vote to shut down the North sea. This is the single greatest act of industrial self-harm we have seen in a generation. Only a complete wacko would respond to a supply shortage by shutting down their own oil and gas industry. We are in the absurd position of the Labour Chancellor thanking Canada and Norway for increasing their oil and gas production while her own Government are shutting down British production. And why? It is so we can be more reliant on higher-emission gas from Qatar or the US and so we can send billions of pounds to Norway to import gas from the very same basin that we could be drilling ourselves. The Government are calling this energy independence. Have they lost their mind?
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady talks of absurd positions. I did a little research before the debate today. I went back to 21 May 2024, just before the last general election, and in this House, in her capacity as Secretary of State, she said that she believed in net zero. She said:
“We are on track to reach net zero by 2050, and we will do so in a way that brings the public with us.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 724.]
Her position now is that she does not believe in net zero, and does not believe that it is desirable or achievable. Is that not absurd?
Claire Coutinho
People change their minds when they look at facts—[Interruption.] I am not hiding from this. I think the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the overall record of the things I said in government. The first thing I said when I went into position was that we cannot impoverish ourselves in the name of net zero. I started a true costing of renewables in the Department, because we did not have a proper costing of energy. Who cancelled that work? It was the Secretary of State. I backed the North sea; I signed off Rosebank; I legislated to protect those North sea licences. Who is turning all of that around? The Secretary of State. We all know the real reason that he is doing it. He is shutting down British oil and gas to show climate leadership. He put that in the King’s Speech. Let us be crystal clear, though. What he is saying is that he is willing to turn his back on British industry, even though we will not need any less energy. We will rely on higher-emission imports from abroad because he cares more about the climate bureaucrats than about the jobs of British workers. That is what climate leadership means to him.
Where exactly is this meant to be leading us—bankruptcy? Where does it end—cheering as the lights go out as the last factory in Britain closes? That is what the Secretary of State’s North sea and carbon tax policies are doing. They are simply offshoring British emissions to the coal-powered refineries of India, the diesel tankers bringing us gas from the US and Qatar, and the factories in Trinidad from where we are now getting our ammonia. That does not help the climate and it does not help British workers.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton need stable and affordable energy to grow and invest, so does my right hon. Friend agree that our “get Britain drilling” Bill is vital not just for energy security but for our future economic security?
Claire Coutinho
The North sea is a vital part of our industry. It provides us not only with the gas that we need for energy security but with the feedstock that feeds into our chemicals and plastics industries. There is a whole supply chain of other industries that rely on the North sea and on our having a successful industrial base. If we lose just one of those foundational industries, it is like dominoes: the rest will go. If we keep offshoring British emissions, it will not help the climate and it will not help British workers. Do the Government understand how bad it looks when they make speeches patting themselves on the back here in Westminster while hard-working Brits out there lose their jobs so that we can import more goods with higher emissions from abroad? That is why the vote on the North sea today should be a litmus test for them. Do they reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation or not?
Claire Coutinho
I will just make a bit of progress.
Now let us talk about electricity. A key part of the Secretary of State’s plan is to make us more reliant on electricity imports. He does not like to talk about it, but at the height of winter, when we need it most, we will be importing twice as much electricity by 2030 as we did when this Government came into office. What does that mean? It means relying on the goodwill of France and Norway to keep the lights on in Britain. I remind the House that we are now in a situation where France is on the edge of a debt crisis, with the National Rally topping the polls. Does the House really think it prudent to hand over the keys to our electricity security to Marine Le Pen? Let us be honest, that is the Secretary of State’s plan. Whichever way we look at it, this is not an energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill that makes Britain beholden to Marine Le Pen for our electricity, to Xi Jinping for our solar panels and to Donald Trump for our gas. The Government’s plan is for energy scarcity, but what we need is energy abundance. That is why our plan would be to double down on nuclear, to axe the carbon tax to save British industry, to get Britain drilling and to make electricity cheap.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady paints a picture of the stark consequences of the Labour party’s policy for a total proscription on new oil and gas licences. Can she advise us what the future will look like for the United Kingdom without access to oil and gas from the North sea basin?
Claire Coutinho
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s party has changed position on this recently, and I welcome that change. As I have said, the North sea is a foundational industry. It is not just about the oil and gas it provides. It is not just about the tax revenues. It is not just about the jobs that exist within that industry. It is about all those other industries it supports, including the chemicals and plastics industries. By the way, even the renewables industry supports more drilling in the North sea, because it needs the specialist rigs, the undersea technologies and the exact same workers. There are so many industries and wider economies that the Government are killing just because of the ideological bent of this Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho
I will make a bit more progress.
Here is the fundamental bind that the Labour party is in. It does not matter who its next leader is—they will all fail. Its supposedly popular leadership contenders will become unpopular very quickly when they cannot keep their promises. It happened to us in government. It is happening to Labour now. It is happening to Reform at council level. It will happen to whoever is in government next unless they face up to the trade-offs that get us better growth.
Growth is the antidote to so many of our problems, but to deliver it, we need two things: cheap, abundant energy and economic freedom. By shutting down the North sea, cancelling nuclear projects and keeping a distorted electricity market in place, the Government are making energy scarce and expensive. Being part of the EU does not solve that problem. The EU leaders themselves rail against their own energy policy. Reindustrialisation is just a meaningless slogan unless we back the North sea, axe the carbon taxes that are killing British industry and cut the cost of energy. If none of Labour’s contenders has the courage to say anything about these issues, nothing will change.
Alongside cheap, abundant energy, the most important ingredient for growth is economic freedom, but the Labour party openly stands for more state control, more tax and spend, more red tape on employing people, more expensive energy, less AI, fewer profits and more subsidies. It has been on this path for two years now, and what do we have to show for it? Higher inflation, weaker growth and soaring unemployment. Why would anyone want more of this? Families are working harder and harder and getting less and less at the end of the month. And if people want full-fat socialism, why would they choose Labour when they have the boob whisperer offering them bigger and better?
Our whole system is flooded with caution. Nobody is incentivised to take any risks.
That is what is making us poorer. The truth is that the personalities in the Labour leadership race do not matter. Unless we get cheap, abundant energy, remove the legal straitjackets and onerous taxes, and fix the broken regulators and the sluggish machine of government to set the economy free, nothing is going to change.
If Labour Members think that Andy Burnham has the answers, let me tell them this. Andy is like the fun uncle who sits on the sidelines saying whatever he wants without anybody holding him accountable: “Let’s have ice cream for dinner! Let’s go to the zoo next week! Let’s nationalise everything! Who cares about the bond markets? Let’s rejoin the EU!” He has said whatever he liked because he has never had to pick up the bill. Now that he is actually looking at being in charge, he is having to go back on all those promises. Members should ask him this: how is he going to fund his nationalisation plans? He wants to stick to the fiscal rules. Is he really saying that he is going back to taxpayers, who already face the highest tax burden in history? When he talks about reindustrialisation, they should ask him whether he supports the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the oil and gas industry—the biggest act of industrial self-harm committed in generations. If Andy Burnham wants more powers at a local level, amen to that—I could not agree more—but Labour Members should ask him how he can argue for economic freedom in one breath, while in another dictating to people what tumble dryers or cars they have to buy.
If Labour Members really cared about growth and reindustrialisation, they would axe carbon taxes, get Britain drilling, double down on nuclear and make electricity cheap. In short, they would put the national interest ahead of the Secretary of State’s ideology and vote with us tonight.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
It is a privilege to speak in support of this Gracious Speech. This debate takes place in the shadow of the second fossil fuel shock in four years. Families and businesses across the country are deeply concerned about the impact of the Iran war on the cost of living—a war which this country did not start and this Government chose not to join, but which is having significant effects here at home, just like when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and energy bills rocketed, and the British people and firms paid the price.
The argument at the heart of this Gracious Speech is that there is one overriding lesson of these two crises: while we remain exposed to the fossil fuel rollercoaster, we are deeply vulnerable as a country. Our sovereignty, our security and the British people’s living standards are undermined by this dependence and exposure, for a simple reason: we do not control the price of oil and gas, which is set on international markets. It is different from what it was like in the 1970s when we had fossil fuel shocks. There is an answer staring us in the face: energy independence through clean home-grown power that we control—clean home-grown energy that comes from our own wind, sun and nuclear resources that cannot be disrupted by foreign wars, that cannot be controlled by the whims of petrostates and dictators, and that means that our national security and energy security cannot be held hostage.
One commentator put it incredibly well in 2023, after Russia invaded Ukraine:
“Moving to home-based, clean power mitigates risks to bill payers, now and in the future”,
protecting consumers from
“volatility in international fossil fuel markets.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 53-54WS.]
I agree with that commentator—it was the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), the shadow Energy Secretary, in Hansard on 16 November 2023. I agree with her. The problem is that she no longer agrees with herself. Where the evidence says we need more renewables, not less, she opposes them. Where the evidence says we should electrify as much as we can, she says we should abandon support for people to get heat pumps. Where the evidence says electric vehicles can protect consumers, she opposes action for their take-up—not because the facts have changed, not because the evidence has changed, but because she has jumped on the anti-clean energy, anti-net zero bandwagon. I am very happy to give way to her, so that she can tell the House whether she agrees with herself.
Claire Coutinho
I will very happily ask the Secretary of State the question—[Interruption.] Well, he said he would happily give way; he does not look so happy now. In government, I started work on the true costing of renewables, because the Department does not have an accurate costing of energy—it does not have an accurate costing of clean power 2030. Why has he not published one?
Ed Miliband
It was not worth giving way after all. The shadow Secretary of State cannot answer the question.
Ed Miliband
I will not give way. [Interruption.] I will later on.
What a sorry state of affairs: the shadow Secretary of State cannot even agree with herself. There was a gaping contradiction at the heart of the shadow Secretary of State’s speech just now. For all the verbiage—for everything she said—she has no answer to the crisis before us, because even she cannot seriously believe what she is putting forward. The idea that new exploration licences for oil and gas will solve our energy security challenges is obviously nonsense. According to the National Energy System Operator, new licences will make no material difference to capacity and therefore security of supply. Nor will new drilling take a single penny off bills. Members should not take my word for it. When asked if new oil and gas would cut bills, the shadow Secretary of State said new licences
“wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down, that’s not what we’re saying.”
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Miliband
I will not give way for a minute.
The shadow Secretary of State comes to the House with a plan which will not take a penny off bills, which will not give us energy security and which rejects the things she used to believe.
Ed Miliband
I am not going to give way again.
This is the difference with Labour: we are learning the lessons of the fossil fuel crises we face, and we are acting.
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is accused of being messianic in his approach to proscribing new oil and gas licences in the North sea. If it can be demonstrated that UK consumption of oil and gas is not falling at a rate that is equal to, or faster than, the rate of production in the United Kingdom, will he release his screeching U-turn on new oil and gas licences in the North sea?
Ed Miliband
The SNP has had more positions on this than the Kama Sutra, so it is genuinely hard to keep up. We have a very simple position: we want to keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. One of the things that the energy independence Bill will do is introduce transitional energy certificates—so-called tiebacks—which is what industry has called for. We are not in favour of a “turning off the taps” position, but I will be honest with the House: nor are we in favour of a “drilling every last drop” position.
Ed Miliband
Because if we did that, we would end up in climate disaster. That is the truth.
Ed Miliband
I am not going to give way.
Don’t take my word for it. This is what the Energy Transitions Commission, which includes energy companies, says:
“Any national strategy which assumes that all fossil fuel reserves must be exploited is incompatible with limiting global warming to safe levels”.
The truth is that new licences are totally marginal to the North sea.
Ed Miliband
I am going to make some progress, and then I will give way.
For nearly two years, we have been moving at speed on our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. We came to office amid a legacy of the irrational onshore wind ban; the fiasco of the allocation round 5 auction, with no offshore wind secured; and years of dither and delay on nuclear—the shadow Secretary of State amused me on nuclear, and I will come to that in a second. The Conservative Government left us exposed through 14 years of neglect, and we are clearing up their mess.
In less than two years—opposed every step of the way by the Conservative party—we have secured enough clean energy for the equivalent of 23 million homes through two record-breaking renewables auctions, but the lesson of these two fossil fuel crises is that we need to go further and faster.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Ed Miliband
I will make a bit more progress.
That is why we have already brought forward our next renewables auction and taken steps to fast-track the roll-out of renewables on public land. But renewables are only part of the story, and I want to come to nuclear, because this is going to be fun. Those drafting the Opposition amendment obviously have a real sense of humour. Here is the truth about their record. They promised a final investment decision on Sizewell C in the last Parliament and did not deliver. They promised SMRs and never delivered. They promised fusion and never delivered. We have delivered them all, and they have the cheek to complain when we are delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century—delivered by this Labour Government.
I should welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State supports our nuclear regulation Bill, but I am bound to ask: why did her party not do it? Was it incompetence, idleness, ideology or a combination of all three? There is always a great quote from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) that we can read out. This is what he said following the last general election: “After 14 years of Conservative Government, we are now in a position where it’s more difficult to build critical infrastructure than it was when we came into power”. It is a Labour Government clearing up their mess.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Included in that list of achievements is the £12 billion deal signed last September to bring new nuclear to Hartlepool, making Hartlepool one of the biggest clean energy economies in this country. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we secure energy security, we must also secure economic security for those parts of the country that are left behind?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is what is so exciting. Contrary to what the shadow Energy Secretary said, we are seeing a renaissance of nuclear in this country, and not just through the Rolls-Royce programme—although we were very pleased to sign the agreement with Rolls-Royce alongside the Chancellor recently; there are also other routes to markets. We are very encouraging of the efforts of my hon. Friend, and others.
Ed Miliband
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because he and I go back a long way.
Sir John Hayes
The Secretary of State and I do go back a long way, and we agree, actually, about the crisis of capitalism, in terms of the sacrifice of domestic production for imports; he and I have lot in common in that regard. He will understand that the economic uncertainty he describes and the need for greater national economic resilience applies to food too, so—while accepting that we should put solar on buildings and have offshore wind—surely he understands that by putting solar plants at scale on the most productive farmland, which is needed to deliver food security, his argument about economic resilience falls flat. Will he look at that again? There is a middle way. He and I do indeed go back a long way, so for heaven’s sake let’s compromise.
Ed Miliband
Well, we may agree on some things, but not on this. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, so let me say this. Even the most ambitious plans for solar involve less than 1% of agricultural land—something like 0.6%. I say to Conservative Members that it is somewhat irrational that in relation to nuclear, they want to be builders not blockers, but in relation to everything else, they want to be blockers not builders. If we support the nuclear power plant, we have got to support the grid to connect that nuclear power plant. If we want to get away, as the right hon. Gentleman says he does, from our dependence on international fossil fuel markets, we need to support the cheapest, cleanest form of power, which is solar power. What an array of choices.
Jim Shannon
I want to see nuclear power in Northern Ireland, although unfortunately that is down to the Northern Ireland Assembly and it looks like there might be some obstacles. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to tidal power, battery storage and green hydrogen. He has always been keen to ensure that Northern Ireland can also be part of the growth that is coming from here. Will he give Northern Ireland some encouragement that when it comes to moving forward with green energy, we are part of that plan across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Ed Miliband
I am always happy to work with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, as are my team of Ministers.
Mr Perkins
The shadow Secretary of State did not take my second intervention when I attempted to get an answer from her. We know that Conservative Members propose to get rid of the energy profits levy, costing the Government about £12 billion, and they want to get rid of VAT, costing about £5 billion or £6 billion. We know they have a plan for oil or gas that might be here in four or 10 years, although it is owned by somebody else, and they believe they will use that collection of policies to reduce people’s energy prices. Does my right hon. Friend see any credibility in the plans from Conservative Members that he can share with us, because we have not heard it from them?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes his point incredibly well, and I do want to say something about renewables before I move on. At the time of the AR7 auction, the right hon. Member for East Surrey said that we should cancel that auction. As I said, that auction secured power for the equivalent of 16 million homes—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members could listen for a second. That included offshore wind at prices that are 40% cheaper to build and operate than new gas. At the time, the right hon. Lady shouted out from a sedentary position “Gas is falling!”, as a justification for her position—[Interruption.] She did say that. Today, the gas price is around 50% higher than it was then.
There is a really important point here: there can be no clearer demonstration of the gamble that Conservative Members wanted us to take. What a terrible call; what a foolish position. We are at a time of the greatest geopolitical instability in generations. Anyone who would rationally learn the lessons from when Russia invaded Ukraine would say, “We cannot gamble on low fossil fuel prices, because this is what happens.”
Ed Miliband
I am going to make some progress. By contrast, we stand for national security through energy security and energy independence.
How we protect consumers is very important. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor showed at the Budget last year that she took decisions to raise taxes, including on the wealthiest, so that we could cut bills for everyone, and we saw that happen in April. The Gracious Speech also includes legislation to raise the rate of the electricity generator levy from 45% to 55%, as part of our plan to break the link between electricity and gas prices, and act on the excess profits that arise from that link. We are also making a big call: keeping in place the windfall tax on oil and gas profits during this conflict. In the last few weeks, we have seen profits from major oil and gas companies soar.
Ed Miliband
No, I am not going to give way. These are unearned profits as a result of the war.
Ed Miliband
I will just make a bit of progress. We say tax those profits to help the British people.
Ed Miliband
No, I am not giving way. The energy profits levy has raised £12 billion since it was introduced in 2022.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Miliband
I am not giving way, no. Let me quote the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, who was the Chancellor at the time. These are not my words—this is not Red Ed; it’s Red Rishi! He said:
“The oil and gas sector is making extraordinary profits, not as the result of recent changes to risk taking or innovation or efficiency, but as the result of surging…commodity prices,”—[Official Report, 26 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 450.]
He was right.
Ed Miliband
No, I am not giving way.
At this moment, what have the official Opposition, alongside the SNP, decided to call for? They have called for the Government to dump that policy. Let us get this straight: at the precise moment that the British people struggle with the effects of the war, those parties say that the priority with scarce resources is to cut taxes for the largest oil and gas companies making record profits. Let us be clear: no amount of false accounting or fuzzy maths can hide the facts about the idea of cutting these taxes at this moment of windfall profits to improve revenues.
Harriet Cross
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Just so that no one is under any false interpretation of what that tax does and how it works, does the Secretary of State understand that the tax does not apply to trading nor to overseas production? It is on production from the North sea, which is not where those profits are being made, is it?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady obviously does not understand that prices are going up, including from the North sea. Let us look at the amount that the tax raises. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, even before this crisis the windfall tax was forecast to raise £5 billion by September 2027. Conservative Members—the official Opposition—have to explain: where is the money going to come from, then? They are going to cut that tax of £5 billion for the biggest oil and gas companies. By contrast, we believe that we should tax fairly and use the resources to help the British people.
Ed Miliband
I am not going to give way as I need to finish soon.
The energy independence Bill will legislate to help deliver the biggest investment in home upgrades in British history through our £15 billion warm homes plan. As part of this, we will act to help private renters. This is important, because it is about how we make sure that, in the drive to clean power, we help everybody in our society. It is a scandal that 1.6 million children living in private rented homes are suffering from cold, damp or mould, according to Citizens Advice. We say it is time to act. Minimum energy efficiency standards for renters were promised by the previous Government, then scrapped. The energy independence Bill will legislate for them by cutting bills for renters, and lifting 400,000 families out of fuel poverty by 2030.
Part of this goes to the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place. We believe that the drive for energy independence can deliver for workers and communities. We are already seeing the jobs that clean energy is creating across the country: 11,000 more workers in nuclear, according to the industry’s latest estimates, 8,000 more in offshore wind, with thousands more upgrading the grid, on the way to 400,000 extra clean energy jobs by 2030, and £90 billion of private investment announced since the election.
Ed Miliband
I am not going to give way.
We want to ensure that those jobs are good jobs, so we will amend employment rights legislation, as part of the energy independence Bill, to enable us to bring the rights of offshore renewables workers in line with those working in oil and gas. It is by driving forward in clean energy that we have the best chance of a fair transition in the North sea. Some 70,000 jobs were lost in less than a decade under the last Government. We are determined to lead the world in industries such as offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, and we will continue to use North sea oil and gas for decades to come by keeping existing fields open for their lifetime. That is why the energy independence Bill will legislate to introduce transitional energy certificates, something the industry has welcomed. I also say to Reform Members that we look forward to debating their plans for fracking during the debate on the EIB, because fracking will make no difference to bills. It is dangerous and roundly opposed by local communities, and we will act on it.
Lizzi Collinge
Part of my constituency is in Lancashire, where fracking testing took place. We suffered earth tremors as a result. Does the Secretary of State agree that the British people do not want fracking in our communities, and do not want the risks that we saw in Lancashire?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it well. There is something ironic about the fact that Reform says nationally that it wants fracking, but its representatives in Scarborough and Lancashire seem to say that they are against it. From now until the general election, we are going to be asking where Reform candidates stand: is it with their local community, or is it with the fracking industry?
Ed Miliband
No.
I have set out the approach to energy security that underpins this Gracious Speech. Above all, we will learn the lessons of the fossil fuel crises of our age. We will build our energy independence, tackle the affordability crisis, deliver good jobs and investment in our communities, and make the right decisions for today’s generation and future generations. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I think it would be helpful for everybody to know that there will be an immediate five-minute time limit after she has spoken.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Oil and gas prices have a long history of spiking and damaging our economy. The UK was among those countries in western Europe worst hit by the price shock following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As long as we remain tied to volatile international fossil fuel markets, dictators and foreign wars will have a grip on our economy and on the pockets of families and pensioners across this country. Surely it is time to wake up to that reality and learn the lessons of the past. That is why we Liberal Democrats welcome the Government bringing forward a Bill on energy independence. We will scrutinise it carefully to ensure that it contains not only the urgent and ambitious measures necessary to bring down energy bills and ensure energy security, but a fair, managed and prosperous transition to clean energy.
As households nervously await next week’s announcement of the energy price cap, with forecasts showing that households could be hit with a £300 Trump war tax on energy bills, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the best way to get energy bills down is through home-grown renewable power, with prices that we control.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Lib Dems are big fans of localism—that is not a dig, by the way. In my constituency, Church Langley primary school has led the way by having solar panels on its roof, and it is able to generate all the energy it needs from those solar panels. Does the hon. Lady welcome the work that this Government are doing to ensure that other schools can benefit from the same sort of system?
Pippa Heylings
I definitely welcome that; as the hon. Gentleman will hear later in my speech, we want to go even further. As we know, it is Liberal Democrats who fix people’s church roofs and put the solar panels on them.
For too long, the pace of change has been too slow. It has left people and businesses trapped, at the mercy of a broken energy system that they are literally paying the price for. It is time to take back control of our energy future, and that starts with our communities. In the last Session of Parliament, I welcomed the Government agreeing with our calls to include community energy and community benefits in the Great British Energy Act 2025. Now communities must be given the right to sell and buy energy locally, and we must mandate community benefit requirements where communities host renewable infrastructure. The transition must be done with those communities, not to them.
I also welcomed the adoption of the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill, or sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which requires solar panels on all new homes—but why wait until 2027, and why not go further? We Liberal Democrats want to see solar on new warehouses and car parks, turning rooftops across the country into sources of clean, affordable power. We also want to see solar panels on schools and hospitals. Since 2019, energy bills for schools and the NHS have more than doubled, forcing impossible choices between heating and healthcare or between bills and books. The current Government investment reaches less than 1% of schools. Liberal Democrats would go further and faster, helping to protect frontline budgets for our schools and hospitals.
Families, too, want to do the right thing; there has been a record increase in sales of solar panels and heat pumps since the start of the war in Iran. We must build on that momentum and help households and small businesses to take back control of their bills, giving them access to zero-interest or low-interest loans for upgrading properties by establishing an energy security bank to support electrification.
At the same time we need to fix the broken energy market. It remains absurd that electricity is still priced so highly compared with gas, meaning that people are often not rewarded for electrifying their homes and businesses. It is also crazy that consumers are paying billions to switch off our wind turbines when the grid cannot cope with surplus renewable generation. That is why I welcomed the recent steps taken to begin breaking the link between gas and electricity prices, a reform that the Liberal Democrats have long called for. However, we urge the Government to go further and faster in their Bill: moving unfair policy levies off electricity bills, providing a progressive social energy tariff for those unable to absorb repeated bill shocks, upgrading grid infrastructure and ensuring that customers benefit directly from cheaper renewable power through flexibility when there is surplus renewable generation.
Yes, we need energy independence, but that does not mean isolation. The UK and the EU have deeply interconnected energy systems, but the damaging Brexit deal has meant a huge increase in energy costs. Our future lies in ever closer energy ties to our nearest neighbours, and this Government need to drop their red lines on Europe. Rejoining the EU’s internal electricity market and linking our emissions trading schemes will reduce costs and strengthen resilience.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was right to say that
“it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea”—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 31.]
to people’s high energy bills. Even when North sea production was at its peak nearly 30 years ago, the UK was still exposed to global price shocks, because we have been price takers. Nor is the answer fracking, which some are calling for; it destroys our countryside and pollutes our waterways. We will push for a complete ban on fracking and complete clarity on closing all the loopholes.
We need a secure energy mix, and that includes nuclear; we believe that small modular reactors have great potential to strengthen energy security alongside renewables. Oil and gas will also be part of that energy mix for decades to come, but we must recognise the need for a fair and managed energy transition, given that our remaining reserves are in decline. Communities cannot be left behind. We urge the Government to establish a just transition commission, to future-proof supply chain jobs, and to enable the retention of our brilliant, skilled oil and gas workers in high-quality jobs in renewables and other sectors.
Harriet Cross
Does the hon. Lady agree that new licences in the North sea would help protect the workforce and the supply chain, to help with the transition to new energies?
Pippa Heylings
Research has shown that the hundreds of new oil and gas licences awarded by the Government between 2010 and 2024 have resulted in only about 36 days’ worth of extra gas. We need to look at the jobs that people can move into. I think there were 75,000 jobs lost without any outcry from the previous Government. We are looking at a just energy transition that helps those high-skilled workers into jobs.
Pippa Heylings
I will keep going.
Proponents of prolonged over-reliance on fossil fuels often ignore the costs of inaction. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that transitioning away from fossil fuels is essential to our efforts to tackle climate change. Communities around the country are already feeling the impacts and costs of extreme weather events. My South Cambridgeshire constituency is one of the most water-stressed in the country; last month, we saw 5% of the average rainfall, and we are feeling it. Floods and droughts have battered farmers across the country—they are reeling from the worst harvest on record, which will lead to problems with food security and put up our food prices.
One avoidable death is one too many for the elderly and vulnerable during recurrent heatwaves. No one wants ravaging wildfires ripping through our most treasured woodlands and national parks. As the Government-suppressed assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security laid bare, the destruction of nature threatens the UK’s resilience, prosperity and national security.
People want to know the truth. In my constituency and across the country, people’s emergency briefings are happening. People are taking control. They want to know and to be better prepared. That is why we must also look to prepare for the climate shocks that we cannot avoid. We reject the Government’s false dichotomy between climate and nature, where they say that nature is a blocker to growth. We have to be better prepared. We have to overcome the silos between energy, climate and nature. We need to promote nature-based approaches to capture carbon as well as adapting. We have to work on storing water, regenerating our soil, cooling buildings and protecting people’s homes from becoming uninsurable.
A secure future for our country depends on our energy independence, on restored nature and resilient communities, and on meeting our responsibility to our children and young people for a healthier future for generations to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Select Committee has taken evidence on much of what is in the Gracious Speech, and a big part of this debate has been about the threats that we face as a result of the second fossil fuel crisis in five years. I remember the first in 1973: as a six-year-old, candles on the table were fun, but it was not much fun for most of the country. We have repeated that experience multiple times since.
We have heard one piece of evidence again and again in the Committee: to address the challenge of the current fossil fuel crisis, the Government must bring down the cost of electricity, to enable the transition away from our dependence on oil and gas.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
To support the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the price of electricity, renewable energy is largely generated in Scotland, north Wales and south-west England. We have the highest level of fuel poverty, we have no mains gas, and the suffering caused to those rural areas is remarkable. Until that is improved, we are not in a position to move to an electricity-based economy.
Bill Esterson
The Government were supportive of heating oil in the recently announced measures precisely for some of the reasons that the hon. Member sets out. We have to address this threat, and we have to transition for reasons of energy security, cost and bringing bills down. Anybody going to the pump now or looking at what their bills are likely to be—I think Martin Lewis was today predicting the latest increase in the price cap—can see what is coming for domestic and business consumers.
Ukraine has learned about energy security the hard way, from the Russian attacks on its oil and gas installations, and it has shown us all. We have seen the same in the middle east with the war with Iran. Decentralising and moving away from dependence on oil and gas is key to protecting our energy generation.
The economic arguments are strong. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), was talking about growth earlier; I ask her just to look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying. The OBR makes the point that the costs of not addressing climate change are significantly more than the costs of making the transition. The Climate Change Committee predicts that, if we do not act, we will see a 7% fall in GDP by 2050. If we really want to be scared, we should listen to the actuaries: they know a thing or two about this, and they predict that global GDP will fall by 50% between 2070 and 2090, with catastrophic consequences across the world, unless we take the action that we need to take. We have to act.
The North sea is a super-mature basin, with a fraction left of what was there to start with. We were in a hurry to extract from the North sea. Peak North sea extraction was 1999, with 4.5 million barrels of oil a day. By 2023, after 13 of the Conservatives’ 14 years in office, that had fallen to 1.23 million barrels a day. That is a quarter of its peak production, and it will halve again by 2030. As NESO says, new licences will not make a material difference to capacity or production. Jackdaw, if it is given consent, would provide only 2% of UK demand. Rosebank would account for only 7% of production by 2030 levels. Those fields would not stop the decline, but only slow it.
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. At last, I have finally got to my feet. I am surprised that I was not allowed to intervene earlier, because I agree with much of what has been said, and especially with what the Secretary of State said about renewables and Acorn. Would the hon. Member agree that granting a licence for Jackdaw would be much more environmentally friendly than importing liquefied petroleum gas from Qatar or the USA?
Bill Esterson
As I have said, the amount we are talking about is very small, compared to the needs of the UK. [Interruption.] The hon. Member might not be so disappointed by what I say next. There is an argument—the Government have done some of this with tiebacks—for continuing to support production in the North sea, because the supply chains in our oil and gas industry will be critical for the development of renewable generation in the North sea and more widely. Some of the workers involved have already moved into sectors such as nuclear. It is important that an agreement with the TUC on the clean jobs plan is pursued. I welcome what the Secretary of State announced about rights in the North sea for renewables. It is key that we enable that transition and give a well-paid future to people working in oil and gas now.
I have talked about the opportunities for security. Increased generation and electrification will reduce the reliance on imports of oil and gas. The Secretary of State referred to what will hopefully be in the Bill about optimising the grid, and that will only help with that process, too. Through NESO, the Government have already addressed the issues with the connection queue, which is being cleared. Giving people access to excess renewables, being able to sell back to the grid and encouraging businesses to make greater use of flexibility will only help people to access cheaper energy.
The economics add up. The clean energy economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy. It is delivering the jobs that the Secretary of State referred to. The warm homes plan, which will be supported by the warm homes agency, will deliver healthier homes to live in and better air quality. It is critical, as I said at the start, that we reduce the price of electricity so that people can take advantage of the technology in the warm homes plan. It is already cheaper, according to Autotrader, to buy a new electric vehicle, and the second-hand market has been cheaper for some time. Enabling more people to drive electric can only help in that transition and in the reduction in our reliance on oil and gas.
The Government have to have the confidence to deliver this agenda. They have to have the confidence that they are right that energy independence will come from a move away from oil and gas and towards renewables. They have to make the case to people that they will benefit from investment in their homes, their transport and more widely. I very much support and look forward to debating in detail the energy independence Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who speaks with great authority and talks a lot of good sense.
I have to say to Labour Members that a change of Prime Minister will solve nothing. We tried that four times, and it did us no good at all. This King’s Speech should have been an opportunity for fundamental reform, but do the Government have the courage to do that? We Conservative Members suspect that they do not. For too many years, we have concentrated on wealth redistribution, rather than wealth creation, and we are getting poorer and poorer, and less and less able to do the things in the public sector that we want to do. But let me start with a more consensual point, and welcome the Government’s commitment to the nuclear fusion site at West Burton, which is only two miles from the town that I represent. I see that the Minister for Energy is present, and I have talked to him about this. This is fantastic, cutting-edge technology. Only this morning, I received a letter from the West Burton chief executive, who said
“At the heart of STEP FUSION is a world-leading technical effort.”
Those people who say that Britain is broken should look at the thousands of jobs we are creating, and the millions of pounds-worth of investment. The chief executive thanked us. He said:
“The UK is recognised globally for its lead in fusion regulation, having set a proportionate approach comparable to industrial processes through the 2023 Energy Act.”
So there we are: we have consensual, working-together, cutting-edge technology.
We have heard a bit about solar farms. I visited over 30 villages in my constituency during an open churches festival this weekend, including the village of Fillingham. At Fillingham aerodrome, I saw solar panels being built. Nobody seemed to care that there is a brownfield site to hand, measuring 100 or 200 acres, but there is solar planned for 16,000 acres of prime agricultural land around Gainsborough. I heard what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). What we need is a moderate approach. From my cottage, I can climb a hill on the Wolds and look across the North sea, and I can see that we are world leaders in offshore wind. That is fair enough, and it is popular, but I am talking about using 16,000 acres of prime agricultural land for solar, with all the profits going to entrepreneurs in London and large landowners.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said; and I always find his contributions interesting. My Committee heard from the Country Land and Business Association on the subject of solar panels on agricultural land, and its evidence was clear: this does not have the impact that is feared, and is actually often beneficial to farmers in providing them with an alternative revenue stream without affecting their ability to grow crops.
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course, getting £100,000 a year for owning 100 acres is a wonderful incentive, but is it possible to grow those crops? We are the breadbasket of England. Is it possible to grow wheat and barley where there are solar panels? But I do not want to go on about it; we know the arguments now.
As for nationalising British Steel, we do not take an ideological view. Hundreds of my constituents work in British Steel. Greg Clark ran it for nine months, and paid all the wages. I personally am neither for nor opposed to it. However, just nationalising British Steel will not make a difference when we have the highest energy costs in Europe. That is the real problem, and it is the problem that the Government need to address. Let us not get bogged down in the arguments about whether to nationalise. Let us find a private sector buyer. Let us get the workers back into operation, get our blast furnaces moving, and not be over-worried about ideologies. We want to create virgin steel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about British Steel, where hundreds of my constituents work. Does he agree that in the short term, nationalisation may be the way forward, but in the longer term, we need to get private sector investment into the industry, and the way to achieve that is to reduce energy costs? That is absolutely critical, not just for steel but for so many of our heavy industries.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend is very well respected in his area for the fantastic amount of work that he has done in Scunthorpe. He is constantly holding the Government to account, and indeed working with the Government. We have to do this together to protect our steelmaking capacity, for the sake of our industrial wealth.
I agree—we all agree—that the energy independence Bill provides a framework for transitioning the UK energy market away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy. We have no problem with that; it is sensible in the context of nuclear energy. However, the ideological pursuit of renewables is doing harm, and is at odds with achieving energy security when we have our own fossil-fuel resources in the North sea. It is not a zero-sum game. I do not see the ideological virtue of simply exporting our carbon emissions, which we are doing.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I must make some progress. I do apologise.
I should have thought that we could have a compromise on this. We could have a policy that is sensible, gradually moving away from fossil fuels and gradually becoming a more green-energy economy, but we should not simply export our emissions and set arbitrary dates.
As this is a debate on the King’s Speech, I hope you will you forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mention another subject in the short time available to me. When you get to my age, you can say unpopular things; I have not got much longer anyway. [Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I have two minutes!
The problem with our country is that we are governing by focus group. What do focus groups want? They want less tax and, of course, better public services. Debt is already 100% of GDP, and within 50 years, because of the triple lock and other benefit increases, it will be 170%. Of course the old vote, but the old have children and grandchildren, and we have a responsibility to younger people in our country. The Government know that the present system is unsustainable. While the average increase in the triple lock measures over the past 13 years—and we brought that in; it was supposed to be a temporary measure, but no party has the courage to change it—has been about 40%, pensions have gone up by over 60%. That is nearly £20 billion of annual additional costs so far, and that will get bigger every year and more unaffordable. The gap is likely to grow to £120 billion, if not more, by 2050, exacerbating the economic crisis. Whoever becomes Prime Minister will have to cope with that. By then, there will be 20% to 25% fewer taxpaying workers—our children and our grandchildren—per pensioner in Britain.
Of course we have to care for old people, particularly old people in poverty, and divert resources to them, but we must remember the younger people as well. This is entirely unsustainable. Yes, we want to keep a triple lock, but not the triple lock. We want it to be the average of the three indices, so that the amount does not go up exponentially every year. The Government should do the right thing by the nation, and bring in a measure to that effect. They should make our finances affordable, and those on my party’s Front Bench should not oppose them. We should govern in the national interest. We should make our finances sustainable, and then we really can help the people who are most in need.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Gracious Speech set out a legislative programme for the Government, including plans to build our national security, our economic security and our energy security. I welcome this agenda, which is consistent with the manifesto on which my hon. Friends and I were elected. I urge all members of the Government to exhibit a relentless urgency, and a focus on delivery of that programme, to ensure that the ambition is matched by its impact.
We were elected in 2024 on a mandate for change—for national renewal—after 14 years of decline under the Tories. As for the achievements, there is a great deal that I could focus on, if I had more time, but I want to deal specifically with the national health service, migration—on which there have been very positive announcements recently—the minimum wage increase, and workers’ and renters’ rights. This is a Government who are delivering on their agenda. Despite the prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches, the most recent figures once again show unemployment continuing to fall and the fastest growth in the G7 in the last quarter.
So many of the fundamentals are going in the right direction, but anyone who spent time attempting to persuade voters to vote Labour in the recent elections will have been left in no doubt but that our voters remain unconvinced that we are going fast enough or far enough to bring about the change they want. I would like to focus on some specific measures in His Majesty’s Gracious Speech that I particularly welcome.
First, on the energy independence Bill, I very much welcome the Government’s action to protect households and industry from global instability by powering forward with clean, home-grown energy to create energy independence and get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. Both the energy independence Bill and the nuclear regulation Bill will strengthen our resilience to energy price shocks for the long term and bring down the cost of bills for families.
As has been said, during the Ukraine crisis the Government at the time paid to subsidise customers’ bills, because we were so dependent on global markets. The intervention that the Government made—politically, I think they had to make it because of the impact in the number of people who would have gone under—cost the British taxpayer £44 billion in a single year. The idea that the response to the further global insecurity of the Iran war is to reduce investment in renewables is quite mad. So I welcome the Government’s two further Bills, and I absolutely support the increase in nuclear that this Government are getting on with after the dither and delay of the previous Government.
It was quite remarkable to hear the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who on the one hand said the Government have not done enough on nuclear in two years, and on the other hand said that the Government cannot blame the Conservatives for 14 years of inaction, because the previous Government got in the way of it. It was absolutely incoherent.
The exchange of letters between the shadow Secretary of State and the chair of the Climate Change Committee, and I encourage everyone to look at them, made it clear that when she voted against allocation round 7, she simply did not understand what she was talking about in terms of the difference between an LCOE—a levelised cost of energy—and contracts for difference. So when she says that we should follow her advice, we should treat that with the greatest of scepticism.
I should also say that I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on the need to reduce energy bills far more to help with the cost of living, but also to ease the green transition, benefit consumers and support industry in this country.
The King’s Speech also has a clean water Bill, and alongside climate action we do need nature action. Nature is the foundation of our national economic security, and we cannot tackle climate change without restoring nature. The Government made a promise to clean up Britain’s rivers and seas, and I am delighted to see this clean water Bill in the King’s Speech—not only in tackling water industry reform, which is crucial, but in recognising the need to tackle agricultural water pollution and road-based water pollution.
I welcome the European partnership Bill, because it is important that we work more closely with our European partners, and I fully support what the Government are doing on apprenticeships, because apprenticeships and greater investment in adult education are absolutely crucial if we are to equip tomorrow’s workers with the skills they need to support industry. So there are many measures in this King’s Speech that can make a real difference—there is also the need to go further and faster—and I look forward to supporting it later.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
If we are moving into an era of electric cars—thousands of them, mostly made in China, of course—and if we are moving into an era of artificial intelligence developed in the United States, we will need infinitely more electricity than this country is capable of producing at present. Since the days of the great Walter Marshall, the head of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at one time, I have been a supporter of nuclear energy. I believe passionately that we have to move much faster towards small nuclear reactors if we are to begin to meet the needs of tomorrow—the needs of our children and our grandchildren. I hope very much that we can unite behind that move.
However, in the meantime we have to bridge the gap, and I believe it is sheer folly for this Government not to take advantage of the resource we have in the North sea to help us do that. It is absolute nonsense to buy in fuel from Norway or elsewhere, when we could be producing it from the same sources ourselves, and we should be doing that. Do not tell me that it is a drop in the ocean, because it is an important potential contributor to bridging the gap in our energy needs.
Sadly, the Secretary of State is no longer with us. [Interruption.] I take no lessons from a former failed Leader of the Opposition. The Secretary of State, in extremely derisory fashion, spoke of the minimal cost to agricultural land of solar panels. Those solar panels are, in east Kent, covering agricultural land on which was growing bread-making wheat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to the breadbasket of England. We cannot lose that land, and we do not need to lose it when we have acres of rooftops in public ownership and acres of car parks that could and should be used first.
The Secretary of State said that we will have to produce the network to get the future power we need to homes, businesses, hospitals and schools. He implied that that requires a network of pylons right across the United Kingdom. As a grandparent, I am not prepared to see my grandchildren’s future environment sacrificed on the altar of hideous pylons strung up by National Grid simply to meet the desires of its shareholders—we need to remember that it is a private company.
We must learn how to underground our cables. It is happening throughout Europe, where they already have overhead cables and are taking them down. National Grid, for example through the Sea Link project, is planning to build in my corner of England a 90 foot high converter station the size of five football pitches. It is being built on marshland, which it has just discovered is wet. That means it will have to import thousands of tonnes of concrete and destroy the whole local environment around it, which includes a nature reserve and a site of special scientific interest. That is not progress; that is selling the family silver. It is selling the environment of our children’s future and we must not do that. We have to strike a balance between meeting our future needs, bridging the gap and protecting our environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have 18 seconds left so I will stop there.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the measures in the King’s Speech on energy security, as on many other issues. The Opposition’s wrong-headed approach would leave us tethered to global markets that we cannot control. They would lock our country out of much-needed jobs and condemn Brits to higher bills. The energy independence and nuclear regulation Bills, in contrast, are further leaps towards the stronger energy security we need.
In my speech, I want to tackle an issue—it was actually touched on by the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale)—which will increasingly drive the amount of energy our country needs to generate: the development and deployment of artificial intelligence. The Government did not bring forward in this King’s Speech our manifesto commitment to
“ensure the safe development and use of AI models by introducing binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models”.
Indeed, AI was not mentioned in the speech. The Government have acted decisively on one symptom of the lack of regulation: the widespread production of sexualised images. That, however, followed 3 million such images being generated. Harm was already done, and I underline here the recent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips).
The Government have, rightly in my view, launched their sovereign AI fund, supporting innovative start-ups to scale up and generate value here in the UK, including access to compute. I know that many Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have been working hard to ensure that the capacity is there to deliver that additional compute. However, when it comes to the design and use of AI systems and models, we have only the AI Security Institute, a world-first, expert-led organisation, but one that lacks statutory powers and has to ask companies politely to engage. Even the Trump Administration now appear to recognise the need for the evaluation of frontier AI models before release. If we are genuinely serious about our country’s economic security, we must devote as much attention to AI and its astonishingly transformative, productive and disruptive potential as we are rightly devoting to energy security and the delivery of home-grown renewables. That will first require working with the EU on digital regulation, and I will push for that to be reflected in the welcome EU partnership Bill.
In the briefing pack for the King’s Speech, the Government maintain that nearly one third of UK AI start-up leaders are considering relocating overseas due to regulatory complexity and capital constraints. Given that regulatory complexity will often relate to cross-border issues, the prescription is not deregulation but regulatory co-ordination.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Anneliese Dodds
In order to keep to time, I will not.
Capital constraints, and relatedly, constraints in compute, are real. We must recognise that while unilateral measures to support sovereign AI are important, their scope is necessarily limited. We must again work with reliable partners that share our values, not least within the EU.
Finally, we must be brave enough to open up the discussion on the fiscal framework for AI. We currently tax labour, the very thing that AI will—in some sectors and in specific ways—displace. We must examine now how we might use the public stake from our sovereign AI investments, or mechanisms such as a token tax or reform to capital gains, as the TUC has suggested, to build up the resources that may be needed. There is potential for significant disruption to the labour market, and we must be more ready for it.
Research out today from King’s College London suggests that 69% of workers and 64% of employers are worried about the economic impact of AI-related job losses. A majority of all groups surveyed predicted that AI’s benefits will mainly go to wealthy investors or companies, not workers or society. A majority of all groups also backed Government intervention. If we are to secure the fastest adoption of AI in the G7, as is the Government’s intention, we must deal with those issues too. Our young people will not forgive us if we fail to engage with this generational challenge.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Britain is becoming harder to govern. That is not principally the result of disruptive, destabilising societal change, or even because an increasingly complicated world is creating more uncertainty for all Governments; the problem lies in governance itself. The Prime Minister complains that when he pulls levers in Downing Street, they have less practical effect than he had hoped. Simon Case, on leaving office, put that very clearly. He said that
“an increasing number of English devolution settlements, independent quangos and arm’s length bodies, courts, statutory consultees and the like, block the path from what a winning political party promises at an election to what it can then achieve in power.”
Successive Governments have delegated power to all kinds of unelected, unaccountable bodies, from the Office for Budget Responsibility to Network Rail, the Environment Agency to all kinds of other quangos, the names of which we barely know—and neither do we know how their memberships are chosen or to whom they are accountable. It is time for a more radical programme than this King’s Speech offers. It is time for Parliament and Government to be more confident about the difference that they can make.
The Secretary of State, in opening the debate, talked about economic resilience, and he was right to do so. It is absolutely right that in the age in which we live we need to build greater national economic resilience. But that means facing up to the fact that we manufacture too little of what we consume and we grow too little of the food we need to feed the nation.
The sort of economic resilience that he describes requires us to look again at the balance of payments. It is said that Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister, lost the 1970 election against expectations because there were bad balance of trade figures. No one now speaks of the balance of trade, yet the truth is that we import far more than we did then. In the mid-1980s we grew about 75% of the food we consumed; the import figure is now 40%.
It is preposterous that we have lengthened supply lines and, as a result, decreased traceability. We do not really know where much of what we consume is made, or how or by whom it is made. In the far east, there are all kinds of unacceptable conditions that would not be tolerated in this country, and yet we still choose to import large amounts of those kinds of goods.
If we really want to build more national economic resilience, let us have a fresh look at the character and shape of our economy. To do that, we will also need to look at productivity. As the Father of House described, it is not good enough for Government to spend endlessly without looking at the value they get from that expenditure. We know that both public sector and private sector productivity has stalled for a considerable time. That is not unique to this country; it is a problem for the whole of western Europe and most modern economies. None the less, we need new measures to focus on productivity, so that what we get for what we spend becomes the issue, not how much we spend as a whole.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is giving a good lecture on what needs to happen. What incentives do we need to provide to farmers to grow more and to use their land as effectively as possible, as well as to employers to use their time as effectively as possible, so that we can literally operate on a 24-hour day, three-shift production operation?
Sir John Hayes
Before I deal with that excellent point—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it—I remind the House that the current trade deficit is about £25 billion, which would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. On the question my hon. Friend asks, we have to rebalance the food chain. For too long, major retailers have held a gun to the head of primary and secondary producers. What matters is not the size of the cake, but who is getting what sort of slice of the cake.
While major retailers continue to make huge profits, the people who actually grow and make the food have had their livelihoods under persistent pressure for the whole time I have been in this House, and no Government have had the courage to face up to that fact. We need to give more power to the Groceries Code Adjudicator to intervene where sharp practice takes place and to stand up for the hard-working farmers in Lincolnshire—farmers elsewhere, yes, but particularly those in Lincolnshire—who grow so much of the food that we consume across the kingdom.
If we are going to build productivity, we have to invest in skills. When I was the Minister for Skills, I am proud to say that we built up apprenticeship starts to around half a million a year. That was still not enough, in my view—I think we should have more apprenticeships than that. Nevertheless, we got it up to about half a million a year, but that has fallen to about 350,000 now. That we have fewer apprenticeship starts than we did then means that we have to re-evaluate what advanced learning looks like. Higher education is all very well, but higher learning matters just as much. Vocational, practical and technical skills both deliver for the economy, because they satisfy economic need, and give a chance for fulfilment to people whose aptitudes, tastes and talents lie in that direction. To build productivity, we need to invest in skills.
That is the kind of radical programme—boosting productivity, tackling the trade deficit and building skills—that I had hoped to see. I implore the Government to address those kinds of issues in the common interest, for the national good, for the common good, in the national interest.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who made a characteristically interesting speech. I agree very much on the need to improve our investment in productivity and skills.
I will start by making a very brief tribute to Suzannah Reeves, Joanna Midgley, John Hacking and Angela Gartside, four councillors in my constituency who lost their seats in the elections last week, not because they were not excellent councillors—every single one of them was a brilliant councillor, deeply rooted in their community—but because the public wanted to give the Government a kicking. Perhaps, on that basis, I should apologise to them for the loss of their seats.
I think that loss is because as a Government—this is not aimed at any individual; this is collectively—we have not communicated the really good work that we did in the last Session, laying the foundations for this country’s recovery. This King’s Speech is packed with measures to carry on that work, do the same and move forward faster, such as the energy independence Bill, as the Secretary of State has set out. The move to clean power is absolutely key not just to build the green industry and green jobs of the future, but to deliver the climate commitments that so many people in my patch in south Manchester care about.
I am conscious that I have limited time, so I will focus on some of the measures that will make a big difference to my constituents in Manchester Withington. I strongly welcome the northern powerhouse Bill. When HS2 was cancelled, it was a real kick in the teeth for people in the north. We were looking for that link between the northern economy and the south-east. Notwithstanding the shambolic planning and delivery that the Secretary of State set out earlier by HS2 Ltd, overseen by the then Government, it was a real shame that it was cancelled. But we have always argued in the north that Northern Powerhouse Rail is actually more important. Getting that east-west connectivity across the great cities of the north will drive our economy and make us able to thrive and compete on a global scale, so I am pleased that the Government have set out the Bill for Northern Powerhouse Rail.
I want to make two points. First—maybe I am the first to do this in respect of the new Bill—can I make a plea? We need that underground through station at Manchester Piccadilly as part of that delivery. It is expensive, but anything else will be a false economy. That will be the way that we drive connectivity across the cities of the north, which we need to do. Secondly, can I get some early clarity on the route? The route proposed from Manchester airport to the city of Manchester at Piccadilly is under my constituency, as previously proposed, and there was some controversy and discussion about the site’s vent shafts. I will not get into that detail now, but it is important that we give our constituents early details and an early opportunity to have their voices heard.
I want to speak briefly about the overnight visitor levy Bill because it has taken some criticism from a number of places over the last couple of weeks. Manchester has had an overnight visitor levy since 2023 and—believe it or not—the sky has not fallen in. We are still the third most visited city in the UK. The key point is it is permissive; it is not an obligation. I am sure that many of us visit cities across Europe and the US, and the visitor tax we see in those cities has never put me off, even in my impoverished interrailing days. It will not stop people wanting to visit a city like Manchester. It drives investment into the destinations, which makes them more attractive to visitors.
In my constituency, the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will be hugely welcome. Too many leaseholders have been trapped in the system with spiralling charges, opaque management and limited rights over their own homes. Our excellent Housing Minister is already making a difference on that, and I am pleased to see that coming forward. Likewise, the social housing Bill will make a big difference. Since I became an MP in 2015, the biggest issue in my inbox has been housing, and it is important that we can expand house building.
Briefly, I want to mention the ticket touting Bill. In my role in the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, I have realised that ticket touts costs approximately £400,000 every single day, intensifying cost of living pressures for households across the UK. It is great that the Government have set out a draft Bill, but it is disappointing that it is only a draft Bill. It is important to get this right, but I urge the Government to bring that forward as quickly as possible.
I will end on a positive note. I have dealt with GOV.UK One Login on several occasions in recent times, and digital access to services is making a big difference already. Let’s ignore the conspiracy theorists and get on with the digital access to services Bill to improve our services for everybody.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith). Something I find less pleasurable—indeed, I detest it—is the use of the phrase in our discourse that “Britain is broken”. I hate that phrase because it is not true. I wonder if we could reflect on how damaging and intoxicating the opium of nostalgia is. It is not like a wistful nostalgia, harmless and benign, used by commentators and politicians; it is an angry, aggressive and malign form of nostalgia. The reality—let’s open up and be honest about this—is that there was never a golden age, and the idea that somehow everything in the past is better and today it is all rotten and broken is utterly poisoning our democracy and discourse. The only things that were better about the past are that the music was better and we were younger. Let us not fall for witless, unpatriotic guff about Britain being in terminal decline. We are a wonderful people with a history strong and rich and resources second to none. We are not broken, but we must be better.
A wise Government would acknowledge our challenges, strengthen our alliances with NATO and the Commonwealth, and reconnect with Europe, not least on energy security. John Maynard Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Members do not need to love everything about the European Union to know that our security and sovereignty now obviously depend on deepening and widening our alliances. We need to see Europe as the third bloc alongside the US and China; if we are detached from it, we are not safe.
Our security also involves looking internally on energy and food security. Over the past few weeks, the energy market has been in the eye of the storm, with the loss of 14.4 million barrels of crude oil a day.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Food prices have become the biggest pressure on family budgets, and our food system is failing households, farmers and the economy alike. It is clear that a good food Bill is a glaring missed opportunity to back British farmers and improve public health, so does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot have food security without energy security, and that the Government must set out a national food strategy to support that?
Tim Farron
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s food security Bill, and I will come to that in a moment.
The loss of Gulf crude oil output since Donald Trump’s war began has been partly offset by draining stockpiles and other temporary reliefs. In the developed world, prices have risen and crippled many communities that I represent in Westmorland, as well communities across the whole country. So far, we have yet to run out, but the International Energy Agency warned just last week that oil inventories are being depleted at a record pace. Governments, companies and consumers therefore need to be ready. Are we? I do not think so.
Energy security is now utterly urgent. If I cannot convince hon. Members of all the science that points to the need to tackle the catastrophic blight of human-made climate change, surely I can convince them that our energy security rests on domestically produced renewable energy: Putin cannot turn off the sun, the wind or our waves. Surely we should therefore rejoin the European international energy market and invest massively in the national grid.
It is vital that we recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) wisely said, the importance of food security in all this. The United Kingdom is only 55% food secure. The outsourcing of our agriculture has become a national security liability. We need more short, diversified food chains, with more incentives to primary producers to grow food domestically. The problem is that England is now the only country in the United Kingdom and the only country in Europe that does not provide support for farmers to produce food. Perhaps we can agree that back in 2020, when the previous Government was drawing up the environmental land management scheme, which this Government adopted, that that was how things felt at the time. But the facts have changed. It is time to change our mind, and back our farmers to produce the food that we need. Food prices are projected to be 50% higher in November this year than they were in 2021. Agricultural inflation is double regular inflation, and is therefore feeding through to food inflation, which will harm our communities.
We live against the backdrop of uncertainty. The technological and geopolitical shifts that we are living through include the threat to the very future of NATO, as well as Russian and Chinese aggression. Our energy, food and military resilience matters more now than it ever has before. We are fools if we do not respond.
We are not a broken country. We are a brilliant country. But we are a vulnerable country. We should not be energy insecure or food insecure, should not have the smallest Army we have had in 200 years, and should not be decoupled from our allies in Europe, but the good news is that we can fix all those things if we have the will. That will mean uncomfortable choices and changed stances for many, but the facts have changed, so we need to change our minds.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really pleased to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech.
This Government were elected to deliver change. For too long in my community we felt at best ignored and at worst left behind. Decisions taken in Whitehall and Westminster did not address the challenges we faced, and investment and opportunities did not reach us. Frankly, Westminster did not hear us.
The measures in the last King’s Speech began to change that: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 brings decisions closer to home; the changes to the Green Book give us a fair go at securing the investment that we deserve; breakfast clubs and free school meals do not just set children up for the day but give them the best start in life; and we are starting the process of bringing buses back into public control. Meanwhile, public services are showing signs of recovery following 14 years of austerity. This King’s Speech builds on that, but we must deliver more, and we must deliver it faster.
Today’s debate is rightly about energy. I recently visited the port of Blyth in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), where I heard about their vision and the jobs and opportunities that the renewables sector is already bringing. We have been at the mercy of repeated international crises, underlining why we must secure energy independence to protect people across the country. Previous Governments did not move quickly enough, and we are paying the price.
My region is leading the way to building clean, renewable energy and energy security. New seabed sites off our coast can unlock at least 6 GW of offshore capacity. That means billions of pounds of investment coming to our region, creating jobs and opportunity. In my constituency, the West Hartford business park, with support from Arlington and the port of Blyth, will unlock 2,000 jobs and more than £400 million of local investment. The Moor Farm roundabout upgrades—never knowingly not mentioned by me—adds to the sense of possibility, acting as a gateway to growth across the north-east.
We are building futures. The energy central campus at Blyth and the energy academy in Wallsend are training a new generation of skilled workers for the industries of the future. When Opposition parties talk down clean energy, they are talking down opportunity. Opposing this clean energy drive could cost up to 17,000 jobs in our regional renewables sector. Opposition Members should level with my communities about what their plans would mean for those people’s jobs and families.
The energy independence Bill will take us further, and I want my region at the very heart of it. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am proud that we are delivering community energy and the local power plan, which will ensure that by 2030 every community can benefit from a local energy project. This will transform our energy future and give communities a stake in clean, affordable power.
Let me turn to a few other measures in the Gracious Speech. Since being elected, I have championed the rights of leaseholders and freeholders, which is a huge issue in my community. In the ’60s new towns of Cramlington and Killingworth, many homes were built as leasehold, and too many are now trapped without the protections they deserve. Similarly, many new build estates—although some of them have been around for over a decade, pushing the definition of new build—still have not been adopted. I know that Ministers are passionate about ending these injustices and putting the protections that are needed in place once and for all.
I would like to see us building on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on ticket touting. Since being elected, I have worked alongside the Co-operative party to call for action to tackle ticket touts and price gouging for culture, music and sport events. Fans are at the heart of events, whether gigs, matches or shows, and too often they are robbed of the opportunity to go or are ripped off through price surging and touts buying and reselling tickets.
There are many other Bills in this programme that I support and that will make a real difference in my community. On housing, education, national security and immigration, this King’s Speech is a programme to build on the change that has already been delivered, to go further and faster and to extend opportunity to communities such as mine. At the heart of this programme are measures to improve people’s lives and provide the good jobs and opportunities of the future. It is now time to get on with delivering this change. I look forward to supporting these measures.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody).
As a scientist by background, I welcome the cross-party agreement on nuclear power forming a key part of our energy supply for the future. That was not always the case. There was certainly opposition to nuclear power previously on the Labour Benches, as indeed there was among Liberal Democrat Back Benchers, so I am delighted that we have agreement on this positive way forward.
The key is ensuring a mixed economy in energy supply. I welcomed the use of solar power on the roof of the Aspire leisure centre adjacent to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, which was granted by the previous Conservative Government. The centre and the hospital are supplied by that solar energy, which also contributes towards the grid. That is welcome news, but I cannot understand why the Government will not agree to exploit the North sea to a further extent. That would not come on stream straight away, but surely we must think about it for the future.
Let me cover one or two other areas. The Vagrancy Act 1824 is coming to an end, but we still require from the Government the necessary statutory instrument to make that happen—there was no commitment in the King’s Speech. Can we see that? On the social housing renewal Bill, the Government’s ambition is huge but timid. We must go faster and further to provide the much-needed social housing required in this country, which has not been built for more than 30 years.
We live in a dangerous world. With the war in Ukraine causing energy price hikes, we must think about what that has done to the windfall from the petrol pumps going to the Treasury. At the same time, we have a fragile truce in the middle east, the civil war in Sudan, in which more people are being killed than in any other conflict, and half a million Christians in Nigeria have been massacred by Islamists.
This is the sad reality. I was absolutely appalled that on 7 October 2023, after the attempt by Hamas to commit genocide against the people of Israel, we saw people celebrating on our streets. We have subsequently turned a blind eye to the hate marches that have assembled 100 yards away from a synagogue in London at midday, just as the Shabbat services were coming to an end. That has continued for week after week, and the congregation have been intimidated while going about their lawful business.
The Prime Minister has quite rightly talked about combating antisemitism, but words are not enough; we need action now. A blind eye was turned to the Hamas and Hezbollah flags in those marches. A deaf ear was cocked to the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, which means the destruction of the state of Israel. Equally, a deaf ear was cocked to the phrase, “Globalise the intifada”. What have we seen as a result? Jewish businesses and restaurants have been attacked, synagogues have been attacked, and we now see Jewish people on the streets being attacked purely because of their religion. That is absolutely unacceptable.
We have to start somewhere, so I welcome the decision by the Government to bring forward legislation on proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is long overdue. I have led the campaign for that in Parliament for many years, but we must go further. Why is the Iranian ambassador still here? He should be kicked out. The embassy should be closed down, and all the so-called diplomats should be refused entry to this country. Iran is the head of the snake that controls all the terrorism in the middle east, and we must recognise that.
Jim Shannon
There is one thing the Government have not done that they could do, which I know the hon. Gentleman would like to happen, as would I and many others in this House. There are assets in London owned by the Iranian Government, and it is well known where they all are. Does he feel, as I do, that here in London, where we have some control, it is time that those assets were taken away from Iran?
Bob Blackman
The assets of the IRGC and the despotic regime in Iran must be sequestrated and brought into use for the people of this country. There are 11 well-known properties—detached houses—owned by this despotic regime that are not used at the moment. They could be used for homeless families and Brits who need somewhere to live, but we do not take the necessary action. As I have raised previously, we have 13 charities that get their funding from Iran. They have their headquarters in the UK, and they are banned in Arab countries. Why are they allowed to exist and spread their poison?
We must also go further on university campuses. Vice-chancellors have a duty to protect Jewish students, but they do not carry out that duty. Perhaps we could start in our schools by teaching our children the true history of the middle east. In 1948, the Arab countries tried to prevent Israel from being set up and encouraged and almost forced the Arabs to leave the state of Israel so that they could go in and kill everyone. Israel won that war, and no one has forgiven it since. We can also look to 1967 and 1973, when Israel fought wars once again to protect itself. The sad fact is that that is not taught in our schools. We need to understand that if we do not educate our children in the right way, propaganda will unfortunately be allowed to grow.
Why was one of our Labour colleagues banned from going into a school in his constituency solely because he is Jewish? That cannot be acceptable. Words are not enough; we need prompt, firm action to root out antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred once and for all.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech. I am proud that since our Labour Government took office in July 2024, we have introduced a number of policies to improve our country’s energy independence, and therefore our energy security, by increasing domestic clean energy production and reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. One of the best examples of that is the creation of Great British Energy: publicly owned energy investment designed to support British clean energy projects. I also welcome our clean power 2030 plan, under which most UK electricity will come from low-carbon domestic sources by the end of the decade through expanding offshore wind, removing planning barriers to onshore wind, increasing solar power generation, investing in grid infrastructure and supporting nuclear and carbon capture projects.
The King’s Speech outlines our plans to go faster and further, taking definitive action to protect the energy, defence and economic security of the United Kingdom for the long term, including through the introduction of an energy independence Bill to scale up home grown renewable energy and protect living standards, helping to tackle the affordability crisis, particularly for low-income households, including through our warm homes plan.
Rachel Hopkins
I am sorry but I am short on time, so I will continue.
We have seen at first hand the devastating impact of exposure to volatile international gas markets, which caused major price rises after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Government are taking measures to protect our citizens and ensure that such stark and unaffordable increases are never passed on to households again, regardless of global conflicts, supply disruptions and sudden rises in international energy prices. With the war in the middle east being felt in the pockets of people at home, that is more important than ever. I welcome the fact that more stable energy costs for households and businesses in Luton South and South Bedfordshire and those across the country is a priority, while also giving the Government greater flexibility during international crises.
Our Government’s mission to secure our energy independence is just one facet of the work the Labour Government are doing to strengthen our sovereign capability. They are using the economic freedom gained after leaving the EU to have greater democratic oversight and to intervene more directly in the economy through our industrial strategy and public investment, with a focus on backing British business and good, skilled, unionised jobs. There is no better example of that than our commitment to safeguard the domestic production of steel through the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, which we will debate later this week. That highlights the importance of the role of an active state in supporting its citizens as well as protecting our national resilience, our economic security and our ability to act independently in the interests of our citizens in an increasingly volatile and uncertain world.
I have spoken about the sovereignty and security of energy, but part of building a more secure Britain for my constituents is also about ensuring that everyone has access to a safe and secure home. I welcome our Labour Government’s commitment to address the long-term housing shortages that have driven up rents, made home ownership harder and placed increasing pressure on social housing and public services. Increasing supply through long-term investment in social and council housing, with significant restrictions on right to buy under the Social Housing Bill, alongside planning reforms and reform of the leasehold system—including the capping of ground rents—will make the housing market more affordable and stable, particularly for families in constituencies such as mine where more affordable family homes are desperately needed. Indeed, expanding our housing supply goes hand in hand with our efforts to strengthen our national resilience, reduce housing inequality and create a stable foundation for long-term social and economic security. They are part of building a stronger and fairer country for all.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last week in the Gracious Speech, the Government pledged to introduce a new Representation of the People Bill. Constitutional issues such as the electoral system can seem far removed from people’s daily lives, but that could not be further from the truth. With a better electoral system, politicians and parties will be more focused on the issues that really matter to voters. Electoral reform is a necessary step to ensure a fairer society with better schools, better hospitals, safer communities, clean air and clean water.
The Representation of the People Bill has the potential to be the latest chapter in the evolution of our democracy. Ours is a proud history of a franchise that has expanded across the generations, extending the vote to an ever broader base of people. From the Great Reform Act 1832 to the Representation of the People Act 1918, which granted the right of voting to women, to the Representation of the People Act 1969, which made the UK the first democracy to give votes to everyone aged 18 and above, this is a story of progress and we should continue it.
I welcome that the Government are continuing this trend with votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. When I trained 16 and 17-year-old recruits in the regular Army, some of them were bound months later to serve in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which they did. If 16-year-olds can join our armed forces and pay tax, they deserve a voice in how both of those are used. The new Representation of the People Bill has the potential to occupy a place in the pantheon of progressive extensions to the franchise.
By contrast, our current system of first past the post enables parties to turn a small plurality of votes into a massive majority of seats, and 2024 showed that at its worst. The general election of ’24 was the most disproportionate in modern British history. Turnout was the second lowest since records began in 1885; less than 60% of the electorate cast a vote. They were unconvinced and uninspired by both Labour and the Conservatives. Labour won one third of the vote, Labour won two thirds of the seats and Labour won three thirds of the levers of power. The 2024 general election result was a direct consequence of the first-past-the-post voting system. This winner-takes-all approach threatens to reward populists who thrive in divisive and adversarial politics.
I speak not in relation to our party political self-interest here in the Liberal Democrats. We were delivered a result that was proportionate to the votes cast. Yet I look around me at the MPs from Reform UK or from the Green party; if the 2024 general election had been conducted under the additional member system of proportional representation, Reform UK would now have 94 MPs sitting on these Benches and the Green party would have 42. Instead, they have five and four respectively. The disparity between votes cast and seats won adds significantly to the disillusion that many of us will have heard on the streets of the UK when we were out there campaigning in the local elections earlier this month.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Is not the biggest problem with first past the post that often people are voting against rather than for someone? That poisons our democracy, because everyone ends up with someone who they do not want.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is spot on. I accept that former Labour voters vote for me to keep out the Tories and Reform, and former Conservative voters vote for me to keep out Labour and the Green party. That is not the system that we want. We want a system where people can vote positively for change, with hope. It is little wonder that the only other European country besides the UK that elects its Parliament in this way is Belarus. If first past the post continues, we could see just 30% of votes bringing in a Government with extremist ideas. I want to see a proportionate, not a disproportionate, number of MPs for Reform UK and the Green party.
I do not agree with those parties on universal access, on defence or on immigration. On universal access, Reform UK talks about tax breaks for people who opt out of the NHS, while the Green party talks about bringing in a basic income for everybody, with no conditions. One wants to strip us of universal healthcare; the other wants to have taxpayers paying for universal income. On defence, we see Reform UK apologising for Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and the Green party pledging to dismantle the UK’s nuclear weapons; one is lowering the Ukrainian flag over town halls that it controls while the other would hoist a white flag over defence establishments in this country. On immigration, whether it is the Green party threatening to end proper controls on—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I encourage the hon. Gentleman to return to at least some of the substance of His Majesty’s Gracious Address?
Richard Foord
Madam Deputy Speaker, these parties do not represent the moderate majority, but with as little as 30% of the vote at the next general election, they could control all the levers of power. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and it undermines the legitimacy of our elections. I urge the Government not to prolong the disenchantment, the apathy and the hopelessness. People are fed up with being told to vote for the lesser evil. The Representation of the People Bill is this Government’s opportunity to get it right.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) has just said about first past the post and proportional representation. It is Labour party policy, and it unites the left and the right of the Labour party. I think it is probably one of the few things that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and I work together on passionately. If colleagues on the Government Benches think that first past the post was great for us in the last election, then just wait till the next one. Proportional representation is the right thing to do. It is the most democratic thing to do. It is also the best thing to do in our own self-interest.
Our party came into government against a backdrop of the deindustrialisation, privatisation and austerity that, over the course of decades, have bled this country dry. That backdrop has left millions of people in abject poverty in the fifth richest country in the world, and millions more struggling to get by. Of course, people are enraged by the state of our society, but grifting far-right politicians declaring war on minority groups are exploiting this rage to sow division. They are funded by many of the people who cause these problems in the first place and who want us to punch down so that we do not look up at them.
This threat is on our streets and in our political system, from the “Unite the Kingdom” rally, mocking Muslim women and calling for mass deportations, including of British citizens, to the Reform councillors celebrating the rape of a Sikh woman and saying that Nigerians should be melted down to fill potholes. Unless we want these people running this country, we have to get our act together. I want to be clear that this is not a criticism of the Secretary of State, who I think has done an excellent job in his role, particularly against some of the flat-earthers in the Opposition parties. However, while we have done some good things in government, including improving workers’ and renters’ rights, creating GB Energy and increasing funding to local councils, the fact is that we have not delivered change at the pace and scale that voters expect.
There is also far too much that this Government have got wrong, such as attempting to limit jury trials and cutting benefits for disabled people, and their failures over the genocide in Gaza. These mistakes, and the refusal to learn from them, are fuelling the collapse of the two-party system and the rise of a multi-party political landscape, but the leadership’s strategy to stop Reform has just reinforced the narrative that immigration is what is wrong with our society. Not only is that completely at odds with Labour values, but it has also been a complete electoral disaster. We have smashed apart our own voter coalition, and as we haemorrhage votes to the Greens, we are also delivering seats to Reform.
I refuse to put a positive spin on the last two years, because I want us to be better. We have to face unpleasant facts. I know it is painful. It is painful for all of us, because we all believe in the potential of a Labour Government. We all understand what is at stake here, and I know that colleagues who disagree with this analysis also genuinely want to improve people’s lives and stop a far-right Government, but I am afraid the argument that we can achieve this by sticking to a failed political strategy just does not hold water. This Labour Government need a total reset to show that they are listening, that they understand what they got wrong and that they have a clear plan to change, but their response to a catastrophic performance in the local elections has been to double down on the incrementalism that we have seen thus far, and that is what we see again in this King’s Speech.
While there are positives, including the Hillsborough law, measures for Ukraine and a commitment to ban conversion practices, it is clear to most of us that they are not enough. We should be taking much bolder measures to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebalance the economy so that it works for working-class people. Let me give just two examples: rent controls, so that housing costs are affordable and people are not priced out of their communities; and nationalising utilities, to prioritise public need over private profit and bring down bills. We need to do that at the same time as unashamedly standing up for the full diversity of the working class—wherever people were born, whatever the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexuality or gender identity, whether they are disabled or not, and whether they are in work or not. Tinkering around the edges was never going to cut it.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I agree with so much of what my hon. Friend is saying. We need to be ambitious, and we need to be looking at the big picture and fixing systems as well as situations. Like her, I want to see us being far more ambitious from here onward. The headings of the Bills in the King’s Speech offer huge potential for us to do things that are far more transformative and meaningful, and address the root causes of many of the problems we face. Does she agree that if the Government take a radical, different approach to working through the Bills in this King’s Speech, there is a chance to deliver the kind of change we have been hoping for?
Nadia Whittome
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It would probably be best not to have a candid discussion about this in the Chamber. Yes, the King’s Speech provides headings, but I am afraid that is all they are—they are hints at what we need; they are not the sum of it. It is not that the change has been promised but I do not believe it is coming. It has not been promised. We are doubling down on the mistakes we have made. What we have heard from the Prime Minister is, “We’ve done great things in government. You just haven’t realised it yet.”
Tinkering around the edges was never going to cut it. Chasing the far right on immigration was never going to work. If we do not learn these lessons now, it will be too late. We will be squandering the generational opportunity of a Labour Government to transform this country for the better, and we will be allowing the far right to win, and I refuse to sit here quietly and let that happen.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), because she made a very important point at the end. She is right: this is a very underwhelming King’s Speech. There are some welcome headlines, but the fact is that the ambition is very diminished. The reason for that—and she represents it—is that the Labour party is fundamentally split. It is unable to move forward boldly in any direction that is needed. I do not make personal accusations. I know what it is like; I sat on the Government Benches in the last Parliament, supporting a Government who were also fatally split and unable to move forward. This is the consequence of the politics that we are in. By the way, I welcome the eloquent and elegant repudiation of her previous position by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). She made an excellent speech about the difficulty of the Government’s policy, and she is now in the right place.
Across the board, and particularly on the topic of energy security, we see bold ambition and the right statements being made, particularly about energy independence and resilience, but the detail that follows is utterly underwhelming. In this area, we see a decision not to exploit the enormous opportunities of the reserves we have in the North sea. We should all welcome the aspiration of energy independence, including eventually to reap the huge benefits of the abundant natural resources that we should be using for energy, but I am afraid we are not going to get there this way.
Likewise, in other crucial areas of national priority—defence being the main one—we hear the right language about the need for investment. We hear about the need to recover our defences, which have been sadly depleted over many decades. We have a chronic weakness in our national defences, and yet we still have no defence investment plan and no clarity on where the money will be spent or even where it will come from.
I represent a military constituency with many amazing tech and military firms that are developing the kit we need for our defences. They are laying off staff as we speak, because the money is not promised and it is not available to them. It is scandalous: in all sectors where the United Kingdom has real current and enormous potential advantages, the high-tech sectors of fintech, agri-tech and AI—areas that, thanks to Brexit, we are able to drive ahead on, boldly and independently—we are being hobbled by a lack of ambition and a chronic inability to release the talents and opportunities there.
I was going to intervene earlier on the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who was bewailing the exit of UK tech entrepreneurs in the AI space and saying that we should be more like Europe in that regard. Those entrepreneurs are not leaving the United Kingdom to go to the EU; they are going to the middle east, the United States or the far east, because those countries have a pro-tech industrial policy, and that is what we need in our country.
I have been meeting a bunch of businesses recently—we are on a bit of a prawn cocktail operation in the Reform party, and it is amazing which businesses want to come and talk to us at the moment. It is very encouraging, but they are all depressed about the state of the economy. Yesterday, an AI entrepreneur said to me, “If we are not careful, this country’s economy will simply be US tourism.” That is all we will be able to offer, because we are driving away all the entrepreneurs and businesses that represent opportunities for growth in future. Last week I was talking to a pharmaceutical firm that is now exiting to Europe—to Switzerland, in fact. This morning I saw a company developing the technology for small modular nuclear reactors. They are giving up and going to the United States. We are driving away the talent that we need for the future.
I am enthused by the opportunities that our high-tech sectors represent and what we could be doing, but there is also the ordinary economy. Labour used to talk a lot about that—indeed, some years ago the Chancellor wrote a book called “The Everyday Economy”—and it is a vital focus for us. But what are we doing for businesses that are the backbone of our highstreets—both national businesses and small and medium-sized businesses? We are ramping costs on to them through national insurance contributions and business rates. For small businesses the VAT threshold is way too high, inhibiting growth and job creation. A Government who want growth and productivity are going in directly the opposite direction.
I end with a plea to Ministers: I extol and applaud their aspiration for a clean transition, but right now we are in a national emergency, and we need to crowd in every possible source of electricity that we have to get our economy growing. That includes nuclear and it includes fossil fuels.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the Energy Secretary for making another clear case for the energy transition. I welcome the energy independence Bill, which will be one of the most significant and pragmatic pieces of legislation that we seek to work on in this Parliament and is directly entwined with our national security. Energy independence sets us free from the energy cost chaos caused by Putin’s erratic warmongering and is another step that enables us to stand in strong solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
The stabilisation of our energy security will enable us to work on Jo Cox’s agenda of progressive internationalism, by improving our capacity to be a force for good—the 10th anniversary of her tragic murder is coming up shortly. On Jo’s progressive internationalism, I am also proud to see the European partnership Bill, and I welcome the youth mobility scheme. Many of my constituents will be able to take advantage of that, so I am keen to see even more progress in our European relations, including freedom for European musical acts to tour Europe and visa-free travel. I also hail the power of rail, with delivery of a fair deal for the north of England, something that was sadly neglected during the 14 years of Conservative Government prior to 2024, and the northern powerhouse rail Bill, a scheme announced and then cancelled by the previous Conservative Government.
That said, there is more work to be done on the clean water Bill to ensure that we establish true water resilience for our national and energy security. We must ensure that the Bill does not tie us into a failed, privatised system owned by overseas actors. The only route to our security is through mutual ownership. In England, we should have a system like the one in Wales, where the people own the water company—notably different from 1970s-style nationalisation. As we know, nationalisation is at the mercy of any future Government who might seek to privatise the sector again, whereas mutual ownership puts the public first, with local people making key decisions about their water supply systems. We should have mutual ownership of the entire water industry, which would ensure a stable and secure future for our water systems. The public must have a say in the future of our water, with genuinely clean waterways that are publicly owned and secure for the future of the nation.
Restoring waterways and nature is not separate from national security—it underpins it. My amendment (g) on today’s Order Paper recognises that functioning and healthy ecosystems reduce flood risk, protect our homes, hospitals and transportation systems from overheating, sustain soils to be able to grow food, and clean the air we breathe. The UK’s key ecosystems are every bit as vital as our roads, energy grid and water networks, yet we continue to treat them as an afterthought. As the Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review has made clear, we undervalue the natural assets that our economy and security depend on. By legislating for a strategic nature network and recognising it as national infrastructure, we can restore, connect and maintain a system of key functional ecosystems that strengthens our national security, protects communities and builds resilience across the UK.
Other Members have mentioned the prospect of electoral reform through the Representation of the People Bill. We have just seen local council elections in which a councillor was elected on 20.5% of the vote, even lower than the lowest percentage at the last general election. Candidates are winning with increasingly low percentages of the vote as we move to a five-party system in England and a six-party system in Scotland and Wales. We need a national conversation and to think about this issue clearly for the long-term future of our country, so I will be tabling an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would establish a national commission for electoral reform. I urge the Government to set one up so that we can take clear actions to ensure the future of our voting system and its integrity.
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what I have had to say about amendment (g) and the need to consider nature as infrastructure. I am content not to press it, knowing that the spirit of the amendment has been heard and taken on by the Government.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The security and price of energy affect every household, individual and business in every constituency, up and down the country. It is a matter that concerns everyone. That is why, when the Secretary of State was in opposition, he promised during the last election to cut household energy bills by £300. Instead, in government, he has presided over a £200 increase in those bills. That is his record as he sets his sights on his next job, the job he so desperately craves: replacing the Prime Minister. He is also the Secretary of State who has set up GB Energy, which will not produce any energy, will cost taxpayers £8 billion and, as its own chief executive says, will take something like 20 years to employ just 1,000 people. There is nothing in the King’s Speech that will secure the country’s energy supply, bring down energy costs or create the jobs and investment that the Government have promised.
As we have heard from Members across this House, there is a consensus—there is unity. We all want to decarbonise energy use, but Conservative Members will not support doing so at the expense of families, households and individuals, particularly those who are hard up and least able to pay. This is not a binary choice, where we are either pro-decarbonisation or against it; we can be for it, yet understand that the security of energy supply and household energy bills must come first. What country in the world would run headlong into an ideological experiment for the sake of it, leaving hard-up citizens behind? No country in the world. This country should not, and this Government should not either.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Many of these problems have been put in the “too difficult” box for too long; they are long term and difficult to fix. Does the hon. Member at least acknowledge that the Government’s investment through the national wealth fund of £600 million into small modular reactors is a real step forward and will bring people’s bills down in the long term?
Joe Robertson
I accept that there are some difficult questions in and around this whole area of debate. The truth remains that no Government have done more to decarbonise the economy and to bring forward green technology than the last Conservative Government, but we would not do that at the expense of hard-working families. The bonkers green tax agenda that this Government are peddling is harming the debate on decarbonising the economy. I will give an example of that.
Ms Billington
I am comfortable with accepting that there has been a growing consensus about decarbonising our energy system over a period of time, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008, which only a handful of Conservative MPs voted against. However, I am puzzled that hon. Member thinks that the last Tory Government did that without any burden on the taxpayer or on bills, when the so-called energy savings package that Liz Truss put in place cost £44 billion and has left this country in profound debt.
Joe Robertson
I acknowledge that the last Government made mistakes—I do not have a problem with that—but that is not an excuse for the hon. Lady’s Government to do even worse for hard-up working families.
Bonkers green taxes harm the debate, and I will give this House an example. UK emissions trading scheme levies on the maritime sector are levied on ferry companies. My constituents on the Isle of Wight rely on those ferry companies to access things that everyone else takes for granted: health, education, jobs and seeing friends and family. Next month, someone can travel across the Solent to the Isle of Wight, taking their car on one return trip, for £511. That is for a five-mile return crossing.
The Government, instead of helping us—they say they will help, and I am still holding out hope that they will—will in July levy a carbon emission tax on the Fishbourne to Portsmouth route that the ferry company cannot avoid. It cannot decarbonise its ferries and go electric, because there is no grid charging capacity in Portsmouth harbour. There is no grid charging capacity in Southampton either. These are not strange little harbours—they are the naval base of the United Kingdom and one of the biggest export container ports respectively—yet there is not the grid capacity to charge an Isle of Wight ferry. The ferries will pay, however, and guess what: they have passed on that charge to consumers and my constituents.
Ms Billington
Specifically on the Southampton point, it was under the Tory Government that the Labour-run Southampton council wanted to clean up and install that grid connection to be able to decarbonise shipping in that port and specifically to tackle air quality in that city. The Tories had 14 years, and they did nothing.
Joe Robertson
I gently say to the hon. Lady that the reason her Government are in such a mess and polling at under 20% is that she and her colleagues think that the universal excuse for her Government’s inaction is to blame a previous Government. She won that argument at the last election, and since then her Government have done nothing. Southampton will have that grid-charging capacity for boats in the mid-2030s, yet the Government are bringing in a charge in July this year. Do you know what the irony is, Madam Deputy Speaker? One of those ferries has batteries on board. It is a hybrid boat that can use batteries to cross the Solent and not burn fossil fuels, but it is being charged because it cannot use its batteries, because it has nowhere to plug into. The EU is bringing in that charge and ringfencing the money it receives from its emissions trading system to invest in grid capacity in ports—but not the UK Government; they are taking the money, shoving it into the Treasury and making no promises about investing in grid capacity. That is not the last Government; it is this Government.
I say to those on the Government Front Bench that these bonkers green levies make no sense, harm ordinary people and undermine the entire case for their green agenda.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
For more and more UK households and businesses, the monthly energy bill is one of their largest bills, and it is increasing. That is largely due to rising international oil and gas prices, which in turn have been exacerbated by the recent war in Iran. It is for exactly that reason that for too long we have been energy insecure. Energy security is needed to give us cost of living security. If we get this right, we can cut bills, cut emissions and cut our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas markets, all at the same time. I have not yet heard a single argument from Conservative Members—including the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—about why continued dependence on those markets is a good idea, as opposed to a driver of price shocks and increases.
For most of the past 50 years the UK has been a net importer of electricity, much of it coming through interconnectors such as the one in my constituency. The growth in British renewables is at long last, and rightly, being pushed forward by this Government, and that is starting to reduce our heavy reliance on imported energy and fossil fuels. Last year our energy production was the most British and the most clean that it has been for years. Under this Labour Government, energy production has defied the doubters who decry the decline of North sea oil and gas, and who urge us to open new fields.
Harriet Cross
I just want to make sure that everyone is clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about electricity, rather than energy. He is talking about the power that makes up just 20% of our energy mix, not the oil and gas that makes up 75% of it. The two are very different.
Tony Vaughan
Interestingly, the hon. Lady has come up with no justification for continuing to be in hock to the international oil and gas markets, so my argument that that is not a good idea has been reinforced by her intervention.
I want us to be energy independent and, eventually, energy dominant, exporting our energy around the world, generating more revenue for the Treasury, creating more jobs here at home and helping to fix our current account deficit. The new energy security Bill rightly seeks to hardwire in strong consumer protections, a stronger watchdog and a more flexible, modern grid. Giving Ofcom a clearer duty to protect households, changing the way in which support is targeted at low-income and vulnerable families, and making local grids smarter so that people can benefit from cheaper off-peak energy are not technical tweaks; they are issues on the frontline of the fight against fuel poverty.
The vast majority of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh want to tackle climate change and lower energy bills, and they want Britain to be energy independent. The best way of achieving all those objectives is to deliver a balanced energy mix, and to ensure that savings and opportunities reach people’s front doors. That means introducing a serious warm homes programme, upgraded insulation, modern heating systems, and clear duties for landlords so that renters are not left shivering in leaky homes while their landlords take all the profits. Solar finance has evolved to the point where there can be no excuse not to have a solar panel on every domestic rooftop, which could allow tenants as well as landlords to benefit from lower bills. The Government must do everything they can to make that a reality.
Renewables play a critical part in our energy production, along with new nuclear. We should continue to extract from the existing North sea oil and gas fields, but the Government are right to oppose the opening up of new fields. That would not lower people’s energy bills, because the oil and gas price is determined by global markets. Moreover, as many of my colleagues have said, it would undermine our mission to tackle climate change, and would weaken our global leadership role on the issue. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his Department for their work in that regard. The real jobs plan for energy is to invest in clean power, grids, storage and efficiency, and to give workers in existing industries a clear path into those new roles.
Sir Roger Gale
I have sat through the entire debate, which is now getting on for three hours, and I have read the Bill, but nobody this afternoon—not one Member of this House, including myself—has referred to hydrogen, which is probably the best clean future energy there is.
Tony Vaughan
I agree with the right hon. Member that hydrogen is an important part of where we need to go, but we need to fix the fundamentals, which were not fixed during the 14 years before Labour was elected, and we need to get on with that.
New nuclear creates jobs. In my constituency we have two old nuclear power stations at Dungeness that are currently being decommissioned. Dungeness is a brilliant candidate for new nuclear technologies, with an existing grid connection, land available, population centres nearby and high electricity demand. Fundamentally, there is also strong support for new nuclear at Dungeness from the people of Romney Marsh, who understand that this is about good jobs, clean power and long-term investment in their community. I recently helped to organise an event at the community hub about new nuclear, and it was packed out with local residents who are desperate for new nuclear power generation to return to their community.
So I commend the actions of this Government to help speed up the development of new nuclear technology. My predecessor pushed for many years for the Tory Government, run by his own party, to bring new nuclear to Dungeness, but I am afraid he got nowhere, because his party was just not interested in helping him. I do welcome the intention in the nuclear regulation Bill to implement the Fingleton review to cut unnecessary delay and duplication. That is not to say that we will undermine environmental protections, which must of course remain effective and credible, as well as evidence-based. The argument is not nature versus nuclear. Climate change is itself a major threat to habitats and species, so changes must focus on faster decisions, but with real environmental integrity.
If we are to achieve true energy security, we need new nuclear to play a critical role, because the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. We need warm and efficient homes, fair energy bills and a regulator with the teeth and the remit to stand up for the public as the system changes. New nuclear can generate a significant number of well-skilled, well-paid, unionised jobs and help support the reindustrialisation of Britain, which we of course desperately need, and so can the mass roll-out of renewables, grid upgrades and home retrofit.
I welcome the energy security Bill and the nuclear regulation Bill, especially the measures that help speed up the development of new nuclear. This is about whether families can afford to heat their homes, workers have good jobs in the industries of the future and Britain can stand on its own two feet in a dangerous world. To the champions of the oil and gas industry sitting on the Conservative Benches, I say that they should do the right thing for the country, and accept that we can never get bills down while we rely on international oil and gas markets, and support these measures to give us clean, cheap power and energy independence for our great nation.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
One of the many challenges facing rural constituencies such as mine is the rising cost of fuel. When the war in Iran pushed up prices, I had constituents telling me they could no longer afford their planned orders of heating oil and would try to manage without heating for as long as they could. As we might expect, residents in Frome and East Somerset rely heavily on car use, and therefore fuel such as diesel and petrol, to access health services. I am very concerned about the lack of community input into decisions being made about health services, which disproportionately affect those in communities who have to drive or get the bus, or run patient transport services in rural areas.
The King’s Speech brings forward plans to abolish NHS England, but in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, NHS Somerset has been running what it calls a test and learn exercise at Frome community hospital. For six months the number of beds was temporarily reduced from 24 to 16, and at the end of that period the test and learn was simply extended for another six months, meaning that for a full year capacity has been reduced and no full consultation with communities about these changes has been required. People are rightly concerned that a reduction in their local service will require them to travel further afield, the cost of which is rising.
I have serious concerns about whether the evidence provided so far is strong enough to justify making these changes permanent, and I am deeply troubled by how little the community has been involved in that conversation. I decided to do my own consultation, hosting a pop-up in Frome two weeks ago, and asking local people to tell us why the hospital was important for them. One constituent wrote, “I feel strongly that Frome Hospital provides so many services for local people. When I hear from elderly friends who have ended up with long stays in Bath, I find it incomprehensible that once they reach a certain stage of recovery they cannot be moved nearer home.” Another constituent said, “It is a shame we must lose beds. My friend was in Bath for five weeks, then had to go to Wincanton Hospital for another seven weeks as there were no beds in Frome, and this was so hard for her family, who live miles away.”
The people of Frome and its surrounding villages rely on their community hospital, yet they woke up one morning to find that a decision had, in effect, already been made to reduce its capacity, a decision that means some of the most vulnerable members of our community will not have a bed in a local community hospital setting if they are discharged from our general hospital in Bath. For an elderly person, for a carer managing on their own or for those without access to a car, the risk of being placed in a community hospital somewhere else in Somerset is a serious barrier to suitable care. A lack of public transport and increasing fuel costs place a huge additional stress on families and carers.
Two weeks ago, I was pleased to meet the Minister for Care to discuss the Government’s plan for neighbourhood health centres, a policy I broadly welcome and one that I believe could genuinely benefit parts of my constituency. In the meeting, the Minister was explicit that our integrated care board was required to consult local MPs and other stakeholders on their plans for the new health centres. Not only has our ICB not been in touch, but when we followed up with them ourselves, we were told two things: first, they had no idea they were expected to engage with MPs on this matter; and secondly, they had already decided where the hubs would go, without consulting anyone else. In both the cases I have set out, there seems to be a lack of mechanism to force ICBs or trusts to consult local people and a total lack of sanction if they fail to do so.
People who live in Frome and the surrounding villages are the experts in their own lives, and they have helpful, constructive and innovative ideas to input into decision making around the future of local health services. The Government are also overseeing the removal of Healthwatch and the Citizens’ Senate, two additional bodies that centre patients’ voices at the heart of discussions about their care. I am worried that without those bodies being replaced or without mechanisms in place to ensure good consultation, communities risk being entirely unheard in decisions that will, for some, affect their daily lives. I hope Ministers will co-ordinate with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and elsewhere to ensure that people in Frome and East Somerset can get the health services they need in the places they need them and in an affordable way.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—the model of calmness and authority. After the week my party has had, there is virtue in the stability you represent in that Chair.
I am pleased to be back in this Chamber for the first time in this Session of Parliament to talk about policy and not personality, and to focus on one of the biggest issues our country faces: our energy security. The decision by the United States and Israel to strike Iran on 27 February has seen thousands of lives lost, billions expended in weaponry, a stalemate in the strait of Hormuz and a global energy crisis.
For many countries the situation has become very grave, very quickly. In the UK, at the pump on the day before the strikes the price for petrol was £1.35 per litre and for diesel was £1.43. The average prices now stand closer to £1.58 and £1.86 respectively. While we are relatively less reliant on the strait of Hormuz than many countries, our exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster that is the global market means we are being hit hard, too. The choice before is simple: get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and accelerate our transition to green and clean energy, or people and the planet will continue to pay the price for our reliance on gas and oil.
A word on climate change: records on global temperatures date back to 1850, yet the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest years on record. We must pursue the transition to clean and green energy for our political and economic security today and for the tomorrows of all the generations yet to come.
When it comes to embracing green technology, the public are already voting with their feet. The CEO of Octopus Energy has reported a 50% increase in demand for solar panels and a 30% uplift in demand for heat pumps within weeks of the conflict in Iran starting. This is welcome news, but the transition to green, clean and home-grown energy is not a challenge that the market alone can fix. I am proud of the record of our Labour Government in the past two years: two renewable energy auctions, with bids for enough energy to power 23 million homes; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; and scaling up the social housing warm homes fund, including more than £6 million for Welwyn Hatfield borough council in my constituency, which will see more than 600 council homes retrofitted in my community. But we have to go further, and I hope that the energy independence Bill can be a focal point for the Government.
We have to innovate. I was with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in January when he made an excellent speech on how to speed up the delivery of policy, which is something so many colleagues have talked about today. He talked about learning the lessons of the vaccine taskforce model and applying it more universally. I encourage colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Cabinet Office to work together with this model in mind, and particularly with a view to speeding up the all-important connections to our grid.
We have to work with the private sector. Ocado, which I am proud to say has its national headquarters in Hatfield, has been in touch with me about its ambition to speed up grid connections and the importance of an EV charging infrastructure that allows it to transition to electric vehicles. I am also pleased that Mitsubishi Electric Europe, working in Hatfield, is training gas engineers to transfer from boilers, so that their skills can be applied to heat pumps in the future.
Most importantly, however, we have to make clear that the green transition will work for everyone in our society. The warm homes social housing fund is one of the most important parts of that plan. Retrofitting the homes of people on low incomes demonstrates beyond doubt that this is not some elite project—as Conservative Members want us to believe—but one that will ultimately get bills down for the people who need it most. If the Conservatives and Reform wish to cling to fossil fuels and the global markets, it is their job to explain the cost to their constituents, but clean, green and cheap energy is the future, and this Labour Government are right to strive for energy independence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Too often when we debate energy in this place it becomes tribal very quickly. Members are either in favour of oil and gas or renewables—there is no room for nuance. We need renewables, we need nuclear, but we also need oil and gas.
Many Members have spoken about the cost. Cost is one element, but supply is vital, because oil and gas makes up three quarters of the energy we need every day. It is the energy we need for the 24 million homes and over 500,000 businesses that still rely on oil and gas. Oil and gas is needed in industries such as pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals. The energy independence Bill assumes that just by calling it energy independence we are suddenly not dependent on oil and gas. That is not true, and that will not be the case far into the future because we have not developed the systems to move us away from oil and gas as quickly as we needed to.
Look at our nearest neighbours in Norway, a country that many people rightly think has its energy system done correctly. There are five flights a day from Aberdeen to Norway, taking skilled workers from what was once the oil and gas capital of Europe to work in the industry there. Norway has just said that it is going to open up three more existing gas fields, and has announced a licensing round for 70 new licences. Norway incentivises drilling because it recognises how important oil and gas is to its energy security.
Would any Member on the Government Benches like to tell me that the Norwegian Labour Government, by increasing their use and export of oil and gas from the North sea, are making Norway less energy independent? No, of course they are not. It is the UK Labour Government that are making the UK more dependent on Norway for our gas—we send £20 billion to Norway for the privilege of using the same gas from the North sea—and more dependent on liquefied natural gas from Quatar, America and Mexico. That LNG is liquefied, transported and regasified before it can be used here, so is less good for the environment.
Moving on to jobs, I will never understand how anyone can sit on the Labour Benches and not understand the importance of protecting jobs in the oil and gas sector. The Government mention new jobs in renewables. There are new jobs in renewables, but they are not coming on stream fast enough, they are not comparable, and they are not for the same skillsets. Some of those jobs are transferable, but loads are not, and the highly skilled people who have secured our energy security for the last few decades are the ones who are going to struggle to transfer. If Labour wants to say it is happy to sacrifice those jobs, those livelihoods and the communities those jobs live in—particularly in the north-east of Scotland—it can do so, because that is the message it is sending. Those skilled workers are moving abroad and taking with them the skills that will help us with our energy security and energy independence.
Labour talks about price a lot. We understand that the price of oil and gas goes up and down; that is understandable. Contracts for difference allocation round 7—AR7—signed us up to higher prices for 20 years. We have committed to paying those high prices for 20 years, which are higher than what oil and gas has been for the past few years. [Interruption.] I do not need wails; I appreciate that oil and gas is high at the moment, but it is not always high. It has been low—[Interruption.] The Minister for Energy says that that is the issue, and it is the issue if we look at one time horizon. Over the past few years, has oil and gas been low? The gas price has been low, the oil price has been low, and yet we still use it.
We are sacrificing jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland and sacrificing our energy security just to deliver green energy, because that is all this Government want to focus on. This Government should be looking at what our neighbours in Norway are doing and seeing how it is seen as a truly energy-independent country because they are still using their oil and gas, because they know they need it—their energy systems and their country are not set up not to use it. The UK is not either. We need it, we must use it, and we should be drilling all we can from the North sea—starting today.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of a new energy security Bill in the King’s Speech, which will meet our manifesto commitment not to issue licences to explore new oil and gas fields. Crucially, it will also deliver on our commitment to ban fracking.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and extract hydrocarbons. In 2019, a moratorium on fracking was introduced following earthquakes linked to fracking activity at Preston New Road in Lancashire. Currently, UK legislation defines fracking based on fluid volume thresholds: 1,000 cubic metres per stage, or 10,000 cubic metres in total. This leaves a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to exploit.
In beautiful Burniston in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, Europa Oil & Gas has proposed extracting gas using a technique called proppant squeeze, which is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volumes. This means the technique exists outside the fracking moratorium. In Burniston, on the edge of the North York Moors national park, villagers have been involved in a David and Goliath battle with Europa Oil & Gas. I am delighted to say that North Yorkshire councillors threw out the recommendations of its officers and formally rejected the planning application.
However, to create indisputable clarity over fracking legislation in our country and close this loophole, any future ban must include all forms of fracking. Currently, 66 existing licences remain active, and planning applications can still proceed under current rules. If our definition of fracking remains volume-based, we risk companies continuing to frack—just under a different name. Make no mistake: the frackers have not given up. Following North Yorkshire council’s rejection of Europa’s proposal, Europa stated that it felt confident about winning an appeal.
The evidence is there for the Government to include small-scale fracking in our ban. A recent report published by the University of Edinburgh found that earthquakes from high-volume fracking and low-volume fracking are equally large and equally unpredictable. This means that the risk of seismicity such as earthquakes induced or triggered from proppant squeeze cannot simply be ruled out. This evidence echoes findings commissioned by the then Oil and Gas Authority into Preston New Road, which also showed that seismic impacts cannot be accurately predicted regardless of fluid volume.
I urge the Government to use the upcoming energy security Bill to replace the volume-based definition with one based on intent and process, and to introduce a blanket prohibition on fracturing rock for hydrocarbons. All forms of fracking contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and undermine our net zero commitments, and therefore all forms of fracking need to be banned.
Last December, I held a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, and the Minister responded, confirming that the Government remain open to evidence regarding a comprehensive ban. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm what further evidence he requires to ban small-scale fracking—unless, of course, it is earthquakes in Scarborough.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Energy has become one of the most important issues in Caerfyrddin and the rest of Wales in recent years. Global events have exposed how vulnerable our communities are to energy shocks, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 cost the Welsh economy £5.65 billion, averaging over £2,000 per home in Wales. As the impact of the war in Iran intensifies, Welsh households are being hit once again. Rural households are paying hundreds more in fuel and heating oil costs, and the average on-grid household energy bill could rise by nearly £300 when the energy cap is revised in July. Off-grid customers have seen their oil and gas bills at least double over the past few months.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I point out to the hon. Lady that it would be helpful if the new Welsh Government could release the £3.8 million of funding that the UK Government have given to the Welsh Government to help people struggling with their heating oil costs. I wonder when that will be distributed.
Ann Davies
I assure the hon. Member that I am sure that the funding will be released but, with all due respect, should it not have been released by the previous Welsh Government when that money was put in a few months ago?
While the measures in the King’s Speech set out steps to reduce energy costs, they do not get to grips with the fundamental unfairness of our system. People in Wales pay some of the highest standing charges in the UK, despite average salaries being lower than the UK average. That is unsustainable, and action needs to be taken.
Despite being an energy-rich nation, Wales is unable to make the most of our abundant natural wealth simply due to lack of control over it. Plaid Cymru is clear: it is for the people of Wales to control and benefit from our natural resources. This extractive economy model must cease, and money generated from our wind and sea power should be kept and shared within local communities. The Crown Estate must be devolved to Wales as it is already in Scotland. Following the Senedd election, a majority of parties in the Welsh Parliament, including the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government, are calling for devolution of the Crown Estate, as is every single local authority in Wales. The case and democratic mandate are inarguable.
We have immense natural resources, including wind and tidal power, that are not being fully utilised. Electricity generation in Wales has fallen by almost 50% since its 2016 peak, as growth in renewable capacity has not kept pace with the drop in generation from coal and nuclear. If we are to strengthen our energy security, we need to see the Government and developers working with the needs of communities to deliver investment in renewables. We need to see it in a sustainable and fair way, with an emphasis on offshore wind and community-led onshore development, and developers need to be totally transparent about costs and how their investment is being funded.
The King’s Speech includes the new coal licensing ban, which is welcome. However, as I have raised before in Parliament, the proposed ban in its current form does not guarantee the prevention of commercial extraction of coal from coal tips in Wales. The Government should bring measures forward to close this loophole so that companies can never profit from the more than 2,500 tips, containing millions of tonnes of coal between them.
In addition, Westminster must also provide justice for our valley and coalmining communities by fully funding the remediation of coal tips in Wales, which are the legacy of our pre-devolution industrial past. The price tag is estimated at £600 million, but the UK Government have committed only around £143 million.
We needed a King’s Speech that addressed the unfairness at the heart of Wales’s energy system. For a country so rich in energy and potential, Wales needs so much more ambition from the UK Government—an ambition that brings communities on the journey and that listens to the voice of Welsh constituents. Plaid Cymru will continue to stand up and demand the fairness that Wales deserves.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate following His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, because it is an opportunity both to reflect on things that the Government have done and to look to the future. Progress is being made in so many areas, including in the NHS—I was pleased last week to see the biggest in-month fall in waiting times since 2008—action on cost of living issues and the economy. According to the young people who contributed to a survey I undertook towards the end of last year, the cost of living is the biggest issue holding them back. Measures such as freezing rail fares and ensuring the economy can deliver continued interest rates cuts put extra money in people’s pockets, but there is a huge amount still to do.
Looking ahead, I would be keen to see the Government recognise the value of our UNESCO world heritage sites, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on that matter. The Government have opportunities to make offers on education, the economy and the environment. I am also keen that the Government look at the issue of VAT on hospitality, which is a sector that is struggling at the moment. We must also go further and faster with our business rates reform.
I was pleased with some of the steps that the Government took in the first Session of this Parliament on energy, including rolling out the community energy scheme; that will make a massive difference to community institutions such as sports clubs, churches and parish councils, which will be able to generate more of their energy and export it to the grid. I was also pleased with the £600 million for small modular reactors. That is excellent news for people in Derby, who have the skills to bring those forward.
There is so much more to do. Many businesses in my constituency or nearby, such as Denby, are struggling. Denby lacks the grid connections to export the excess renewables produced at the weekend back into the grid. For ceramics producers, the cost of energy is a massive issue that holds the economy back.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Denby Pottery, a business in my constituency that is in administration. Will he join me in urging all hon. Members to sign the petition to save Denby Pottery and encourage his constituents to do so as well?
Jonathan Davies
I absolutely would. These are their jobs, and they very much value the products produced at Denby. I put it to the Minister that if ceramics cannot go into the supercharger scheme, we need a different package to help the sector.
The war in Iran has brought energy into sharp focus again. We have seen shocks to the economy and a risk that domestic customers and businesses will be paying much more. That is why we must go further and faster in our efforts to produce more home-grown energy through renewables and nuclear.
However, another side to this issue is the environment, which I am somewhat disappointed has not featured more prominently in this debate. Ministers may be aware that the Government’s national security assessment states:
“Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.”
We therefore need to deal with our carbon emissions and our impact on the environment not just for the economy, but to prevent drivers of global conflict in the future. We know that our access to natural resources such as water, the way that we grow our food and extreme weather events will be drivers of conflict. We need to do more on energy for our economy and for domestic customers, but if we do not get a grip on climate change and the threats it poses to people in this country and around the world, we will see more conflict. If the Government’s assessment had had the attention it needed, it would have had an impact on the strategic defence review, which talks about climate change, particularly in the High North. This is an issue that we are only beginning to get to grips with. If the Minister could take that away and raise it with his colleagues, I would be most grateful.
As we look forward, I have some reflections about the Government’s first Session of Parliament. We have made significant progress in improving people’s lives in this country, but it is clear that there is a great deal more to do and that people are not feeling the change we promised so profoundly. It seems that so often our frame of reference for the challenges we face is the moment that we are in, not the long-term future of the country. That is why many of the Government’s measures on driving forward energy security are so important. They will take time to deliver, but they will make a difference.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Time and again over the past few months, and, indeed, in this debate, we have heard Ministers talk about the importance of energy independence, and they are right to do so. No country has ever succeeded without cheap and abundant energy. For energy to be cheap and abundant, its supply must be reliable. If we are dependent on energy imports from overseas, the supply of energy will necessarily be unreliable, as the disruption caused by recent events in the Persian gulf has made abundantly clear. But it is profoundly dishonest to talk of energy independence while making us more dependent on energy imports from abroad. That is exactly what the Government’s plans to ban new North sea oil and gas would do. They should, at the very least, be brave enough to admit that to the public.
Ministers say that there is no point in using our vast oil and gas reserves; they say that energy prices are set entirely on the international market, which means that increasing our domestic supply would have little to no impact on the overall prices. But that is not true. Gas is a highly localised market, specifically in the case of liquefied natural gas, which is gas that is turned into liquid, loaded on to ships and transported globally. The further those ships have to travel, the more expensive it becomes to deliver. If we rely on gas imports from the rest of the world, we will need to spend more money to bring that gas to Britain.
The vast majority of homes in the UK—87%—use gas for heating. We currently import half of the gas that we consume. If we produced more gas domestically, it would be cheaper to buy gas, meaning that heating bills would, in fact, come down.
Ms Billington
I know that the hon. Lady’s party is not very keen on experts, but I would refer her to Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, who has pointed out that expansion of production of North sea oil and gas does not significantly improve the UK’s energy security, will not alter the UK’s status as a net importer and will take too long to affect global prices. He says that global demand for fossil fuels has changed permanently and we should, therefore, be prioritising renewables, nuclear power and electrification over further fossil fuel expansion.
Katie Lam
As I just said, 80% of houses use gas for heating. We cannot simply substitute that for renewables—it is impossible.
Returning to the issue of energy independence, producing more gas domestically would also make us more resistant to global shocks. We would be far better served if companies that provide energy in Britain were bidding on gas produced in this country, rather than gas produced halfway around the world. Not only would bills come down, but we would mitigate the risk of sudden cost increases as a result of supply restrictions elsewhere. Yet the Government are proposing a policy that would achieve exactly the opposite.
The demand for gas is not going away, much as the Government might wish that it were. Even if British homes move away from gas in the long term, it is absurd to impose higher bills on them in the short term in the name of ideology. Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. Families across the country are facing higher bills and extra taxes to fund this Government’s ideological commitment to intermittent energy sources. Many will be forced to do things such as postpone holidays or delay moving house to be able to afford the increasing costs imposed on them by this Government.
Meanwhile, businesses are being forced to cut back on staff or shut their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is now simply too high. That means local pubs, family farms and nursing homes all being forced to shut up shop. For industrial businesses in particular, the situation is even worse. These are businesses in sectors such as AI and high-skilled manufacturing that can provide some of the best paid and most durable jobs, revitalising whole communities and enabling people to build successful lives for themselves. While China and India fuel their industrial expansion with new coal-fired power plants, British industry faces some of the highest energy prices in the developed world—they are the highest in Europe, and they are more than double the price paid by industrial businesses in the United States. We cannot hope to sustain an industrial base in this country, let alone grow it, while the price of energy is so vulnerable to global shocks. Why would anybody start a new industrial business in Britain under these conditions?
If this action is being taken in the name of climate change, it is proving to be a catastrophic failure. In the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than Britain has produced over the past 250 years. That is not just because China is a bigger country—per-person emissions from China are more than double those in Britain. We are sending our emissions abroad to countries such as China without making a dent in addressing global climate change, and British families and businesses are left to pick up the tab.
The Government’s plans on energy policy will leave us more dependent on overseas imports and will leave the British people worse off financially, without making any noticeable impact on global climate change. If the Government genuinely want to advance our energy independence, we welcome that, but they will not do so by wrecking domestic production and leaving us reliant on imports from abroad.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Last November, the Children’s Minister and I visited St Joseph’s Catholic primary school in Poole. We were there because the school was one of the first to benefit from the roll-out of solar panels under GB Energy. We met members of the Eco club, who excitedly showed us how much energy the panels were generating and how much energy the school was consuming. We joined a classroom lesson and jogged on the spot with the kids to generate CO2 and monitor the levels so that they could practically learn about heating, cooling and ventilation. We watched them design new energy efficiency and greening measures, and they told us with pride how the solar panels enabled them to give back to their community by supplying power to EV chargers in the car park.
Children care deeply about protecting our natural environment and preserving it for future generations. They understand the need for bold action to do so better than some of the adults in this Chamber. Not only were the solar panels a valuable learning tool inspiring them, but the school was saving money—about £8,500 a year—enabling it to plough resources back into teaching. That speaks to something wider.
For many people, the promise that hard work delivers security, home ownership and a decent quality of life increasingly feels out of reach. That frustration is real, and we see that acutely on energy. Local residents and businesses in Bournemouth West tell me that heating their homes, fuelling their cars and sustaining their energy costs is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Families are tired of living at the mercy of global energy shocks that they cannot control. Every instance of international instability is felt in food bills, household bills and the anxiety that families feel when sitting around their kitchen table at the end of the month.
That is why I am proud of the number of measures that we have taken as a Government. We have measures in the Budget to bring down bills by £150, the energy price cap, action on heating oil, a warm homes plan, which is bringing the biggest ever public investment in homes, and record investment in clean, home-grown power. We have the energy independence Bill—a cornerstone measure in the King’s Speech—to accelerate investment in clean, home-grown energy, strengthen consumer protections and bring down bills over the long term. Let me make a point clearly to Members on the Front Bench: towns such as Bournemouth and Poole stand ready to help to deliver that transition.
It is an immense source of pride for me to represent a constituency that is full to the brim of extraordinary talent, creativity and innovation. We have outstanding colleges and universities and skilled workers. A great example of that is Bournemouth & Poole college’s green energy centre, which is building the skilled workforce of the future. We have natural assets on our coastline and communities eager for investment. There are huge opportunities through the Dorset clean energy super cluster, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton).
The transition to clean energy must not simply happen to places such as Bournemouth and Poole; it must include them. Creating a new generation of skilled workers and the opportunity for well-paid jobs in areas that have for too long been overlooked for investment is about making an economy that works again for people who feel like it has stopped working for them.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she share my view that the really important thing about the pieces of legislation outlined in the King’s Speech is that they will start to drive growth and green job creation into parts of the country that have been left behind for too long and have not felt the benefits of growth and job creation?
Jessica Toale
I agree with my hon. Friend. What he did not say is that we would very much welcome Ministers visiting Dorset to support the Dorset clean energy super cluster.
Ultimately, this is why I support the King’s Speech: while others offer anger, division and easy answers—or simply change their minds about important issues—the Government are choosing a path that will deliver long-term reform, economic resilience and national renewal. That work will take time, but we cannot rebuild prosperity on short-termism. This King’s Speech is an important step towards building a more secure, more resilient and more hopeful future for communities like mine in Bournemouth West and across the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To get everybody in, the speaking limit will be dropped to three minutes after Carla Lockhart.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Having listened intently to the King’s Speech, I was left with one conclusion: the Government just do not get it. We have a Government who are completely out of touch. After recent election results and a surge in support for parties campaigning on illegal immigration, sovereignty and cost of living pressures, I would have thought the Government might have finally recognised public frustration; instead, they appear to have learned nothing. People are angry about illegal immigration, angry about the cost of living and the pressure they feel every time they fill up their car or heat their home, and angry about overstretched public services. Ordinary people are increasingly angry as they feel they are losing control over decisions affecting their lives.
The debate is about energy, and there is no doubt that is the topic around every kitchen table, yet the King’s Speech had little to say to families facing those pressures. On energy security, nowhere is the gap between Westminster policy and reality clearer than in Northern Ireland. About 60% of households in Northern Ireland rely on home heating oil. Many live in rural communities where a car is not optional but essential.
Jim Shannon
One of the reasons that heating oil is so expensive in Northern Ireland is the travel needed to get it there. The Conservative party has tabled an amendment on opening oil fields in the North sea. Does my hon. Friend feel that if that was to happen, it would reduce the oil price and the price of heating oil in Northern Ireland?
Carla Lockhart
Yes, and I will come to that.
When oil prices increase or when instability sends shockwaves through energy markets, families in my constituency feel it immediately. Hauliers, farmers and many businesses are feeling the pressure too. In Northern Ireland there is no easy switch, no ready-made alternative and certainly no escaping the cost.
I have repeatedly raised concerns in the House about heating oil costs, fuel affordability and support for households uniquely exposed to those pressures. I have repeatedly pressed for practical measures that would make an immediate difference, including cutting fuel duty, reducing VAT burdens on hard-pressed householders, greater support for those dependent on home heating oil, and stronger protections for consumers exposed to volatility in the heating oil market. Those are not radical ideas for the long term; they are a practical intervention that would show a Government in touch with people’s needs.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend mentioned fuel duty. Does she agree that the Government could make a contribution—even a temporary one—by announcing a cut in fuel duty rather than just freezing it? That would be a significant step, particularly as we come through the summer months and subsequently into winter.
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. That is a practical step that would make a real difference.
Families are entitled to ask what possible justification there is for support sitting untouched while people struggle. We look at the £81 million given by Westminster to Stormont that is sitting in a Sinn Féin-controlled Department rather than reaching households who desperately need it; I ask the Minister to intervene.
Energy security means affordability and policies grounded in reality. People support protecting the environment, but they also expect realism, and that means recognising the simple truth that energy security begins with producing the energy we need ourselves. The North sea has the ability to help power our economy, support jobs and strengthen our energy resilience for decades, yet instead of backing a strategic national asset, the Government too often appear determined to turn their back on it, with a Secretary of State who is so wedded to a failing, crazy net zero agenda rather than helping those most in need.
At a time of global instability, increasing dependence on imported energy while restricting domestic production raises serious questions. That is not energy security; it is exporting jobs, exporting investment and increasing dependence on others. We should be supporting domestic production, backing strategic industries and ensuring that we are using our own resources wherever possible. We should also stop loading further costs on to households and industry through increasingly unrealistic and punitive carbon taxes, which ultimately make life more expensive for working people and businesses. The cost associated with net zero from 2025 to 2050 is £116 billion—£35 billion per year. Those are eye-watering sums and it is the taxpayer who is paying.
The election results should have been a political earthquake—a warning shot—yet the Government have not listened. Instead, they remain trapped in the Westminster bubble, with a lack of understanding of what life actually looks like outside SW1. Let us look, for example, at illegal immigration. The public were promised stronger borders, tougher action and control; instead, we are seeing expensive failure dressed up as progress. More than 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats since records began. In 2025 alone, more than 41,000 crossed, making it the second-highest year on record. I have repeatedly raised concerns around asylum accommodation costs. Rehousing asylum seekers is set to total £15 billion of taxpayers’ money in the next decade, and in Northern Ireland, the figure is set to rise to £400 million. I know that that money would be better spent on our own citizens first.
At a time when pensioners struggle, businesses face pressure and families watch every penny, the Government are more concerned about forcing unwanted and not needed agendas and ideology, such as digital ID and net zero. That money would be better spent on our WASPI women, on our pensioners and on meaningful welfare reforms. Where was the support for businesses and farmers that sustain our rural economy and food security? Where was Northern Ireland? There was no meaningful recognition of the continuing barriers within our own United Kingdom internal market.
What frustrates people most is what was simply not in the King’s Speech: antisemitism, Islamist extremism, and our veterans. And then there is the EU rhetoric. The public sent a message at the ballot box; it is time for the Government to wake up and start listening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Making or taking interventions will deny another Member the opportunity to make a speech.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate on the new legislative programme included in this year’s King’s Speech. At a time when all eyes are on our Government to demonstrate delivery, we should not underestimate the impact that we can have on daily lives by improving the invisible, yet critical, infrastructure that holds our country together.
As a matter of national security, with impact for growth across all regions, it is imperative that we unlock better planning, co-ordination and investment in core services, the lack of which has been holding back our growth. Now, with strategic plans to grow capacity in power, energy, connectivity and water infrastructure, we can set this country on the path to sustainable growth.
In the face of climate change, we must adapt and improve our readiness. That is vital in the energy independence Bill, as we have heard from colleagues today, but nowhere is this more needed than in the water sector, where we have witnessed the abject failure of privatisation in the industry, leaving us with dangerously polluted water, inadequate sewage management and increasingly expensive water bills. Additionally, the effects of climate change mean that we are simultaneously seeing an increase in flooding and drought. That sounds like an oxymoron, but it is just a symptom of the mismanagement of our precious water resource, with inadequate infrastructure.
The public, as we know, are rightly angry. They are angry that the asset-stripping of water companies, and a failure to invest in our drainage and sewage infrastructure, have allowed the situation to continue for decades. In my constituency of Shrewsbury, our beautiful town is enclosed by the loop of the River Severn. It is a beautiful historical natural asset, but one that has been allowed to fill with sewage, breach its banks and pollute our homes, businesses and play areas. Bill payers are ready for change, and from an infrastructure perspective, we need assurances that our water assets are being considered holistically, from rainwater reuse to infrastructure upgrades and stronger oversight of what has become a very fragmented industry.
I welcome the clean water Bill being introduced in this Session. We could say that it is a sequel to our first blockbuster, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced criminal liabilities for polluters and banned executive bonuses for water bosses guilty of environmental damage. The clean water Bill is the much-anticipated follow-on that is needed to overhaul the current regulatory system. It is an ambitious programme of high-level restructuring, and I look forward to this vital piece of legislation. It is long overdue, and it is high time we got a grip of the problem of our polluted waterways. I have always described the Water (Special Measures) Act as the last-chance saloon for water companies to get this right, whereas the clean water Bill is surely our last throw of the dice before we move to nationalising the water sector.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Almost 15% of people in East Thanet are in fuel poverty—significantly above the national average of 11.4%. That is thousands of my constituents who cannot afford for their energy bills to go up, but who, because of international events completely out of their control, are now facing exactly that. Working people like them should not bear the burden of decisions made by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. That is why I am glad to see the Government’s focus on energy and energy independence in this upcoming legislative Session.
There is no one silver bullet for achieving energy independence. It requires action to reduce energy usage, which is why the warm homes agency will be so important in order to give people trusted advice and access to grants and low-interest loans. It requires more generation of energy at home, because the more we produce domestically, the less exposed we are to volatile fossil fuel markets. It requires reform of the market and it requires diversity of supply.
However, this new international situation is different from the circumstances we were previously considering when tackling the science of climate change and the failed energy market in this country. We now live in a situation where the global context is more volatile and more unstable than it has ever been. Therefore, the legislative programme that the Government have announced is absolutely necessary, but it may not be sufficient on its own. To secure the energy independence and resilience we require, the Government need to consider their role in establishing greater international agreements on how we increase the resilience of our global economy against our exposure to fossil fuel markets. I have called on the Government to convene an international energy summit with the same boldness and scope of Gordon Brown’s crisis summit in 2009 following the great financial crash. I saw at first hand then the role of Britain using its convening power to bring nations together, and we should look to do so again.
I was delighted to hear in the King’s Speech that we will be hosting the G20 next year, and I hope the Government will put energy co-operation right at the heart of that summit. This is crucial because 20% of the world’s oil, 20% of global liquefied natural gas and one third of seaborne fertiliser pass through the strait of Hormuz every day. The economic pain of this has not yet hit us. People are already talking about the risk to family holidays, but there is a risk of food shortages and starvation, and of blackouts in countries that are vital to our supply chains. That is the seriousness of the situation we are facing, which requires an international solution. I am delighted that we have a deep, broad and integrated approach to tackling some of the most challenging elements of creating increased energy resilience, as outlined in the legislative plans, but the situation does need to be seen in the wider global context, and it demands global leadership from the British Government.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Coalminers were the original victims of an unjust transition and, 40 years on, the Grangemouth oil refinery workers are the modern-day equivalent. PetroChina, the Chinese state-owned petrochemical company, and Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos ended a century of Scottish oil refining because they—a foreign Government and private capital—wanted to make even more money. The closure meant: 435 jobs on site—redundant; 2,822 supply chain jobs—gone; local businesses, which needed refinery workers’ custom— hammered; £400 million a year from the Scottish economy—lost; Scotland’s energy security—weakened; and Scotland’s national security—compromised. The previous Tory Government were uninterested and the SNP Scottish Government were negligent. We know that when essential national infrastructure is in the hands of a foreign Government and a private company, workers, their communities and our nation’s energy security will not stand in the way of shareholders getting their dividend. That is what private capital will always do.
British Steel being taken into national ownership is great news, but I ask the Minister why the same did not happen for Grangemouth oil refinery. Last Christmas my Labour Government did step in and save the UK chemicals industry at Grangemouth, with 500 jobs secured and a profit-sharing agreement reached: positive Government action for Grangemouth and for all of Scotland. That was the right thing to do—it was the Labour thing to do—and the same goes for nationalising British Steel.
Fifteen months ago, at the Scottish Labour party conference, the Prime Minister announced Project Willow, with £200 million for Grangemouth’s bold industrial future. Let us get these new green, clean future industries into Grangemouth, but let us do it more quickly. It has taken far too long. Workers need jobs and the local community must see the benefit of those industries coming to Grangemouth. Scandalously, for far too long private capital has exploited the local area, extracted profits and not put anything back into the town that has given it oh so much. Let us take public ownership of these new industries and reinvest in Grangemouth—in the town and the people. It is high time that we, the working class, started to reap the benefits of our labour.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome last week’s King’s Speech and the Bills in it, which aim to put the UK on a stronger path for the future. My constituents have been clear with me: if we are to build a future that is fairer, in which they are not just getting by, but thriving, we need to do politics differently. It is not good enough to suggest that someday in the distant future things might get a little bit better. That is not going to cut it any more.
Today our focus is on energy security, an issue that underscores perhaps more than any other how we cannot carry on with business as usual. Looking across the north of England, we can see the consequences of deindustrialisation, the hollowing out of local economies and the impacts of austerity. It is abundantly clear that we need to view achieving energy security as an opportunity to right those historical wrongs. The inequalities they brought about have been eating away at communities and the values that once made them whole. Reframing energy security as a positive opportunity to reverse the fortunes of towns like mine is the only way to proceed.
The poverty experienced by far too many in Heywood, Middleton and the other towns I represent will not be addressed unless we accept that we need to reindustrialise in a way that safeguards our energy security. I therefore express my full support for the provisions in the Government’s energy independence Bill, the next step in tackling the totally unmanageable bills for consumers and businesses and ending our overreliance on global energy markets.
Challenges with the cost of energy are not a consideration only when it comes to how we heat our homes or power industry; as the sole Greater Manchester MP on the Transport Committee, I also want to consider how the cost of energy affects how we get from A to B. Giving local people the ability to reach employment and leisure opportunities both affordably and in a joined-up manner is something we have pioneered in Greater Manchester. We have made those arguments, taken on our detractors head-on and won, and we have done so through a vision-led approach and place-based delivery.
The delivery of the largest light rail network in the country has completely transformed the prospects of tens of thousands of people in Greater Manchester. The tram is arriving in my constituency, with spades in the ground by 2028, and we are closing gaps in provision so that the whole of Greater Manchester can benefit, including Heywood and Middleton North. We are delivering through a responsive, integrated and affordable bus service that reaches all corners of the city region, having been taken back into public ownership. On rail, I also welcome the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill, a clear reflection of our region’s ambition and a firm commitment from Government to decarbonisation and delivery across the north.
In closing, I welcome the King’s Speech and what it could mean for my constituents in Heywood and Middleton North. That said, I want to be completely clear: the window that we have to demonstrate that there is another way is rapidly closing. The security my constituents deserve is not a pipe dream; it is entirely deliverable, and in my view—
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Much of the debate we have heard today I heard in the village of Eoropie on the Isle of Lewis last Saturday morning, when I visited there with Donald MacKinnon, our new Labour MSP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Donald fought a tremendous campaign and will be a brilliant MSP. He raced against the tide for the Western Isles and kept the Atlantic beacon alight for Labour during our summer squalls. I also pay tribute to Dr Alasdair Allan for his public service to the islands as MSP over many years. Just as the islands were at a political tipping point the other week, so too are they at the fulcrum of this debate on energy security. To the east, the Ness district looks to the mainland and over the horizon to the North sea, where much of its wealth has come from over the past decade; out to the west is the wild Atlantic, from where the wealth of wind will provide and power the transition away from carbon and renewables.
At Ness football ground, where the under-eights were in fierce competition, one parent gave me his simple political priority: to keep the North sea open. It has provided him and his family with the means to stay on the island, as it has for many other families around that pitch, although it means that many mothers are effectively single-parent families for half their children’s lives. Further up the road, walking her neighbour’s dog, another constituent stopped us to state her concerns and objections about plans for a multinational 900 MW offshore wind turbine array—being less than four miles away, it is actually near-shore rather than offshore. Both those conversations reflect the concerns of many who find the scale of this transition overwhelming, or who feel that they are not being carried along on the journey to renewable energy and that the workers and the communities affected by this revolution are in danger of being left behind.
Previous Governments have not backed community energy at scale. I look forward to GB Energy and the new energy Bill enabling a big leap forward in community energy. The North sea workers are skilled engineers, mariners and experts in their field. They know the North sea is a declining field, but they also know that the technicalities of tiebacks, which this Government have not made enough of, are the quickest way to bring more oil and gas on stream. Indeed, some 2.5 billion barrels could be developed using subsea tiebacks. Those North sea guys want what the guy at Ness football pitch wanted: certainty, and an orderly transition that has their jobs at its centre.
As the Minister knows from visiting the islands and talking to community energy companies, we are at the centre of transition and produce more community-owned energy than any other place in the UK. The problem is that there is no space to get that energy out, with commercial companies dominating the 1.8 GW interconnector. I urge the Minister, as I have urged him before, not to talk to NESO, but to sit on it, and on Ofgem and on the grid operators, to find a route through and expand community-owned energy on the islands, and indeed elsewhere.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Earlier this year I had the pleasure of welcoming the Energy Minister to my constituency, where we took part in the blessing of a tunnel underneath the Thames that formed the final part of the Tilbury to Grain upgrade of the National Grid. At the time I reflected on how that put us right at the forefront of a green energy revolution in my constituency and how Tilbury, a place on the Thames estuary, is once again playing its part in delivering and securing our nation’s future.
That is pertinent to this debate on whether we continue with our slavish devotion to fossil fuels, or switch to a greener, better future for our children and grandchildren—something that makes sense for the planet and the pocket. The cost of the transition to clean energy is less than the cost incurred by one fossil fuel crisis; with the recent action in Iran and its impact on people’s energy bills, we can see the crucial and pressing nature of effecting that switch as soon as possible.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions investment in green energy. Beckenham and Penge has had significant investment from GB Energy, with more than £700,000 for rooftop solar panels at NHS Bethlem Royal hospital and in local primary schools such as Harris Primary Shortlands. Does she agree that that is a win-win for everyone—it is good for the environment and good for bills, and means more money spent on patients and students?
Jen Craft
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A secondary school in my constituency has benefited from the installation of solar panels and expects its energy bill to reduce significantly, which will have a huge impact on what it is able to deliver for its students. My constituency is already seeing benefits from the switch to green energy. I recently helped to open the Green Energy Centre at South Essex college, which is helping people to train and retrain in retrofitting existing homes so that they become bill free, reducing the price that people must pay to heat their homes and get energy into them. The Thames freeport, a large proportion of which is in my constituency, has a focus on renewable energy. It will bring lifelong jobs and careers for people who can stay local and work locally, and it could bring huge, transformational change to the lives of people in Thurrock.
I firmly hope that the new Reform council—I see that no Reform Members are in the Chamber to represent that party—will continue with that approach, engaging with the economic success that places such as the Thames freeport and its focus on renewables can bring, and that it is not blinded by sheer political ideology, hampering the progress that people in my part of the world can make. However, given that its first act in office was to remove the Ukrainian flag that had been flying outside Thurrock council’s office, which had been there to show solidarity and resistance to Russian expansionism—one of the greatest threats that Europe faces at this time—I do not hold out much hope. It seems that Vladimir Putin is getting his money’s worth.
Talking of malign foreign influence in our democracy, I strongly welcome the measures outlined in the King’s Speech to tackle that threat through the Representation of the People Bill. Tightening the rules on foreign political donations and strengthening the role and powers of the Electoral Commission will go far. However, I fear that we are at a precipice, facing an existential threat to our democracy. Social media algorithms have a parasitic relationship with populism; both driven by outrage, anger and fear, they poison our social discourse and our public space. We know that 80 million Facebook accounts were harvested and mined to gather data on how to psychologically manipulate users in the run-ups to the Brexit vote and the first Trump presidential campaign—again, Vladimir Putin getting his money’s worth. The Government must take action to stand up to big tech and urgently address this threat before the damage done to our democratic institutions is irreparable.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
As today’s remarks have focused on key national infrastructure, I thought I would speak briefly on the clean water Bill outlined in the King’s Speech. The water sector is another essential piece of national infrastructure that is long overdue for reform.
Like many in this House, I welcome the clean water Bill with open arms. As I see it, the Bill is our best opportunity to create a water sector that puts bill payers, water users and the environment first. For too long, it has felt as though shareholders, overseas investment banks or indeed private equity firms were the first priority of the water industry. I hope that will change as a result of this Bill, and I am pleased that it builds upon the early action already taken by this Labour Government.
To me, what is most important is that my constituents in South Dorset know that getting the clean water Bill right really matters. We are so proud of our coastline, and it is perhaps the most impressive—certainly in the south-west, if not in the whole country. Protecting it from unwanted sewage spills and failing water companies really matters, which is why this Bill matters.
Jessica Toale
I am actually quite jealous of my hon. Friend, because about four of his beaches were recently listed in Time Out among the top beaches. However, I visited Durdle Door with him to call for year-round water testing and for our waters to be cleaned up. Does he agree that this Bill will take further the action to clean up sewage spills that we have already taken?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the Bill certainly builds on the early progress that has been made.
To be most effective, the clean water Bill needs to include a meaningful duty on all water companies to operate for the public benefit. We all know that the current model of ownership in the water sector is failing both the public and the environment, and that instead of fixing crumbling infrastructure, water companies have been lining their own pockets and accumulating debt for far too long.
Until the big water companies have a clear obligation to deliver both public and environmental benefits, I fear they will continue to make decisions that increase their profit shares but also vandalise our coastlines. That is why a duty to operate for the public benefit is critical—it will help to overhaul the day-to-day operations of water companies and change the corporate culture at the top of many of those firms. If we look at similar sectors where that duty exists, such as public transport and buses in particular, we see that it does begin to change the culture.
It is really important that the Government use the clean water Bill as an opportunity to move the water sector towards a different way of operating, with a different model of ownership. That can only be achieved if we start to compel water companies to act in a different way, and that requires a mechanism such as a public benefit duty. The Bill is our golden opportunity to put the public and the environment first, and it is our chance to fundamentally reform the water sector for good.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak for my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich on the legislative agenda set out in the King’s Speech. It is a programme designed to restore security, stability and control over the basics in life. For too long our people have felt the consequences of economic shocks over which they have no control and an economic model that does not work for them. Now is the time to break that model and build something new that serves every community across our great country.
You cannot improve what you do not control, and the legacy of the past 40 years is that the British state has relinquished too much control over those things that impact the pounds in the pockets and life chances of the British people. Control over the basics means securing our everyday lives, and that starts with the energy heating our homes and powering our industry. The energy independence Bill and the electricity generator levy Bill represent a structural shift in how this country powers itself. Crucially, they will break the link between electricity and skyrocketing gas prices and invest in the clean, home-grown energy of the future, thereby permanently shielding working families from volatile global markets.
However, I must challenge the Government to go further, by restoring control over another utility: the water that flows through our taps and into our rivers and streams. We must end the private water monopolies, strip out private equity from this basic necessity and ensure that every pound spent in the system goes towards investing in infrastructure and controlling bills, not towards shareholder dividends and profits.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Connor Naismith
I will not. It is time to bring water back under public control, ensuring that this life-essential utility is managed as a secure public good, not a private commodity.
In the time I have remaining, I wish to talk about high streets. High streets are the visible heartbeat of our towns, and I warmly welcome the steps taken by this Government to date to support local authorities to intervene to fill empty shops. Intervention is only half the battle, however. We must also cultivate an environment where small businesses can genuinely succeed. Hospitality businesses are vital to that endeavour, and I call on the Government to support Hospitality Together and hospitality businesses in my constituency in their call for a sector-specific VAT cut for hospitality.
Although there is room to go further, this King’s Speech delivers a comprehensive framework of security, and it tells the people of Crewe and Nantwich that the state is back in their corner—
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I am delighted that measures in the King’s Speech will strengthen our economic security, our national security and—what we are debating today—our energy security. While the Tories and Reform want to ditch our net zero policies and our clean power targets, it is a huge relief to people in Monmouthshire and across the UK that Labour is taking clean energy seriously. Anyone hearing the speeches from those on the Conservative and Reform Benches would think that they wanted to take us back to oil lamps and candles, such is their disdain for clean energy and modern ways.
I also flag my strong support for the clean water Bill. Rivers such as the Wye and Usk are incredibly important to the people of Monmouthshire. They are polluted, and we must tackle that. I am pleased that we are doing that with the stronger regulation promised by the clean water Bill.
People in Monmouthshire are facing the realities of our dependence on global oil and gas markets, and many of us in the countryside rely on heating oil or LPG and have little choice but to pay up when prices spike. Earlier this year, a woman in her 70s wrote to me and told me that her quote for 500 litres of oil had risen by £250 in less than a week. Others are hamstrung as their electricity bill goes up or as their commute gets more expensive.
All of that is triggered by international conflict that is out of the UK’s hands. That is why Labour has delivered the biggest-ever investment in home-grown clean power in British history. Part of that is Wylfa in north Wales being included as part of the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century. We also have serious investment in tidal power off the coast of Wales. I must also point out to Ministers that there is great potential in the River Severn, which borders my constituency. It would be an amazing spot for new tidal projects, and I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will respond to that suggestion.
The Climate Change Act 2008 has been emulated throughout the world as a leading framework for us to budget for and plan our emissions, and to hold Governments accountable for pollution. The Tories, who supported the Act years ago, now want to scrap it, while Reform backs fracking and its deputy leader actually calls net zero a “cult”. The energy independence Bill and other legislation set out in the King’s Speech affirm this Labour Government’s commitment to harnessing clean, home-grown power, and I am proud to back a Government who take decisions that protect our natural world, our security and our wallets. Those decisions will benefit not only my generation, but generations to come.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, as it puts energy security, economic security and industrial renewal back on track for the people I represent. Wolverhampton and Willenhall have a proud history of industry, innovation and hard work. From our foundries and factories to our engineering and manufacturing expertise, our communities helped to power British and global growth for generations. However, the policies of the past are taking their toll today: policies of turning the UK away from manufacturing, away from council housing and away from public ownership, all of which are being felt today by those in my communities.
One of the most pressing issues facing our country today is energy security. Recent energy crises exposed how vulnerable Britain has become. In fact, half the UK’s recessions since the 1970s have been caused by our exposure to fossil fuels. The only way in which to secure true sovereignty for our country is to be in control of our own energy. That is why I strongly welcome the Government’s energy independence Bill, which recognises that Britain must get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster with clean, home-grown power that we control ourselves.
Sureena Brackenridge
I will not. Sorry.
The Bill takes important steps to tackle rising household bills, strengthen protections for vulnerable households, and pave the way for the warm homes plan. It also rightly accelerates Britain’s drive for energy security by speeding up investment in clean power, grid infrastructure and modern energy networks. Wolverhampton is already positioning itself at the forefront of green innovation, with investment in advanced manufacturing, clean technologies and the green innovation corridor. By linking the University of Wolverhampton with the science park and the i54 manufacturing hub, the corridor brings together research, industry and skills.
Tata’s Steelpark in Wednesfield is home to the UK’s largest steel processing plants, and generations of local families have dedicated their working lives to steel and manufacturing. I am calling for British-made steel to build the infrastructure of the future, whether it consists of wind turbines, railways or energy networks. Backing steel means creating apprenticeships, expanding technical education and giving young people in Wolverhampton North East the opportunity to build rewarding careers at home.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, because it is vital that we make the transition to a new era of clean energy, driving our nation’s energy security forward, while rebuilding our public services and backing businesses to help them to grow. One of the most telling themes that emerge from what businesses in my constituency tell me at our regular roundtable meetings is the slowness of our country to create the infrastructure that its economy needs to succeed and underpin that transition to clean energy.
Of the 35 Bills mentioned in the King’s Speech, many will help to build and boost economic growth and strengthen our energy security, including the energy independence Bill and the electricity generator levy Bill, which seek to break the link between electricity and gas prices by moving older generators on to new fixed price contracts.
One of the Bills particularly welcome to my constituents is the highways (financing) Bill, which will for the first time set out how the Government can use the regulated asset base funding model used in sectors such as energy to build new large-scale road schemes. Crucially for me and the people of Dartford, the new lower Thames crossing will be the first project built on this model, using private capital to get this vital scheme built. We already have spades in the ground for the preparatory work on the crossing, and the new Bill should see this long-promised project finally delivered.
Dartford regularly experiences traffic gridlock when there are delays at the crossing, with children unable to get home from school, missed appointments and a stifling effect on local businesses, without mentioning the terrible air quality impact of 50,000 more vehicles a day using the crossing than it was originally designed to accommodate. With this, the Government are backing lower Thames crossing businesses to succeed, including those in the lower Thames crossing consortium, which I chair, so improving vital links with our ports and creating the conditions for growth in the future.
While I am on the topic of transport, it would be remiss of me not to mention Galley Hill Road in my constituency, the crucial route between Dartford and Gravesend, which collapsed and has been out of use for more than three years. I hope that, during this Session, Kent County Council will bid for and secure funding from the excellent new structures fund to get the road repaired and back open, so that local businesses such as MBC Despatch Racing can thrive again and Swanscombe can see an end to oversized lorries blocking its narrow roads. I welcome this King’s Speech and the Bills in it.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We have been trapped in a vicious economic circle for decades, and that vicious circle is underpinned by our dependence on fossil fuels, which means lower growth, higher inflation and a higher debt burden. More than that, lower growth and lower income mean more fear, more fury and more far-right agitation for our constituents, as we see on our screens and, increasingly and worryingly, on our streets. That is why we are setting out how we are breaking out of that trap and building a virtuous economic circle of higher growth, lower inflation and a lower debt burden.
To set out how and why we are in this place is very simple. Fossil fuels are more expensive—50% more expensive even before the Iran crisis struck—than wind, solar and nuclear. What does that mean for us at home? It means less spending, which means less growth, and it means higher prices and higher inflation, both of which mean a higher debt burden. Because our debt is linked to inflation, it also means high interest payments. There is a fundamental perverse economic link between fossil fuel prices and our economic prosperity, and that is what we are now breaking.
We are breaking out of that trap by ensuring that we get lower energy prices now and in the future. In the first instance, we are providing immediate relief on bills, lowering energy prices with affordability payments, and funding that by windfall taxes. That means not only more spending, but lower inflation, and lower inflation means the Bank has more space to cut rates. At this time, when the Bank is worried about second-order effects, it is not right to borrow money to ensure those bills come down; it is right to ensure we raise the money from tax to lower bills and lower interest rates.
In the longer term, when we invest in clean energy, we know that means lower energy bills and higher growth in the future. We know that works because, although natural gas used to set our price over 90% of the time, it now sets our price only 60% of the time. We know that we can break out of this trap because we are already doing so.
Finally, I will close by saying that this is about more than just affordability or bills; it is about the way we cohere and live together as one. We cannot expect people in this country to have a stake in it if we do not have a stake in them and do not show that we can make life affordable for them. Only then can we build a country, and by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we do alone.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the package of Bills in the King’s Speech.
By accelerating the transition to renewables and by producing energy for the UK here in the UK, we will strengthen our energy resilience and make bills lower. For that to succeed, another barrier must be addressed. Time and again, manufacturers in my constituency tell me that they are being held back by the constraints on our grid infrastructure, which is stifling expansion and the creation of new jobs for people in Amber Valley.
The combined double burden of high energy prices and insufficient grid capacity has been keenly felt by Denby Pottery, which has sadly gone into administration. I was shocked to learn that for years it had been forced to switch off its solar panels at weekends, rather than sell excess power back to the grid—a cruel irony, given the circumstances. The Minister for Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), will be acutely aware from our many meetings on this subject that I will not stop pushing for support for the energy-intensive ceramics industry, and I will not stop fighting to save Denby Pottery unless and until the doors close for the very last time.
National Grid’s plans to upgrade the network are central to increasing capacity across Amber Valley, which in turn will support local businesses. However, I know many residents are deeply concerned about the proposed pylon route, which is set to run through my constituency from top to bottom. I am working hard to ensure that the final route minimises impact and intrusion for residents, schools and businesses.
In Amber Valley, our communities have consistently stepped up to support our nation’s infrastructure, from open cast mining to our ironworks, and that contribution must be recognised. The community benefit fund can be used to support local priorities, such as healthcare, education and skills. No level of funding can fully offset disruption, but it is none the less essential that the communities most affected see a fair and proportionate return. I have raised this issue directly with the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who knows that I will always fight for what is right for my constituents. That is why I want to take the opportunity today to reiterate that, given that Amber Valley is once again being asked to contribute more than others to this nationally significant project, it is only right that my constituents receive a ringfenced and proportionate share of the community fund.
Some in this place seek to use energy policy as an opportunity to play culture wars, but my constituents know more than most that this is not a game. The measures in the King’s Speech will make our energy resilience stronger and our energy supply fairer, while preserving and creating jobs, and making bills cheaper. For my constituents, that cannot come soon enough.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment, set out in the King’s Speech, to drive innovation in the energy sector and deliver clean and more secure energy for future generations. Gravesham is stepping forward to meet the challenge. The Northfleet Green Hydrogen Project was one of 11 successful projects as part of the UK Government’s first hydrogen allocation round designed for its ambition of supporting 10 GW of green and blue energy by 2030. For Gravesham, that means it would decarbonise a paper-making process for much beloved household brands such as Andrex at Kimberley-Clark, which has been a part of Gravesham’s businesses for over 70 years.
Now the science part. Having taught it in the classroom in Northfleet schools, we will now be able to see it in action in Northfleet. Hydrogen will be generated through electrolysis—don’t worry, I’m not going to go through electrolysis with you all—that will generate steam to work through the paper manufacturing process. This will be a hybrid process, so it can run on hydrogen or natural gas. That will enhance our energy security, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and provide clean energy. Not only that, it is about good quality jobs for Northfleet and the wider Gravesham area.
This particular project, which has had £90 million capital investment nationally, has unlocked £400 million in private investment. There is, however, a critical risk, which relates to connection to the national grid. I will therefore be asking the Minister to meet me to discuss how we can ensure this project stays on track. Looking less than a mile down the River Thames, the lower Thames crossing is in my constituency. Gravesham already faces congestion linked to the Dartford crossing, affecting daily life and air quality. Parts of Gravesham have air quality management areas, with increased nitrogen dioxide levels linked to transport.
The fear is that the increased capacity of the lower Thames crossing will lead to increased congestion in and around Gravesham, so it is essential that the delivery is linked to forward-looking transport solutions that genuinely benefit local communities. That is yet to be truly felt be my constituents and local businesses, so there is a lot more work to be done.
The Thames estuary itself can be used to transport people, as with the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry. I encourage the Government to explore sustainable transport modes such as hydrogen or electric-powered ferried across the Thames, removing congestion on roads. Continuing to rely solely on roads is not a viable long-term solution, and more balanced, community-focused transport is essential to getting people around.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have three speakers remaining and we have gained a few minutes. The last three speakers can have five minutes each if they do not take interventions.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I have cut my speech down so much I do not know if I can fill five minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the King’s Speech, His Majesty set out a clear and sober assessment of the challenges facing our country. He reminded us that energy independence is now a matter of national security, not just environmental ambition. His Majesty warned that recent events in the middle east have once again shown how global instability can reach directly into the homes of families across the country. That is why the Government have committed themselves to an energy independence Bill designed to scale up home-grown renewable energy and protect living standards for the long term.
If we are to deliver on the significant commitment to build an energy system that is secure, clean and resilient, then we must learn from the evidence. The reality is that we will not win the argument for clean climate action unless people feel the benefit. Energy independence cannot be something that happens to communities; it must be something that happens with them.
The transition of clean energy is already shaping our energy landscape. Renewables are reducing the number of hours when gas sets the price of electricity. New technologies are emerging as the backbone of a modern energy system, and the grid, long overdue for investment, is finally being reimagined for the 21st century.
Faced with decades of deindustrialisation, communities like Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock need to see and feel real benefits, such as lower bills, good jobs, and investment in local services, otherwise support for the transition will erode—and if support erodes, we risk losing the wider public argument on climate change altogether. In Scotland, delivering those real benefits means Governments working together. The clean power mission is an objective shared by both the UK and Scottish Governments; it is important to acknowledge constructive co-operation, and encourage more of it where possible.
As we debate energy security, we must place community benefit at the heart of our approach, not as a voluntary gesture or token payment, but a core principle of how we build the energy system of the future. In Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, the 9 Community Council Group administers large amounts of community benefits, with over 60 young apprenticeships, alongside other fantastic community support, creating an ongoing legacy to my communities. I invite the Minister to attend a meeting with that group.
However, we must go further. Community ownership—giving local people a real stake in the energy produced on their doorstep—should be a core feature of the transition. When communities share in the profits, they share in the purpose. When they have a voice, they have a better reason to support change, both locally and nationally. It is about not just fairness but effectiveness, because the fastest way to lose public trust is to impose changes without their consent. The fastest way to build trust is to ensure that communities are partners and not bystanders.
Finally, I will touch on the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear development in Scotland. Their stance was clearly shaped in a different political moment, but today it means that Scotland risks standing apart from what the King’s Speech rightly called
“a new era of British nuclear energy”.
By ruling out nuclear energy entirely, Scotland risks losing out on long-term skilled jobs and major inward investment. At a time when the UK is moving to expand nuclear, Scotland risks being left behind, missing opportunities that could support communities and contribute to the secure, clean energy mix that we need for decades to come.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I will start by addressing comments made by Members on the Opposition Benches, in particular the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who decried Government policy on energy as ideological. I hold my hands up and say that, for me, it is ideological: making the UK more secure and making people better off is at the very core of my ideology. I would class that as ideological.
Sean Woodcock
You were very clear about taking interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I do normally appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions, this time I will not—[Interruption.] As he asked so nicely, I will let him.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He prioritises energy security, and of course the transition to cleaner energy and affordable energy is what we would all wish for. However, this country is going to burn through billions of barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050, even if we meet net zero in 2050. On what basis does he support Government proposals to stop us producing that oil and gas to the highest environmental standards here in the UK, and instead importing it from abroad, with much higher emissions attached?
Sean Woodcock
I think the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally misrepresents Government policy, as it is my understanding that we will continue to use oil and gas, and it will play a key part in the just transition.
Events in the middle east have made it very clear and have reminded us that national security and energy security go hand in hand. When global events destabilise supply, it is families here at home who feel the impact on their energy bills. We must therefore prioritise energy independence, which is why I welcome the ambition set out in the King’s Speech to do exactly that.
This is not just some abstract idea; in my constituency, we are seeing what that can look like in practice. I refer to Southill solar farm in the town of Charlbury, which is not a corporation but a co-operative set up by local volunteers who wanted to make a difference. Since 2016, they have been generating enough clean energy to power around 1,500 homes. Then there is Hook Norton Low Carbon, which is doing brilliant work to keep household energy bills below the price cap, which it does by teaming up with another local solar farm and an anaerobic digestion plant—another practical, community-led solution to a national and international challenge. What these projects show is Britain at its best. It is people stepping up when they are given the opportunity to do so because they want not just greener energy, but control, stability and the sense that they are no longer at the mercy of global markets.
If we want to see more of that across the country, we have to address the barriers that are holding progress back. Too many brilliant community energy projects are stuck in limbo, not because they lack ambition or funding but because they simply cannot get connected to the grid. In some cases, they are waiting years just for a connection. Not only is that frustrating, but it is holding back our entire transition to cleaner energy. We need to modernise our grid infrastructure and streamline the planning system. If we do that, we can unlock a huge wave of locally generated renewable power.
However, that is only part of the picture. If we want a truly secure energy system, we also need reliable, consistent power. That is why I welcome the nuclear regulation Bill. By making the process more efficient without compromising safety, we can finally start moving at the pace we need and usher in a new chapter for British nuclear energy.
Energy security is not just about how much power we generate; it must also have a positive impact on people’s lives. That is why the energy independence Bill and the £15 billion warm homes plan are so important. Helping people to insulate their homes properly is one of the most effective ways that we can cut their bills, because when families save money on energy, that money does not disappear; it gets spent in local shops, cafés and businesses, supporting jobs and strengthening local economies. That is why it is not just good environmental policy, but good economic policy. That is how we build a system that is more secure, more resilient and fairer for the people we represent. That is why I am so pleased to support the King’s Speech.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
After the increase to the time limit, I think I will buy a lottery ticket tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Having worked in energy, I am all too aware that it has not always been high on the political agenda, but since the invasion of Ukraine, it has of course seized the headlines, and it is in the news once again because of President Trump’s distraction plan in Iran. I welcome the Government’s focus on energy security, but I hope that we will not narrow our view of what energy security and clean energy mean. Reliance on fossil fuels is a growing drag on our economy, so the Government are right to push for electrification where viable, alongside home-grown renewable energy to get us off that rollercoaster, but zero carbon renewable gas should also be a critical part of our plan for energy independence.
Many aspects of the energy independence Bill are fantastic, such as new obligations on landlords to invest in renewable energy and beefing up Ofgem with new powers that will enable it to step in where consumers have been ripped off. When it comes to the warm homes agency, I welcome the huge investment that will be going into insulation, but remain concerned about the direction of travel on electrification for almost all homes.
Since I first entered the energy industry just over a decade ago, the zealousness in the London-based civil service around heat pumps has not waned, despite years of evidence that the roll-out and cost reduction of heat pumps has not matched optimistic estimates. I say this as somebody who got a heat pump last year. The total cost of my installation was over £14,000 beyond the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme payment. I am in a fortunate position, but I cannot say to my constituents that they should spend their savings or get themselves into heaps of debt to get a heat pump. With the way things are right now, the vast majority of people in Cannock Chase cannot afford one, and I have not seen anything about the warm homes agency that will fundamentally change that reality.
If we are serious about helping struggling households, we have to ensure that the agency’s immediate mission is to bring bills down. Let us ensure that the energy independence Bill lives up to its name by also kickstarting a revolution in renewable gas production. A boost to biomethane production could support farmers to handle organic waste better and to secure a reliable income stream; it would bring down emissions in sectors that cannot easily electrify, including the potential for carbon-negative gas through the usage of carbon capture and storage; and it would ensure that we are masters of our own destiny when it comes to a critical fuel that will remain part of our energy mix for decades to come.
The extension of the green gas support scheme to 2030 is welcome, but like all energy investment pipelines, producers and investors need longer-term certainty on the Government’s position. I have heard similar concerns from the hydrogen industry. Although there is widespread support for the Government’s investment in CCS and the first round of hydrogen investment, we still do not have the hydrogen strategy. All these strands need to be knitted together as part of a balanced approach on reaching net zero, supporting our constituents and businesses along the way.
In the Government’s focus on clean energy and the jobs of the future, let us not lose sight of the promise of biomethane and hydrogen as other examples of home-grown clean energy. Above all, let us always be on the side of our constituents who want to do the right thing in decarbonising their homes, but worry how on earth they will afford it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank all the speakers and contributors to this afternoon’s debate. I especially thank and welcome the contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes); my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). He is not in his place just yet, but he mentioned the Dungeness nuclear power plant. I agree with him that the potential at that plant is huge for new nuclear, especially small modular reactors, and I can very much recommend the fish and chips—or fission chips—they sell at the Pilot Inn just outside the gates of that power plant, if anybody is looking to visit.
I also pay tribute and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who seemed to suggest that we are all here because of a lack of positive votes for any of us individually. I am not quite sure how that will go down at the next parliamentary Liberal Democrat party meeting, given that is what he thinks of his colleagues, but it was a very enjoyable contribution none the less.
Across this House, we all recognise that we live in a turbulent world and that our energy security is being tested at every turn. Russia seeks to exploit vulnerabilities in our subsea infrastructure, Iran is weaponising the supply of oil and gas from the Gulf, and China is seeking to access our critical national infrastructure. It was therefore incredibly welcome to see that a Bill will be introduced to strengthen the United Kingdom’s energy security: an energy independence Bill. Finally, we thought, they get it. Finally, they have listened to the academics, the trade unions, Scottish Renewables, Tony Blair and Jürgen Maier. Finally, the Government are going to take the action necessary to secure our energy future, secure jobs and deliver much-needed revenue to His Majesty’s Treasury.
Or so we thought. Sadly and predictably, the Government have not listened. They have not acted. In fact, they are doubling down: doubling down on making this country poorer, on making this country weaker, and on callously abandoning the high-skilled workers and people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
Dave Doogan
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, of being a rank, rotten revisionist, but the problem is that in the last 10 years of his Government, oil and gas jobs in north-east Scotland went down by 100,000, and just in the two years that he was a Minister, including in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, they went down a further 10%. Why is he now manifesting as some sort of caped crusader for oil and gas workers? It is difficult for many of us in north-east Scotland to believe.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party that for the best part of 10 years had a presumption against oil and gas, for now seeking to be a champion for that industry. There was a global oil price crash in 2014. What did we do? We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery. We cut taxes and stemmed job losses—the exact opposite of what this Labour Government are doing in the North sea, where they are accelerating the decline, making thousands of people redundant.
It is frankly offensive to call the Bill that will be introduced the energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill, which will make us more dependent on foreign imports, more dependent on China and more dependent for gas on Norway, which drills it from the very same sea that this Government are banning Britain from exploiting. That is insanity. Once again, the Secretary of State has put his ideological fantasies before doing what is right for the people of this country.
The only people who will be cheering this on are those in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing who, to be fair, will probably themselves be incredulous—unbelieving of their luck—that they have such useful idiots in the form of this Labour Government, cheered on by the SNP, with their decade-long presumption against oil and gas, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a different position depending on which part of the country they happen to be in at the time. All are choosing to make the UK poorer, colder and more vulnerable to outside influence.
Let us be absolutely clear: the position of this Labour Government on oil and gas is downright dangerous. By proposing to legislate for a ban on all new licences, they might as well be hanging a “closed for business” sign over the North sea. I—and it is not just me—do not understand the logic of these actions. The Secretary of State, his Ministers and the current occupant of No. 10 repeatedly tell us that oil and gas will have a role in the UK for years to come. They are right: roughly 85% of homes in the UK rely on gas for heating and more than 90% of vehicles in the UK rely on fossil fuels, so this will not end overnight. All that this legislation will achieve is our increasing reliance on shipments from abroad, at higher cost, with higher emissions and with fewer jobs here in Britain. I—as well as the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), and others—come to this House time and again to highlight the damage that this Government’s approach is causing to communities in and around Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Secretary of State claims that he is leading a moral crusade, but he is simply exporting emissions. It is like saying, “Lord, I will not sin, but I am quite happy for people to sin on my behalf.”
Andrew Bowie
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are exporting emissions and exporting jobs, and that is having a detrimental impact on our economy and communities up and down this United Kingdom, not least in north-east Scotland. I see that every time I go home. One thousand jobs will be lost every month under this Labour Government, and we will lose out on £50 billion of investment. Pubs, restaurants and shops are closing up in the granite city under this Labour Government. The impact is being felt across the country—it is true—but it is in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland that the pain is most acute.
Harriet Cross
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help me, because I do not understand why the Labour Government think that there is a need to ban new licences. They keep telling us that there is nothing left in the North sea, but if they thought that there was nothing there, why would we be banning ourselves from looking for anything?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. She is absolutely right; it is completely nonsensical.
In Aberdeen there will be a referendum on this Government’s approach to the North sea in just a few short weeks. On 18 June, the people of what was until recently the oil capital of Europe will have their say on how they feel this Government have treated them and the industry of which they are so proud.
It is not just the production of oil and gas that is being driven to extinction by this Government’s policies. Nor is it just Aberdeen that is being affected by the Government’s anti-growth, anti-business policies: Lindsey, Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Denby, Pembrokeshire, glassworks and metalworks, potteries, refineries and chemical plants—heavy industry is being crushed by the cost of energy. Yet rather than trying to prevent that, this Labour Government are interested only in accelerating the industry’s decline.
The Government’s headlong rush to renewables may be well intentioned, but it is utterly bereft of common sense. This Labour Government are rushing towards a power system that depends on the weather rather than firm, reliable baseloads, exposing us to blackouts, just like the one we saw on the Iberian peninsula last year. Avoiding such blackouts and providing that energy baseload is exactly why the roll-out of new nuclear is an absolute priority. I am pleased that there is consensus on this and that the Government recognise the important role of nuclear in our future energy mix. That said, and as I have said before in this House, sadly this Government’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison to that of ours when we were in government.
This Government’s failure to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor in Ynys Môn is a huge disappointment, not just for us on the Conservative Benches but for industry and the people in Ynys Môn too. The roll-out of small modular reactors is good, yes, but it curtails the possibility of gigawatt-scale power at Ynys Môn. A cynic might suggest that the decision was made to rush out the announcement in some desperate and hasty attempt to salvage the Welsh Labour party. Well, it is safe to say that that failed.
Back to ambition, the decommissioning of the UK’s stockpile of petroleum, the selection of only one small modular technology, and the refusal to follow our ambition of 24 GW of new nuclear is just not good enough.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister talked about his party’s ambition for new nuclear in this country, but can he remind the House how many new nuclear plants his party opened during their tenure in charge?
Andrew Bowie
I could run through the list of what we achieved in office on nuclear, as the Minister has heard me do many times, but let me remind the hon. Member that the Labour party has never opened one nuclear power plant in all the years it has been in office —a record that will probably continue over the next three years.
This act of national self-harm has to come to an end. There is only one party that has a plan to cut bills, support industry, protect jobs, and make Britain energy secure. Energy costs are stalling growth, deindustrialising the country and weighing down on families and businesses.
Andrew Bowie
No, I will not.
That is why Britain needs a serious plan to cut bills. With the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, that is exactly what Britain would get: a £200 cut to energy bills. It could be delivered right now if this Government prioritised the people of this country rather than wacky, unrealistic ideology. But we would not stop there; we would go much further and much faster. To make this country energy-secure, to protect British jobs, grow tax revenue and welcome billions of pounds of investment, we would tell the world that the North sea is open for business. Our “Get Britain Drilling” Bill would end Labour’s ban on new licences to unlock the gargantuan supply of opportunity that lies beneath our seas.
Andrew Bowie
I will not.
We would back our world-class oil and gas industry by scrapping the ban on exporting technologies and welcoming the £5 billion of exports that that would create.
Andrew Bowie
I am sorry, I will not.
The North Sea Transition Authority would be rechristened the North Sea Authority and tasked with one noble mission: to maximise North sea oil and gas drilling and raise billions of pounds more in tax cuts for the British people. The Conservatives would scrap the energy profits levy—the anvil around the neck of the industry—which Labour extended and increased as one of their first acts in government.
A profitable, attractive and investible North sea would strengthen public services and our energy security and grow our economy, making Britain a stronger country. If hon. Members agree with that, if they agree with us that a brighter, more secure and more prosperous future is possible if we fight for it, I urge them to vote for our amendment tonight.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a privilege to close this debate on the Gracious Speech. It has been a pleasure to sit here all afternoon and listen to all the contributions in what turned out to be a far more wide-ranging debate than one just on energy policy, and I thank all Members for that.
I will respond to a few specific points raised in the debate in due course, although I will single out a few contributions from Members on the Labour Benches at the outset. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) was absolutely right in a number of areas of his speech, particularly in saying that we should be very cautious about taking any advice from the shadow Secretary of State lest she change her mind, as she has done so often in this policy area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) spoke quite rightly about her pride in Blyth and the workers there. I was really pleased to be there a few months ago to celebrate the 25th birthday of offshore wind, which of course was started in Blyth. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) all made important contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who I had the great pleasure of joining in Stornoway recently, rightly congratulated Donald MacKinnon MSP. I also put on record my congratulations to Donald on his fantastic election as the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Western Isles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West gave a fantastic sales pitch for her community and the role it is playing in the clean power transition. She also mentioned the Dorset clean energy super cluster, which I would be delighted to visit.
Contributions from hon. Members on all sides of the House were interesting. I particularly welcome the consensus on nuclear, which is hugely important. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) gave a wide-ranging lecture—an important contribution—on the economy. I completely agree with his points on skills. We need some balance in how we approach the future of skills development in the country, so that we have the skilled workforce we need to do all that we want to do.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who I think is no longer in his place, made a bizarre argument in which he said the last Government did a fantastic job and did everything right, but that we should now do none of the things that they did into the future. That was slightly odd.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), stole my thunder with his remarks on the speech by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). I particularly enjoyed the intervention from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who essentially said that nobody really likes any of us and it is all the fault of first past the post. That was a great contribution!
I want to single out the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who gave an excellent speech. He emphasised absolutely rightly that Britain is not broken but that we must be better. That was a really important charge for us all. This debate has shown that the whole House agrees on the need to strengthen our energy security as we respond to the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years.
Michael Shanks
I will make a bit of progress.
Where the House diverges is on how we respond to that shock. For Members on the Labour Benches, the overriding lesson from both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the present crisis in the middle east is that every day we spend exposed to fossil fuels, which we can never control, is another day of insecurity. It is another day of being buffeted by conflicts that we had no part in starting, and of working people opening their energy bills and finding the cost of someone else’s war. It is another day of Britain’s future being held back by a global market in which we are and will always be price takers.
The Opposition say that they too have learned a lesson from the second fossil fuel price shock. They have studied the evidence and weighed up the options, and their conclusion—their amendment to the Humble Address—is that the answer to a fossil fuel crisis lies in more fossil fuels. I like to give credit where I can, so I will give them this: it takes a particular kind of courage to stand up in this House at this time and make that argument with a straight face.
Dave Doogan
The Minister will know that Scotland has almost all the oil in the United Kingdom. We have the vast majority of the gas. We have the most onshore renewables and the most hydro. And yet, under his watch, his constituents and mine in Scotland pay the highest electricity bills anywhere on these islands. What does he say to our constituents?
Michael Shanks
I say that the Scottish National party’s plan for independence for energy was the flimsiest of flimsy documents. It had no plan for how independence would bring down bills, because the truth of the matter is that independence would tear apart any argument on energy security and drive up bills for people right across Scotland. That is why people rejected it in the referendum 10 years ago.
The Tories and their former friends and colleagues now sitting on the Reform Benches want to solve a dependence problem by becoming even more dependent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier, we will not be taking that course. This is the moment to end our reliance on fossil fuels, to electrify the wider economy and to speed up our transition to clean, secure, home-grown energy, which does give us energy sovereignty. That is the road to national security. Along the way, we seize the economic opportunity of the 21st century, with 400,000 extra good energy jobs and billions of pounds in investment by 2030 alone.
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether the Minister will agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst). The Atwick gas storage site in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a critical part of our energy infrastructure, but at 47 years old, it is nearing end of life. Does he have plans to ensure that our gas storage is maintained, and will he meet me and my colleague to discuss the issue?
Michael Shanks
We are consulting on the future of gas storage. I have made it my policy to meet every MP who wants to meet me, and I have always had—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says, “Even him?” I have always had very good conversations with the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He is in the wrong party—they all hate him. [Laughter.]
Now is not the time to look away from the biggest long-term threat we face: climate change. It is a threat that we can no longer ignore, so we will build the energy system of the future. Since we came into power, we have had two record-breaking renewables auctions after the catastrophic failure of AR5 under the last Government. Despite the shadow Secretary of State’s advice to cancel AR7, we have secured clean, home-grown power for the equivalent of 23 million homes. That is power that, since the middle east crisis began, is saving the country millions of pounds every single day in gas that we no longer have to buy. But good is not enough; we are determined to go further and faster. That is why we are bringing forward the next auction round to July, and why the energy independence Bill will accelerate the build-out of grid infrastructure by reforming planning and getting clean power built at the speed that the moment demands.
We have the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, not vague promises that never materialised for 14 years—or the endless rounds of consultation that the shadow Minister loves to tell us about so much—but actual nuclear being built. With a nuclear regulation Bill, which is genuinely pro-nuclear and pro-nature, we will cut costs and timeframes without cutting corners on safety. That is regulation reform that the Tories now claim they would have loved to have done, but just never found the time for during 14 years in government. Well, we are going to get it done. We have to be honest about what we inherited. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C ran to 44,000 pages and it still left nobody happy. That is not caution; it is paralysis dressed up as paperwork. This Government will end it, so that we can get Britain building again and deliver the energy independence that people have waited for.
As we build for the future, we also have to protect people right now. Six million families are receiving the expanded warm home discount. We also have the £15 billion warm homes plan—the largest upgrade programme in British history—and, as a result of actions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the Budget, the price cap fell by £117 in April.
Kirsty Blackman
On protecting people right now, my constituents are losing jobs. Thousands of jobs are being lost every few months in the north-east of Scotland because of the Government’s continuing to keep the energy profits levy: Labour’s tax on Scotland’s jobs. Will the Minister make a commitment to move from the EPL to the oil and gas price mechanism in order to protect jobs for my constituents?
Michael Shanks
I will come to jobs in the North sea in just a moment—a section of my speech is about that, given its importance. I have to say that I am absolutely incredulous: I can almost understand it from the Tories—thinking that a moment of windfall profits was the moment to cut taxes on oil and gas companies—but now we have a partnership of the SNP and the Tories who believe that now is the moment not to help people with their energy bills but to cut taxes for the biggest companies. That is an interesting lesson that we have learned.
The energy independence Bill is about how we go further. A number of hon. Members have raised fuel poverty. Fuel poverty in this country is not a misfortune; it is a scandal. More than a third of school pupils have told their teachers that they are cold at home. In one of the world’s largest economies, a third of children go to school to get warm. We must bring this to an end with new minimum energy efficiency standards for renters, a new warm homes agency to ensure that high home grades are not, as they have been for too long, the preserve of just the well off, and a strengthened Ofgem with the powers of a genuine consumer champion, not just a regulator in name. That is what fighting the corner of working people looks like.
Let me say something about the people who power this country. I speak at industry conferences regularly and I always talk about my pride in the North sea, not as a Minister reading from a brief, but as someone who has friends and family who work offshore and as a Scottish MP who knows more than many about what the sector means. It is about people right now doing skilled, dangerous and vital work—work that this country has depended on for decades, and which does not get taken for granted—[Interruption.] We are not taking it for granted, actually; that is just nonsense.
The question in front of us is how we secure those people’s long-term future. The answer is not, as some on the Opposition Benches have suggested, to pretend that the North sea is not a maturing basin in natural decline. It is not about nostalgia for some new age of discovery. We are neither a “turn off the taps” nor a “drill every last drop” party. Neither is a credible plan. We will introduce transitional energy certificates, as industry has called for, to enable tiebacks and manage existing fields for their lifespan; for the first time, we will give the North Sea Transition Authority a statutory responsibility to consider workers, communities and supply chains; and we will launch a new North sea jobs service to support people through every stage of the transition. This energy transition only works if we bring people with us on what we are building next, and that is already taking shape.
Michael Shanks
I do not have time; I am sorry.
That system is already taking shape, whether through nuclear engineers in Ynys Môn following in their parents’ footsteps, apprentices learning to weld in the Aberdeen energy transition zone or wind turbine blades being forged in Hull—tens of thousands of jobs, record investment, real communities, real wages and a real future. The North sea made Britain an energy nation; the Bill ensures that it will remain one.
Sometimes, in the noise of this place, we lose sight of what is actually at stake. Half of Britain’s recessions since the 1970s were caused by fossil fuel shocks—not bad luck, not acts of God, but the predictable, repeated consequence of building our future on an energy source that we can never have control over. What we have heard today is that Opposition parties have not only chosen to ignore what is going on all around us, but they actively want us to go even further, to risk even more and to gamble with the futures of every single one of our constituents. The warning signs were there in 1973, in 1979 and in 2022, and they were ignored. The warning signs are back now, and it is right that we learn the right lessons.
Just a few weeks ago, 98% of our electricity came from clean sources. It was for a small period of time—I recognise that—but 98% of our electricity came from low-carbon sources. This country, when it commits to something, is capable of achieving extraordinary things. This is not ideology; it is the most basic duty of Government to protect the people of this country from dangers that we can see coming. The energy Bills contained in the King’s Speech are the path to a stronger future for Britain: energy security that no blockade can threaten; warm homes for families who have gone cold for far too long; good jobs in communities that have faced deindustrialisation for decades because of Governments who just did not care about industrial strategy; and a climate that we can hand to our children without shame. I commend the King’s Speech to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
A recent petition in Cupar calling for face-to-face banking services has now been signed by 585 local residents—a sign that there is a real strength of feeling in Cupar about its banking services. The petition
“Declares that everyone should be able to access cash and banking advice when they need it…that this should not be restricted by poor mobile or broadband connectivity”
or by
“not having easy access to a phone, or preferring to do transactions face to face; further declares that although…14,000 people live in the area surrounding Cupar and the town serves many more”
in the villages around it,
“Cupar is served by just one building society following the closure of multiple local bank branches…The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the banking industry to deliver a cash or banking hub for Cupar.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of North East Fife,
Declares that everyone should be able to access cash and banking advice when they need it; further declares that this should not be restricted by poor mobile or broadband connectivity, not having easy access to a phone, or preferring to do transactions face to face; further declares that although almost 14,000 people live in the area surrounding Cupar and the town serves many more in the surrounding villages, Cupar is served by just one building society following the closure of multiple local bank branches; further declares that it is not feasible for many people to travel outwith Cupar to neighbouring towns such as St Andrews in light of cuts to bus routes; and further declares that a cash hub would allow consumers and businesses to access and bank cash safely and a banking hub would provide vital face to face services and advice for the community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the banking industry to deliver a cash or banking hub for Cupar.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003199]
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I rise to present a petition about antisocial behaviour on behalf of the residents of Holton Heath Park in my constituency. The petitioners and I ask the Government to note that those residents have been experiencing an unacceptable level from antisocial driving, joyriding, racing, and excessive speeds from cars and motorbikes late at night and on weekends. We call on the Government urgently to roll out acoustic cameras and fund increased patrols by police to re-establish peace, quiet, enjoyment and safety. The petitioners request that the House of Commons ask the Government to take action to support relevant authorities in Dorset to tackle and prevent further antisocial behaviour.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole,
Declares that the residents of Holton Heath Park have been experiencing an unacceptable level of antisocial behaviour caused by dangerous motor vehicle driving in this area; further declares that this has been a major issue in the area for many years; and further declares that urgent traffic calming, surveillance and speed reducing measures should be implemented in the area to re-establish peace and quiet for Holton Heath’s residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to assist the relevant authorities in Holton Heath in tackling and preventing antisocial behaviour caused by dangerous drivers around Holton Heath Park.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003200]
High Speed 2: Impact on Communities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Over many years, the issue of HS2 has consumed many hours of debate in this House, and many hon. and right hon. Members have needed to highlight the unacceptable impact the project has had on thousands of constituents. Today I must do so again. HS2 has had a never-ending impact on communities across my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, an impact compounded by perpetual incompetence and indifference from its management. That is why I have opposed HS2 since I was elected MP for the constituency in 2019.
Roads in Buckinghamshire have been destroyed over the past few years by the weight of HS2 lorries, with local council taxpayers having to pick up the bill.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On roads, the precedent was clearly set by East West Rail, which fully resurfaced 21 roads that its heavy goods vehicles had trashed. Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 should follow that precedent and fix that which they have broken in our communities?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. HS2 should follow that model; that would go a long way towards repairing community relations, because HS2 could not have cared less about the roads and communities it destroyed. Communities in Buckinghamshire and beyond have been blighted by the inconsiderate construction that has taken place, and HS2 just could not have cared less. Take Denham, for example. That community has borne the brunt of construction disruption: years of upheaval, constant noise, dust and heavy machinery that have transformed its once-peaceful neighbourhoods into an industrial corridor.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am also grateful to her for coming out to help us to campaign in the local elections—she helped Tommy Balaam to win his seat in Harefield. Does she recall, as I do, the ongoing strength of feeling among people in that village, which is right next to Denham, about the continued consequences of that construction work—the late-night noise and disruption and, in particular, very large and heavy vehicles occupying what are otherwise suburban transport routes, causing risk and concern to people on the school run or going about their normal business? This is not just about the damage that those vehicles do to the roads; it is also about the risk and disruption that they cause for other road users in our neighbourhood.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our constituencies border one another, and I remember visiting him in his constituency at Dogs Trust. I remember the vibration, noise and disruption from HS2. We could feel the vibrations when we were there. It is about not just the construction, but the noise pollution and disruption to residents in Hillingdon and Buckinghamshire. Our communities were completely disrupted because of HS2 construction. Until my hon. Friend’s council took HS2 to court—that was a great moment—little regard was given to the amount of countryside, land and green belt being destroyed by HS2.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she not agree that the United Kingdom has become so entangled in planning delays, legal challenges, environmental regulation and bureaucratic red tape that we are now struggling to build even the most basic strategic infrastructure in a reasonable timeframe? Lessons have to be learned UK-wide from that failure.
Joy Morrissey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for saying that, but I also pay tribute to the first person who radicalised me on the importance of fighting HS2: the former MP for Chesham and Amersham, Cheryl Gillan. Before I even became a Member of Parliament, she made sure that I knew, as she did, the importance of fighting against HS2 and of the need—no matter who was supporting HS2—to stand up for our residents and put them first. Cheryl knew it would be a terrible blight on Buckinghamshire, and she was right. She was ahead of the curve there.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I also have fond memories of Cheryl Gillan, who I stood against in 2005. The hon. Lady knows my seat well, and the things she describes have a lot of resonance with Wells House Road, NW10, which I think is the most blighted road in England. An email from a resident there today said:
“We were told to expect six years of disruption. Now they are asking us to live with 16.”
They point out that while the cost of HS2 has tripled, the community funds have not. Buckinghamshire is a recipient, as is Euston, but Ealing and Old Oak Common are not at all. Does the hon. Lady not agree that that is a travesty?
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent point. I know her seat very well, and she has fought for her constituents, including in Old Oak Common, for many years. It is fair that compensation be given continually for the disruption in Old Oak Common. It is a difficult area, because it involves not just Ealing, but Hammersmith, Fulham and several other areas that intersect. It creates a problem where no one takes leadership, and no one ensures that those residents are taken care of. The hon. Lady has long advocated for that compensation.
We stand here in agreement that HS2 has not cared about our residents or the compensation. We have seen other infrastructure models that have given the compensation that residents need and want.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time, and I thank her for bringing this important debate to the House. She has expertly described the ongoing impacts in communities like ours. Residents in West Ruislip and Ickenham in my constituency live day in, day out with the consequences of HS2 works. As she rightly points out, residents often ask what compensation and support exists. It is frustrating in that regard that the community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund, which were allocated across the country, remain significantly unspent. Millions of pounds are still unspent, despite our communities being blighted. Does she agree that that is frustrating for our communities and local organisations, who could benefit from that money but are shut out of those funds? Does she also agree that the geographical remit needs to be widened slightly and that we need to do more nationally to ensure that those funds get to communities?
Joy Morrissey
It is incredibly frustrating that those funds are not open and available, particularly when as Members of Parliament we have come forward with good ideas for how they could be spent on road infrastructure, such as paving potholes on roads destroyed by the lorries that have passed through. It is very difficult to access that funding, but it would go a long way towards bridging the community relations that have broken down anywhere that HS2 has started.
Another issue is that, in the old days, HS2 would take over a property without paying for it and then occupy it indefinitely.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that a good example of how the money could be better used is to support the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which sits directly on the border between our constituencies, and which our constituents have used for many years. As a result of Hillingdon council’s proactive work in granting planning permission, there is now the possibility of creating a new facility, but we need to ensure that funds are available to keep the centre running so that it can provide opportunities for young people in the future. Might the Government be able to give HS2 a steer and suggest that the money should be allocated for that purpose?
Joy Morrissey
That is an excellent example of an issue—in this case, the final payment and settlement for the relocation of the centre—that has been the subject of an ongoing dispute with HS2, and a different sort of leadership has taken control. There have been other instances in which it has been a problem to get the final payments over the line for community centres, roads and infrastructure, for individuals who still have not been paid compensation for what has happened to their homes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
So far this has been a very southern-centric debate, so may I take the hon. Lady up to Staffordshire? In Newcastle-under-Lyme we continue to feel the very worst effects of the HS2 debacle. Does she share my outrage at the fact that my constituents Mr and Mrs Kettering, of Madeley, have been waiting years for the compensation due to them for the compulsory purchase of their land? They have been forced to declare bankruptcy because they have been waiting so long. The financial strain that they have been put under stinks, and the sooner HS2 is held to account, the better.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for advocating for his residents.
The failure to purchase land has forced residents into bankruptcy and caused relationship breakdowns. It has meant that they cannot move forward, for instance by selling or renting their properties, and that has caused a huge breakdown in community relations with HS2. When highways have been built, compensation has been offered and other gestures have been made that have allowed community relations to be restored. The problem with HS2 is the level of statutory ability it had, as an arm’s length body, to put these things into action, which meant that it did not have to follow through on the community relations side. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, agree that if this project moves forward, there could be real benefit in the restoration of relations between communities, MPs and councils.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The communication element is certainly important. Villagers in Greatworth and Radstone in Northamptonshire have been massively isolated by the works that have been carried out, while the active travel route that Brackley residents wanted has not been possible because it is bypassed by HS2. Does my hon. Friend agree that communication and integration with the community is vital, and that HS2 must ensure that it happens?
Joy Morrissey
Communication can be very poor in certain regions, and they it may improve, but then it may become even worse. There will be isolated incidents when one constituent has been left out in the cold and is being forced into bankruptcy, and feels desperate. Until an MP gets involved, such people may feel that there is no hope, and that is a terrible feeling to have when we should be able to find a solution. This has also had a negative impact on green spaces and green corridors. In my patch, the Colne Valley Regional Park was opposed to the project because of the impact that the construction would have on wildlife, and on this sanctuary that constitutes a green corridor separating us from London.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She talks about green spaces. My constituency is in a section of the route that has now been cancelled, and is in the process of being removed from the Bill. We still have planning safeguards in place, and uncapped boreholes from ground investigations. Our situation mirrors that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), in that we have void properties, as does the constituency of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Ours have been void for a long time, and HS2 is not letting them; it is just leaving them empty. Does the hon. Lady agree that there needs to be a proper winding-up plan for the sections of the route where construction has not started and will never start because it has been cancelled?
Joy Morrissey
Absolutely. A winding-up contingency plan for areas where HS2 is not continuing needs to be put in place. Seeing properties just sitting there, when everyone knows that they will not be used, is maddening for the entire community. It also depletes property values and causes wildlife and conservation issues. These are ongoing problems, so residents need some reassurance, and I think that across the House we agree on that.
In Colne valley, for example, HS2 was building a 3.5 km concrete viaduct that will blight the natural beauty of my area and Hillingdon.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member is being very generous with her time, and I appreciate that. In south Staffordshire we have had massive problems with HS2, and particularly with the route that it has had to take. It is on a very wide arc around the city of Lichfield, but because of the speeds it has to go at, the corners cannot be too tight. So there is a really significant piece of engineering work, with a tunnel having to go under the A38, a railway and a canal—all at different heights. That was specifically because it could not be moved further away, so it had to go under two slip roads as well as the main carriageway. It has been an absolute nightmare. That recently led to the closure of the A38, with 70,000 vehicles a day pushed on to my local roads, which has been really difficult. That is specifically because of the speeds this thing was designed to go at, so mitigations could not be put in, and it had to go through areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could not avoid problems, and that has led to some of the cost overruns. Does she agree with me that the decision to try to make it the fastest railway in the world was a mistake when it was made, and that it was a mistake not to unwind that sooner?
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I think it has been a mistake not to work with local communities, because there would have been a point when most of us across the House would have worked with HS2 to find a solution that did not destroy our areas of natural beauty or our pre-existing infrastructure. However, there was no give and take; there was simply take, from our areas and our communities. I think the frustration that Members feel across the House is palpable.
I have brought forward this debate because time is running out for HS2’s planning powers, which expire in February 2027. Those powers may expire, but the legacy of community destruction and environmental vandalism will continue long into the future. HS2’s failure to resolve specific issues with residents now faces a ticking clock, and that is why I urge the Minister to support my constituents and those of other Members across the House, and to get urgent resolution of the issues that HS2 has left unresolved for all of us.
Greg Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is patently absurd that the Secretary of State casually said at the Dispatch Box earlier that the overall bill for phase 1 will breach £100 billion—I predicted that years ago—yet even though the taxpayer will keep bailing out phase 1, there is no money to fund the mitigation projects that were actually promised to our communities, such as fixing our roads. It seems that the taxpayer will bail out everything else, but not the community impact.
Joy Morrissey
I think the community impact and the mitigation are key to the project moving forward successfully, because that is how trust can be restored. Community faith in this project and a trustworthy relationship have broken down, and that is the best way to restore them. If hundreds of lorries are passing over our roads, we must ensure that we can have the potholes filled and our roads fixed. We must also ensure that there is compensation for communities in the areas blighted by HS2, whether that is parks and green spaces, or extra funding for infrastructure. I think that is a fair and reasonable request, so that everyone can benefit, not just all of us who have had this forced on our constituencies with absolutely zero benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Lady has been incredibly generous in ensuring that everyone can get in, but the debate has to conclude at 7.46 pm. It is her time, but she may wish to consider leaving some time for the Minister.
David Simmonds
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Does she agree that there is a positive that could come out of this process, and from her trenchant efforts to secure an upgrade to the status of Colne Valley Regional Park? Granting the park a higher degree of planning protection would be a significant win for our constituents and others. Perhaps the Minister might consider putting a little pressure on Government colleagues to secure that positive benefit for future generations to enjoy.
Joy Morrissey
Across the House, we all want extra protection for Colne Valley Regional Park, and to mitigate the impact of HS2 and all other infrastructure projects.
I want to share one poignant and difficult example to demonstrate why I have brought forward this debate. My constituent Luke Oldfield has been struggling in a dispute with HS2 for 12 years. Mr Oldfield has a home recording studio business that pre-dates the white elephant that is HS2. From the outset he raised concerns about the impact of construction and future rail noise on his business. Although he secured assurances that HS2 would address noise concerns, his view is that monitoring methods failed properly to capture the noise affecting his studio. HS2 later privately accepted that there would be an impact and the only viable solution identified has been to construct a new replacement studio. Despite years of design work and cost assessment, the Department for Transport has repeatedly delayed progress and pushed back on cost. What is clear is that Mr Oldfield—I am sure he is not alone in this—is the victim of a national infrastructure project that does not care and has not been subject to sufficient independent oversight. It will soon be too late, so the Government must act.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm in her reply that the Government will: urgently take up with me the case of Mr Oldfield and secure a final and just resolution to the building of a new studio, so that he can carry on his business; and urgently set out a timeline for the final resolution of all disputes outstanding along the HS2 line, so that my constituents, and those of Members across the House, can finally put the nightmare of HS2 behind them.
HS2 is a project that should never have been, but now we must act to bring the nightmare to an end for people such as Mr Oldfield. I urge the Minister to do just that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate, and grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions. I will try to address the points that she and others have raised.
I want to begin by fully recognising the change and upheaval that major infrastructure projects such as HS2 bring to the communities they pass through. I understand the concerns raised by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary set out to the House earlier today, taxpayers, passengers and communities along the route have been let down by years of mismanagement on HS2. The failures of the past mean that HS2 will now cost more and take longer to be delivered. The most important thing we can do for communities now is to get a grip on the programme so that the job can be done and the disruption brought to an end.
Over the past year, the Government have been working closely on a full reset of HS2 to bring effective oversight and start rebuilding public trust. HS2 has faced significant challenges, but this Government have been clear that infrastructure development is at the heart of our strategic missions and priorities. It will deliver significant benefits once delivered. While those benefits are undeniable, we know that they come at the cost of disruption caused by construction. We have to do right by the residents who are impacted, through a range of programmes made available to them. I appreciate that right now HS2 construction is at its peak in many areas and, regrettably, so too is the level of disruption. That includes road closures, lorry movements and other visible and audible signs of construction in affected areas.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned the damage done to the highways. HS2 has put in place measures to address that with the establishment of a highways deterioration fund, which should resolve some of those issues quickly and easily.
Inevitably, there are some unwelcome impacts on local people when there are major projects. The Rail Minister is determined to ensure that HS2 Ltd does its utmost to reduce impacts as much as is reasonably possible. HS2 Ltd must be a good neighbour to affected communities and treat them with respect, even if that has not always been the experience of residents whom Members present are representing. HS2 should listen to local concerns and be accountable for its actions at all times.
We expect communities affected by the construction of the railway to be at the heart of the delivery plans of HS2 Ltd. I know that both the Rail Minister and the chairman of HS2, Mike Brown, are taking a personal interest in those issues. They want to ensure that residents, who have sometimes endured very lengthy periods of disruption, are treated with fairness and respect, and that the issues around compensation are resolved as promptly as possible. We want to see HS2 Ltd leaving a positive legacy for communities, such as through the community and business funds, which have already provided millions of pounds in support for local projects, from sports clubs to children’s play facilities.
The hon. Lady raised the specific case of one of her constituents who runs a music studio and his experiences. My officials have briefed me on the situation, and I appreciate it has been a long-standing case that has been difficult to resolve. I am pleased to hear that, based on these discussions, HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent are on a path to resolution. My Department is committed to resolving the situation, while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and fairness for her constituent.
The long-term solution that HS2 Ltd is focused on is facilitating and funding an alternative studio in the grounds of the constituent’s property. I appreciate that this is taking some time and that there may be a difference in expectations between HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent as to what constitutes a reasonable replacement of the existing studio. However, we are committed to doing the right thing and delivering this at pace. There is a further onsite meeting planned shortly, and I am hopeful that an agreement on the way forward will soon be reached.
Alongside that, HS2 Ltd has made further commitments in recent weeks to carry out any vibration-causing works earlier in the day, in order to avoid the times that would be most disruptive to the constituent’s business. Frankly, I have great sympathy with the constituent in question. Disruptive works have continued longer than anticipated, and the issue has taken longer to resolve than we would wish. We hope to find resolutions that will expedite future cases.
I will turn to more general concerns about compliance with undertakings and assurances. The Secretary of State takes compliance with HS2 undertakings and assurances very seriously. There are rigorous structures in place to manage compliance and the performance of HS2 Ltd is monitored closely by the Department. In the vast majority of cases, compliance has been good: out of nearly 5,000 undertakings and assurances on HS2, compliance has fallen short in less than 1% of cases, but that is 1% too many. However, the Department remains confident that people can rely on the commitments that were made to them. Those commitments and assurances were given by the Secretary of State to Parliament during the HS2 Bill process, which is why HS2 Ltd’s delivery of them is overseen by the Department and why the Secretary of State is ultimately answerable to Parliament in these matters.
I really regret that we have very limited time to answer these questions. I want to assure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and other hon. Members that there are layers of independent scrutiny. HS2 Ltd is held to account by the Secretary of State, who has the independent statutory appeal function between HS2 Ltd and other parties. It is notable, I think, that only one assurance compliance case—the one the hon. Member refers to—has been escalated beyond the Department to Mr Speaker, as the representative of Parliament. We need to ensure that these cases are dealt with properly, so that people have a fair outcome.
I am very conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that we recognise the impact of the construction of HS2 on communities living along the route and we thank them for their patience. We understand how frustrating this prolonged disruption is. We will ensure that all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members today are considered by the Department and will continue to do the job of holding to account HS2 Ltd, monitoring its performance and ensuring that, where it falls short, it does better in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.
Sarah Jones
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations and the draft order, which were both laid before Parliament on 26 February, will address the harms caused by illegal drugs, which do terrible damage to health and to communities. Acquisitive crime and 50% of homicides are linked to drugs, and drug deaths reached 3,500 in 2024.
Although many drug precursor chemicals have legitimate industrial uses, they are also used to make illegal drugs. We therefore control DPCs in two ways. The first, which the draft regulations are concerned with, seeks to reduce the risk of DPCs that are used legitimately in industry being diverted to producing illicit drugs. The second, which the draft order is concerned with, is through measures to tackle the deliberate illicit use of DPCs to produce drugs.
I turn first to the draft regulations. Companies must generally obtain licences or other authorisations to use DPCs. In most cases, they must maintain proper records of consignments, and they must always notify the National Crime Agency where they suspect diversion of DPCs for illicit use. Before Brexit, those requirements were set by the EU; since Brexit, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, while a similar regime operates in Great Britain as assimilated law.
The draft regulations will amend deficiencies in that assimilated law. For example, Ministers lack effective powers to control new DPCs in Great Britain, so no new chemicals have been controlled there since January 2021. The EU has added 10 DPCs and 14 related substances since then; those controls apply in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain. The substances are used to manufacture MDMA—commonly known as ecstasy—and fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. All of them, except amphetamine, are class A drugs. The draft regulations will therefore ensure that the requirements on companies that make legitimate use of DPCs in Great Britain apply to those 10 DPCs and the related substances. They will also provide powers to control additional substances in Great Britain in future.
The draft regulations will also provide a statutory mechanism to control movements of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such controls help to prevent diversion of DPCs and ensure that we meet our international obligations. We will not require companies to pay fees to do so, however; this is to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to free trade within this country.
Lastly, although companies are already required to keep records and report concerns in respect of a wide range of chemicals, the criminal penalties for failing to do so cover a smaller group of substances. The draft regulations will ensure that the rules and the penalties relating to documentation and reporting apply to all chemicals that are controlled under the regulations.
I turn to the draft order, which will add 12 DPCs and 16 related substances to the list of substances that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. As I say, those DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine or methamphetamine. The UN controlled those substances between March 2014 and March 2024. The legislation should have been updated sooner; I have written to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to address its concerns about the causes of the delay.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft regulations, which corrects two minor typographical errors. First, a reference to “United Kingdom” has now been changed to “the United Kingdom”. Secondly, the original draft referred to the “third place” the phrase “countries of destination” appeared in the text; it should have read “second place”, as there was no third.
I commend the draft regulations and the draft order to the Committee as instruments that will provide the Government with further means to tackle the illicit drugs that cause harm to so many.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this morning’s Committee debate, Ms McVey. I have little to question the Minister on the merits of the draft regulations. It is critical that we control and seize items used in the production of synthetic drugs. As the International Narcotics Control Board’s 2025 report on precursors indicates,
“the future of illicit drug markets seems indivisibly linked to the growing numbers of synthetic drugs and to the related precursors, specialized equipment and materials.”
Having the necessary regulations in place and empowering our enforcement authorities to monitor and seize items used for illicit purposes are clearly the right things to do. Given the second element, to which I will turn in a minute, I ask the Minister whether the Government are confident that the list is as current as possible, and what steps they are taking to monitor the changing substances that are diverted for illicit use.
Although we support any measures that limit the manufacture of these dangerous substances, it is relevant to note the remarks of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the problems with the time taken to draft the regulations and the alignment challenges with Northern Ireland. These are clearly serious matters that deserve the Home Office’s attention, particularly given the necessity of regulating such substances. It appears to me that there were considerable oversight failures that went unrectified. That is evidently a concern, so I hope that the Government are examining it. Let me be clear: this is not a political point or a criticism of the Minister, but handover documentation, or the lack thereof, is a serious matter.
Separately, I understand that in March the Minister asked officials to provide advice on the appropriate approach to past charging, to be considered immediately after the recess. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline the advice that has been received.
I recognise the serious questions that have rightly been asked about process. It is the responsibility of all Governments to take steps to improve it and to ensure that our legislation can deal with the challenges posed. However, I reiterate that it is right that this change has been made and that we control and monitor the use of drug precursor chemicals.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I want to be really clear: the Liberal Democrats support the statutory instruments, but we wonder why it has taken so many years for them to come forward. Why has it taken two years of this Government for the statutory instruments to reach Parliament? Given that the substances were added between March 2014 and March 2024 but are only now coming into UK legislation, what steps is the Home Office taking to speed up future legislative action? How will the Government make sure that we remain consistent with international agreements in future?
Sarah Jones
I thank hon. Members for their comments, for agreeing with the legislation and for making some helpful points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, is right to say that we must make sure that the list is as current as it can be. He is also right that with all the new synthetic drugs that are sadly becoming more prevalent in this country, we must make sure that we are absolutely on top of their use, which is where the draft regulations will apply.
The shadow Minister mentioned the EU and Northern Ireland, and the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will remove regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the same DPCs will now be controlled in both, as I hope he will recognise.
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, both asked why it has taken so many years to get to this point. I wrote in some detail to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in March, and I am happy to provide colleagues with a copy of that letter. Obviously I cannot comment on decisions made by previous Ministers, but we have been working to rectify this matter since the general election. The perm sec is taking responsibility for making sure that we have the right logs in place in the Home Office, so that where legislation needs to be updated over time, we are completely aligned with that and alive to it.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills suggested that we have taken our time since the election, but we have worked through these things as quickly as we can. We previously introduced generic controls on nitazenes, which was incredibly important, and we are working through these things as fast as we can.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. I am very happy to provide my letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee if members of this Committee would like it, but I think I have covered all the issues that have been raised. I acknowledge those issues and hope that hon. Members will support these two very important pieces of legislation.
Matt Vickers
Has any advice been received on the appropriate approach to past charging?
Sarah Jones
On past charging, we are offering repayments. We think the cost of those repayments will be about £3,000 in total. It is quite a small amount, but we are making that available to people.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL) (CO-OPERATION) ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March 2026.
The United Kingdom was a founding signatory to the Paris memorandum of understanding in 1982 and a member of its predecessor since the late 1970s. The Paris MOU is a well-established international framework for inspecting foreign ships that call at member states’ ports, ensuring that international standards that reduce risks to health, safety and the environment are met. This is known as port state control. It formalises intelligence sharing on substandard ships and issues, and it adds weight to enforcement action taken by the United Kingdom by also impacting those vessels internationally.
The purpose of the draft regulations is to replace the existing 2011 regulations, which currently give effect to the Paris MOU requirements in UK law. The new regulations contain an expanded list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written. Those conventions have separate effect in UK law but are now referenced in the draft regulations in order to ensure that the legislative framework for undertaking port state control inspections is up to date.
The draft regulations also remove references to EU legislation and instead reference the Paris MOU directly. The 2011 regulations were made partly using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations are made using powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and, to the extent necessary, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers. The Paris MOU uses a risk-based scheme for targeting visiting ships for inspection and includes powers to exclude from ports ships that are persistently substandard. The UK’s participation in the port state control regime is an obligation of the UK under the Paris MOU, and it is also a valuable defence against substandard ships visiting UK ports.
Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI has noted the regulations but provided no further comments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
There remains little else to say, other than that I have set out the purpose and scope of the draft regulations, which revoke, replace and update the 2011 regulations. The draft regulations will continue to uphold the UK’s commitments to international standards. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In what has been a week of chaos, psychodrama and endless plotting, it must be a welcome break for the Minister to debate legislation that, as the explanatory memorandum sets out, results in
“no changes to this policy and the regulatory regime associated with port State control is retained.”
As I understand it, the draft regulations do not implement any new obligations, and it is therefore expected that there will be no direct costs to UK businesses or familiarisation costs for existing inspectors. As such, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to this statutory instrument given the support at consultation and the alterations that were made in response to comments.
However, I encourage the Government to explore wider measures that do not merely impose further direct costs but, rather, remove regulatory costs in a proportionate manner. I hope the Government ensure that they keep existing legislation up to date to ensure that port state control can operate effectively.
Of course, one of the factors that makes these regulations necessary is a shipping sector that is able to operate effectively. I understand that our maritime sector is concerned that the Iran war is squeezing bunker fuel supply. We have heard a lot about the impact of jet fuel shortages, but as the Minister is here, I hope the Government have the same focus on the shipping industry’s fuel supplies as they have on the aviation industry’s fuel supplies. One analyst from Aon noted that bunker fuel shortages tend to feed through to shipping costs more quickly than many other cost pressures. I therefore hope that the Minister can outline in more detail, either today or at another time, what the Government are doing to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel at port.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
We Liberal Democrats also support this legislative tidying up. I hope the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to talk about what I know is his favourite mode of transport, ships, rather than dabbling in railway tedium. I have only one question for him: does he agree that the Paris memorandum highlights the inherently international nature of a lot of our shipping, and that we should be willing to take account of other jurisdictions’ changes to shipping legislation in future as part of that international co-operation?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, particularly in relation to the cost to the maritime sector and, for my constituents, the cost of using ferries. Of course, the increase in fuel costs is a significant issue with which they have to grapple, not helped by the Government’s decision to levy a green tax—an emissions trading scheme levy—on them, which they cannot avoid. That is not to say that the Isle of Wight ferry companies are not hugely responsible for their own costs, which they bring to bear on my constituents who try to cross the Solent, given that they are unregulated, private companies that fund private equity and pension funds abroad.
I am grateful for the opportunity to remark on the costs. I know the Minister is aware of them, and I urge him to do whatever he can to bring down costs in the maritime sector, particularly for ferries on which people rely to connect with the rest of the UK.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister both for his support for the measures and for his concern for my welfare over the last few weeks. To quote one of the five Prime Ministers who graced these halls during the 14 years of chaos and disarray under the Conservative party, he is right to say, in relation to the draft regulations, that “nothing has changed.” He is right to push me further on additional regulatory improvements that can ease doing business for UK shipping companies and seafarers. I am unashamedly ambitious to grow the UK flag to make this country a more attractive place for shipping firms to do business, and I am glad that he will be holding my feet to the fire as we attempt to do so.
The shadow Minister is also right that we must retain the UK’s fantastic reputation for safety and compliance with international obligations, without imposing onerous costs on businesses. He also points to the critical issue of the supply of marine fuel. I reassure him that it was a consistent theme during my week in Singapore for Maritime Week, in my engagement with shipping companies that have large interests in UK maritime and with other Government stakeholders. It is something that teams in the Department for Transport keep under constant review, in collaboration with industry, and we will keep a close watch on developments in the strait of Hormuz in relation to the critical issue of the bunkering of marine fuels.
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, for his comments on international co-operation. I am proud that the United Kingdom hosts the International Maritime Organisation, through which we continue to pursue innovative work towards achieving a net zero framework and ambitious measures on safety, innovation and business-supporting regulation. I am glad that he supports us in those efforts.
I also thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for consistently raising the critical issue of ferry connectivity for his constituents. I am happy to engage with him further on the ETS and the impact that it may or may not have, especially with regard to the tonnage implications of new hybridised ferries procured on the Isle of Wight. I know he is concerned about that, and I am happy to take those conversations forward.
I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. I hope I have fully answered all the points raised, and that they agree with me that the objective of the draft regulations—to update merchant shipping legislation to ensure it is operable and effective going forward—is highly desirable.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Compensation Following South East Water Outages
River Brue and water regulation
River Wye pollution
Upton Heath
Written Statements
National Savings & Investments: Bereavement Claims
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I am today updating the House on the steps being taken to address historic failures in the handling of some bereavement claims by National Savings and Investments.
On 26 March, I informed the House that NS&I had identified a population of cases where, following notification of a customer’s death, holdings were not fully settled in a timely way. These failures relate to past tracing and operational processes and do not reflect current practice. I recognise the distress and inconvenience that these shortcomings may have caused to those that have suffered bereavements.
The Treasury has instructed NS&I to put this right swiftly and fairly, requiring a delivery plan detailing how it plans to do so to be published during May.
NS&I has now completed extensive work to understand the affected population and to design a remediation approach. Today NS&I is publishing the delivery plan that it will follow to ensure proactive timely contact, payment of outstanding holdings, and appropriate compensation.
The current remediation population is estimated at up to 34,000 cases, with a total value of approximately £367 million. These figures have reduced since my announcement and are likely to reduce further.
We are committed to making the process for reuniting estates with their money as easy as possible. NS&I will contact all affected estates with holdings of £10 or more to reunite them with the full value of those holdings that should have been returned to them earlier. To ensure estates have not been disadvantaged by the delay, this will then be adjusted upwards to include either the higher of the interest accrued since the error occurred or the Bank of England base rate plus 1 percentage point, in line with Financial Ombudsman Service principles.
The de minimis threshold is being set lower than seen in some redress cases reflecting the priority we attach to returning funds to those affected while avoiding creating disproportionate administrative burdens and disturbance in the cases of the smallest holdings.
Contact will be made with estates through executors or personal representatives. Beneficiaries will not be contacted directly except where, as is often the case, beneficiaries are themselves executors or personal representatives. Where solicitors or professional executors dealt with the administration of an estate they will be contacted and it will be for them to contact beneficiaries. All cases will be subject to proportionate tracing checks to ensure payments are made safely and to the correct party.
Remediation will be delivered in phases. NS&I will begin contacting the first cohort next week, with payments made shortly after contact. NS&I aims to return holdings to their rightful owners as swiftly as possible and expects to have completed this remediation programme in the first half of 2027.
I have committed to helping bereaved families avoid disproportionate disruption and administrative costs that could result from the inheritance tax consequences of rectifying previous tracing errors. To achieve this I am confirming today that there will be a full inheritance tax exemption for the holdings of the remediation population affected by the NS&I tracing error which are returned to the estates to which they rightly belong. To further ease the administration of estates, the personal representatives or executors will not be liable for any income tax ordinarily due in their role on interest accrued before death or in the administration period. HMRC is working with NS&I to ensure that executors, personal representatives and beneficiaries do not incur any unnecessary administrative burdens or costs where tax is not due.
Beyond individual redress, NS&I has strengthened its bereavement processes to ensure these tracing errors do not reoccur. While this has driven an increase in processing times, an additional 100 people have been hired to ensure this is temporary. NS&I is also exploring broader improvements to the bereavement journey, including alignment with cross-Government services such as Tell Us Once.
As I committed to the House, Sir Jim Harra, acting chief executive of NS&I, is leading a wider review into the background to the tracing problem and what lessons must be learned. This will report before the summer recess and be shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees. The Treasury has also started the process to recruit a permanent chief executive.
Further information for anyone who believes they or loved ones may have been affected is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week.
[HCWS44]
Public Service Pensions: SCAPE Discount Rate
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
SCAPE—superannuation contributions adjusted for past experience—is the process for setting employer contribution rates at valuations of unfunded public service pension schemes. As part of the SCAPE process, the SCAPE discount rate is used alongside many other factors such as earnings changes, changes to life expectancy and demographic assumptions to determine the appropriate employer contribution rate. Valuations as at 31 March 2024 are currently under way and will result in new employer contribution rates, which will be implemented from April 2027.
The current methodology for setting the discount rate, based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of long-term GDP growth, was adopted in 2011, with a commitment to review its methodology every 10 years. A review under the previous Government, from 2021 to 2023, maintained this methodology.
The SCAPE discount rate to be used as part of the ongoing 2024 valuations will therefore be based on the expected long-term GDP growth figures, published by the OBR in July 2025. Based on these figures, the new SCAPE discount rate is CPI+2% p.a.
[HCWS37]
High Value Council Tax Surcharge: Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
In the 2025 Budget, the Government announced the introduction of a new high-value council tax surcharge—HVCTS—on owners of the most valuable 1% of residential properties in England. Today, together with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I am launching a consultation on the detailed design of this new surcharge.
Households living in lower value homes often pay more council tax, relative to the value of their property, than those in the most expensive homes. For example, a Band D home in parts of the north can face a higher annual council tax bill than a property worth many millions of pounds in parts of central London. The HVCTS will change that, implementing a significant reform to improve fairness within England’s property tax system, ensuring that those with the most valuable properties pay their fair share.
From April 2028, owners of residential properties valued at £2 million and above will be liable to pay the HVCTS, in addition to their existing council tax bill. Fewer than 1% of homes in England are expected to be affected. Properties will be valued for the purpose of the HVCTS and placed into one of four value bands, with fixed annual charges uprated in line with inflation. Council tax bands will remain separate to this new tax.
The consultation seeks views on the design of the tax including scope, support for those who cannot pay, how the tax will be administered and how owners can challenge and appeal their bill. The consultation also includes detailed information for local authorities, who will collect the tax on behalf of central Government. The revenue will be used to support funding for local government services. Local authorities will be fully compensated for any additional administrative burdens.
We welcome feedback on the detailed design set out in this consultation from local government, homeowners, tax experts, legal professionals and those in the property industry about the technical design and impact of the tax. The consultation will close on 14 July.
The consultation is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/high-value-council-tax-surcharge
[HCWS35]
UK-Isle of Man Social Security Agreement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
A new social security agreement relating to national insurance contributions with the Isle of Man was agreed on 18 May 2026. It modernises the provisions in the 1977 agreement which determine where workers and employers pay their national insurance contributions, so that they operate in line with the social security agreement the UK has with Jersey and Guernsey, as well as those with other countries. The text of the agreement has been deposited in the Library in both Houses and will be made available on gov.uk.
The agreement will come into effect on the first day of the month after the UK and the Isle of Man have exchanged written confirmation that they have complied with their domestic requirements. The agreement will have effect in relation to the tax year beginning on or after 6 April next, following the date on which the agreement comes into effect.
[HCWS38]
Television Selection Services and Electronic Programme Guides: Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Following the statement I published on 24 February 2026, I can now confirm to the House that my Department has today laid the following statutory instruments before Parliament:
The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026; and
The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026.
The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026
This SI specifically designates those television selection services that will be captured by the new prominence regime introduced by the Media Act 2024.
To support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters, the Media Act introduced a new prominence regime into the Communications Act 2003 that will require particular TV platforms—referred to in the Act as “regulated television selection services”—to carry and give appropriate prominence to designated public service broadcaster video-on-demand apps. Once commenced, this new regime will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find the public service media content they value on-demand.
In order to be captured by the new prominence framework, a television selection service must be designated by the Secretary of State via statutory instrument, following advice from Ofcom. Ofcom issued its draft advice on 22 July 2025, which it consulted on, and then issued its final statement on 16 December 2025. I confirmed on 24 February that, having thoroughly reviewed Ofcom’s advice and considered all stakeholder responses, I was minded to agree to Ofcom’s recommended list of designations set out in its final report. I am now bringing forward this SI to make those designations.
This SI marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act 2024 and concludes the Department’s work on the designation of which television selection services are in-scope of the new prominence regime.
The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026
This SI was announced in the same February statement referred to above, along with the On-demand Programme Services (Tier 1 Services) Regulations. The SI updates the meaning of a regulated electronic programme guide (EPG), extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to newer TV guide services, such as Sky Glass and Freely. Any TV channel that can be accessed through a regulated EPG will also be within Ofcom’s remit and therefore required to have a broadcast licence.
Furthermore, the regulations will address a regulatory loophole in the existing framework whereby some TV guide services fall outside regulation despite being easily accessible through regulated services.
[HCWS33]
Armed Forces Bill Select Committee Report: MOD Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Select Committee’s special report on the Armed Forces Bill 2026, HC 1712.
The Department continues to support the appointment of a Select Committee for Armed Forces Bills, recognising that their work ensures transparency and proper scrutiny of the legislation.
I am extremely grateful for this Committee’s thorough and constructive consideration of the Bill. The report reflects the Committee’s support for the improvements that this Government are seeking to make through this Bill: to deliver better housing, better support and better protections for our armed forces personnel, and to provide for the expansion and earlier mobilisation of the strategic reserves.
The Committee’s conclusions and recommendations have been considered, and detailed responses have been provided in the attached MOD response. A copy of the MOD response has also been placed in the Library of the House and published on the Armed Forces Bill 2026 page at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/armed-forces-bill-2026
I am pleased that the vast majority of the Committee’s recommendations are supported. This includes the two at paragraphs 20 and 65, which recommend minor amendments to the provisions for the covenant legal duty extension and to protections orders respectively. The Government intend to bring forward amendments to make these changes.
There are, however, a small number of recommendations that the Department does not support or is unable to accept in full. For these recommendations, a detailed explanation of the Department’s position has been provided or an alternative approach has been set out, as appropriate.
Given the Committee’s considerable interest in the practical implementation of the armed forces covenant legal duty, and for transparency purposes to aid discussions during the remaining Bill stages, the Ministry of Defence is also publishing today on gov.uk a draft version of the statutory guidance. This guidance has been developed collaboratively across Government to ensure it is fit for purpose, and feedback on it will continue to be sought from a wide range of stakeholders.
I look forward to continuing to engage with Members across the House as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages in the Commons.
Attachments can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-19/HCWS41
[HCWS41]
Maternity Adviser
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
I am today announcing the appointment of Michelle Welsh MP as a maternity adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care.
Improving the safety of maternity and neonatal services and the experiences of women and their families is a key priority for me as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and for this Government. We are committed to acting with urgency, transparency and accountability to drive improvements in care, working closely with families, clinicians and stakeholders. A central part of this work will be tackling the unacceptable inequalities in outcomes that persist across maternity and neonatal services.
Michelle Welsh MP will provide me, and my Department, with independent advice to support the Government aim of improving the quality of care for women, babies and their families in NHS maternity and neonatal care, and to reduce the stark inequalities faced by so many.
The new DHSC maternity adviser will support my Department to deliver for maternity services by:
Providing advice on improving the quality of care in maternity and neonatal services, including addressing inequalities in outcomes and access to care. This will include supporting the Department to agree priority areas and deliverables to support improvement, drawing on the experiences of women and families, available evidence, stakeholder views and her own experience and expertise.
Supporting and driving forward the work of the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, including by chairing the parliamentary and mayoral panel and as a member of the taskforce.
Engaging with stakeholders, including families and under-represented groups, to ensure that a wide range of perspectives inform the Government work to improve maternity and neonatal care, particularly those experiencing health disparities.
This appointment, alongside the membership of the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and the expert reference groups that feed into it, bring together the depth and breadth of expertise and experience needed to truly drive forward the taskforce’s urgent work to improve maternity and neonatal care.
The taskforce will oversee the development of a new national action plan based on the findings and recommendations of the national maternity and neonatal independent investigation led by Baroness Amos, and by holding the system to account for implementation of the action plan and for improvements in care and experiences for women, babies and families, and for the experiences of staff.
The action plan will also consider any recommendations from other reviews and inquiries that have national implications, including the independent review of maternity and neonatal care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. It will tackle the systemic issues in maternity and neonatal care, providing clear priorities for action so that the workforce is supported to ensure that women and families are listened to and provided with safe care, and so that truth, accountability and learning take place when things go wrong.
Transparency on how the national maternity and neonatal taskforce is delivering the necessary change is important for public accountability. To support this, today my Department will be publishing the taskforce’s terms of reference, ways of working charter and summary note of the first meeting on gov.uk. We will also be publishing the names and organisations of those involved in the expert reference groups which support the work of the taskforce.
The appointment will take effect from Tuesday 19 May 2026 and is an unpaid role.
[HCWS42]
Mental Health Strategy for England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
I am today informing the House of the Government’s plans to develop a new, once-in-a-generation, cross-Government strategy for mental health in England, which will be published later this year. The strategy will be informed by a call for evidence, alongside wider engagement, including through the ongoing independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, and the modern service framework for severe mental illness. The call for evidence launched on Friday 15 May and will close on Friday 10 July.
Good mental health is central to our overall health, wellbeing and ability to participate fully in education, work and community life. Yet far too many people are experiencing mental health problems and distress, with over a quarter of young people now estimated to have a common mental health condition such as depression or anxiety.
The Government have already taken significant steps to improve mental health services. We have taken through landmark reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 and met our manifesto commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 additional mental health staff three years early, and we are expanding mental health support teams to reach every school and college by 2029. This is backed by a record £16.1 billion forecast to be spent on NHS mental health services this year.
However, we know that there is more to do, within and beyond the NHS. Demand for mental health support has risen rapidly, with long waits and too many people unable to access the right support when they need it. Despite sustained investment, systems remain too often reactive, fragmented and variable, with outcomes that fall short of what people and communities need.
It is time to go further and take a new approach. We want a mental health system and society that respond earlier and more proportionately to need, providing the right tools and intervening before distress escalates to crisis. We want a system organised around participation, not thresholds, where people can access timely, practical support that matches their needs and circumstances, and where support is joined up, with no wrong front door.
The 10-year health plan set out an ambitious vision for reform of the NHS, centred around three strategic shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. The mental health strategy is the next stage of this Government’s programme of reform, and it will be informed by the independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. This review, chaired by Professor Peter Fonagy and engaging with experts in the field, including people with lived experience, will make recommendations on how to shift from a system that responds late and is overly focused on diagnosis to one that responds earlier, more proportionately, and with improving participation in education and work in mind.
The Government have launched a call for evidence to build on the 10-year health plan engagement and collate practical implementation evidence with a focus on how we can turn our vision into action.
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/informing-the-mental-health-strategy-for-england
We welcome examples of good practice, from across the UK and internationally, and from across sectors, including schools, workplaces and community settings. Input is encouraged from the mental health sector and beyond, clinicians, local leaders and parliamentarians.
The mental health needs of autistic people and people with ADHD will also be reflected within the mental health strategy. We know that autistic people and people with ADHD face a much higher risk of developing a mental health condition, and that there is a need for integrated and equitable access to mental health services and support that is responsive to their needs, including appropriate adjustments to how services are designed and delivered.
Separately, we will develop and publish a new cross-Government autism strategy, as required under the Autism Act 2009. This will be informed by all relevant evidence, reviews and reports, including the recommendations from the House of Lords Autism Act 2009 Inquiry Committee report and the ongoing independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. As part of this work, we will consider and seek the views of stakeholders as to whether the new autism strategy should be extended to cover ADHD.
The strategy will be aligned with relevant modern service frameworks and the suicide prevention strategy for England.
Transforming the mental health system will take time, but we are committed to delivering a new approach that enables people to stay well, participate fully in society and access the right support at the right time.
[HCWS36]
Hantavirus Outbreak Response: Regulatory Changes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
On 10 May, the UK Government safely returned all remaining British nationals on board the MV Hondius. With some passengers having returned to England earlier than this, and with the arrival for monitoring of a number of individuals from UK Overseas territories who had contact with passengers, I would like to inform the House that, as of Monday 18 May 2026, the following amendments have been laid and come into force:
The Health Protection (Notification) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 amend the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 to include hantavirus disease, including hantavirus pulmonary or cardiopulmonary syndrome and haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome as a notifiable disease in schedule 1 (“Hanta virus” is already included within the list of causative agents in schedule 2).
The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 have been amended to include hantavirus in schedule 1. They have also been amended to exempt overseas visitors from NHS charging for schedule 1 diseases, where the person was brought to the UK in agreement with the UK Government for treatment or quarantine for a schedule 1 disease.
The public health assessment remains that the risk to the public is very low. I would like to pay tribute to the staff from across the health system, particularly regional health protection teams, for their ongoing efforts to support the hantavirus response and protect the public’s health. The amendments that came into force yesterday will support the UK Health Security Agency and our health partners to swiftly identify, treat and control the disease, and reduce potential financial barriers to overseas visitors in England who require NHS-funded secondary care services in relation to hantavirus.
Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010
As of 6 pm on 18 May 2026, hantavirus disease—including hantavirus pulmonary or cardiopulmonary syndrome and haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome—is a notifiable disease and there is now an explicit legal duty on doctors in England to notify the proper officer of the relevant local authority if they see a patient who they suspect of having hantavirus disease. While we believe cases have been reliably notified to date, this amendment puts beyond doubt the legal obligation of doctors to report cases of suspected hantavirus disease. Placing a legal duty on doctors to report suspected hantavirus disease and provide the relevant patient information—as set out in the regulations—will strengthen our understanding of the virus and its transmission within the England and, if required, support the implementation of timely infection prevention and control measures.
There is already a legal duty on laboratories to notify the UKHSA if they identify hantavirus when they test a human sample in England, as “Hanta virus” is already included within the list of notifiable causative agents at schedule 2 of the regulations.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015 (“the charging regulations”)
NHS charging regulations require providers of NHS-funded secondary care to make charges to people not ordinarily resident in the UK—overseas visitors—except where an exemption category applies.
We acted swiftly, and as of 6 pm on 18 May 2026, we ensured that, should an overseas visitor in England need NHS-funded secondary care services in respect of hantavirus disease, hantavirus pulmonary or cardiopulmonary syndrome and haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome, they will not be charged. Providing such services without charge removes a potential financial barrier to overseas visitors presenting for NHS-funded secondary care, therefore ensuring that the risk to the public’s health from infected visitors is minimised. This brings hantavirus disease into line with most other infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and covid-19.
The inclusion of hantavirus disease in schedule 1 of the charging regulations means that overseas visitors will not be charged for the diagnosis and treatment of hantavirus disease. We have also amended the charging regulations so that any charges already incurred for hantavirus disease since 1 May 2026 must be cancelled or, if paid, must be refunded.
We have also amended the charging regulations so that diagnosis and treatment for a disease in schedule 1 will remain exempt from charging, provided that the overseas visitor travelled to the UK by means of transport that has been agreed with, or funded by, the Secretary of State for supported repatriation or travel to the UK for the purposes of quarantine. This amendment will apply to all schedule 1 diseases.
[HCWS43]
Biometrics Commissioner Valedictory Report: 2024-25
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the valedictory report of the Biometrics Commissioner, Francesca Whitelaw KC.
The Biometrics Commissioner is appointed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and provides independent oversight of the retention and use of biometric material by the police and other authorities.
This report covers casework data from January 2024 to March 2025 and includes reflections on the commissioner’s interim tenure from July to October 2025. It provides transparency on the oversight of national security determinations and applications made under section 63G of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and sets out recommendations for operational improvements.
The report does not contain material requiring exclusion for reasons of national security or public interest.
The report has been laid before the House and will be available from the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
[HCWS39]
HMICFRS Inspection Report: National Crime Agency’s Effectiveness and Efficiency
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The National Crime Agency is an intelligence-led crime fighting agency that leads and co-ordinates the UK law enforcement operational response to serious and organised crime and protects the public by targeting the highest harm groups and networks.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has finalised its first graded inspection of the agency as an organisation, following previous inspections examining thematic areas of the agency’s work. The inspection assessed the NCA’s effectiveness and efficiency in fulfilling its statutory crime reduction and criminal intelligence functions, and the extent to which leadership, strategic direction and the culture within the NCA contribute to the discharge of those functions.
I welcome the findings of the inspection. I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report. It will be published today and will be available online at: https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspectorate graded the NCA as “good” for achieving its strategic priorities, investigating SOC and leading collaboration; “adequate” in understanding SOC threats; and “requires improvement” for managing finances and building the workforce.
HMICFRS found that the agency collaborates effectively with a wide range of partners and maintains a strong global presence. Inspectors also recognised innovative practice in the use of child protection advisers, which has improved investigations and accelerated responses from partners in sensitive cases.
However, the inspectorate also reported that the NCA must urgently strengthen its IT capability and strategy, identifying this as a cause of concern. It highlighted the need for substantial investment and co-ordinated action to transform the agency’s IT. To address this, the Home Office has supported the NCA in significantly increasing its capital departmental expenditure limit budget from £173 million in 2025-26 to £224 million in 2028-29—which should enable the NCA to address its technology debt and advance its transformation programme, delivering greater efficiencies and productivity gains. The inspectorate also noted that more could be done to support, develop and retain a highly skilled workforce. The spending review settlement will support this process as the agency’s core revenue departmental expenditure limit will increase from £619 million in 2025-26 to £715 million in 2026-27.
Overall, the inspectorate has made three recommendations linked to one cause of concern and 10 areas of improvement. These recommendations will support the agency’s continuing work to enhance its IT and address the challenges identified. The agency accepts the findings and steps are already being taken to address the challenges highlighted during the inspection. I want to thank HMICFRS for this vital inspection.
I have asked my officials to work closely with the NCA and HMICFRS to deliver the necessary changes and ensure recommendations align with the proposals I set out in the White Paper on police reform on 26 January. This included plans to create a new national police service which, in its final state, will bring together national and cross-border policing capabilities, including the NCA. The new national police service will drive efficiencies, reduce duplication and deliver the capabilities needed to respond to national and international threats. The necessary legislative provisions to establish the national police service will be included in the police reform Bill announced in the King’s Speech on 13 May.
[HCWS40]
High Streets Organised Crime Unit Launch
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am today announcing the launch of the Government’s high streets organised crime unit, a new cross-Government unit designed to strengthen our response to money laundering, tax evasion, illegal working and other forms of organised criminality taking place on our high streets.
The criminal exploitation of the high street has a significant impact on local communities, undermining the vibrancy and safety of neighbourhoods and eroding public trust in legitimate businesses. It undermines competition, discourages investment and contributes to the decline of once-thriving high streets. Residents feel less safe, while honest business owners struggle to compete against those circumventing the law.
The National Crime Agency assesses that it is likely that at least £1 billion is laundered through a wide range of high street businesses in the UK each year. Despite significant operational efforts currently under way across law enforcement and local partners, action has too often been fragmented and reactive in nature, with no single mechanism to drive a coherent, system-wide response.
To address this gap, the high streets organised crime unit has been convened to deliver a unified, strategic and system-wide response. The unit will bring together key Government Departments, policing partners and local authorities to deliver long-term policy solutions to high street organised criminality, enhance intelligence sharing, and support both communities and legitimate businesses to prosper.
In line with the commitment made at the autumn Budget, the work of the unit will be supported by £10 million of funding to enhance the operational response to money laundering and related organised crime on the high street. This funding will provide for:
An increase in National Crime Agency officers dedicated to tackling high street money laundering and associated criminality;
Dedicated operational activity by Greater Manchester police, West Midlands police, and by a joint Kent police and Essex police unit;
An annual national multi-agency crackdown on money laundering through the high street and associated criminality;
Increased local authority capacity to strengthen trading standards and wider business compliance on the high street;
An HMRC-led targeted surge against tax evasion and illicit finance on the high street; and
A communications and compliance campaign aimed at high street businesses, focused on raising awareness of illegal working.
Through this funding, the Government are empowering law enforcement agencies, local authorities and community partners to protect our high streets, disrupt criminal activity and support thriving local businesses. As a result of the funding, I expect to see:
A surge in enforcement targeting organised crime’s exploitation of high street businesses;
Local authorities, regulators and police equipped with the necessary tools, data and co-ordination to identify, investigate and disrupt high street criminality; and
Communities experiencing fewer harms and feeling more confident in their local high streets, supporting thriving businesses.
Tackling organised criminality on the high street is only one component of a larger strategy to revitalise the UK’s high streets. As such, this unit supports the work of the Government’s high streets strategy to protect communities and create resilient, thriving high streets, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
I will update the House on progress as the unit develops its strategic policy recommendations.
[HCWS32]
Access to Work Backlog
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The Access to Work scheme plays an important role in supporting disabled people and people with health conditions in, and into, work. The core ambition of the scheme is to ensure that disability is never a barrier to, or in, the workplace. The scheme is highly valued by the many disabled people it supports, disabled people’s organisations and employers.
Demand for Access to Work has risen sharply since the pandemic, with more than double the number of applications in 2024-25 than in 2018-19. Alongside this, we inherited a substantial backlog of around 57,000 cases awaiting a decision beyond the expected timescales.
I know how frustrating these delays are, and the impact they can have on the recruitment and retention of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
That is why we have already increased the number of staff working on Access to Work by around 30%—from 500 in March 2024 to 657 in March 2026—and continued to prioritise applications where a customer is due to start work within four weeks.
Thanks to the action and hard work of our colleagues, we have eliminated delays in making payments and cleared around 96% of cases where a customer was due to start work in four weeks within 28 days.
This is important progress, but there is more to do.
Today I am announcing a clear plan of action to clear the backlog in applications by September 2027.
We will recruit an additional 480 case staff to process the higher volume of applications. When recruitment is complete, we will have more than twice as many staff working on Access to Work as in March 2024. The recruitment process has already begun, and new case managers will receive extensive training to handle complex applications with confidence. This will ensure that disabled people and people with health conditions can receive timely support to secure and sustain employment.
This comes alongside wider work on Keep Britain Working, where Government are partnering with employers and stakeholders to develop practices and approaches to better support disabled people and those with health conditions in the workplace.
It is also important that we consider wider changes to the Access to Work scheme. We are keen to ensure that the scheme remains fair and sustainable. I know how important Access to Work is to the people it supports, so it is important that we take the time to get reforms right to deliver real improvements.
I have taken the time to consult widely and to collaborate with and gather evidence from disabled people, employers and representative bodies. I am now considering the insights from the collaboration committee process, the recent National Audit Office report and work with the independent disability advisory panel to help shape potential wider changes to the scheme.
This announcement is a great step to help deliver an Access to Work that is timely and efficient and can meet the new levels of demand. It will restore confidence in the capability of the scheme to award the right support at the right time, and sets a pathway towards wider improvements.
[HCWS34]
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Clark of Kilwinning
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Baroness, Lady Clark of Kilwinning, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to the House.
Defence, Security and Resilience Bank
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, while we are of course interested in working with NATO allies such as Canada, we have no current plans to join the defence, security and resilience bank. Our priority is to progress the proposed multilateral defence mechanism with a core group of EU and NATO allies and partners, including Denmark, Finland, Poland and the Netherlands. This mechanism will aim to aggregate demand, drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities such as munitions as we step up shared defence and security commitments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, financing rearmament is a challenge for all NATO countries, which is why I am a bit puzzled by the Government’s response. A viable defence, security and resilience bank would tick a number of important boxes: it would be multilateral; it would work with a greater number of allies; it would help project finance span election cycles; and it would cost-effectively pull in private finance. Yet last September the British Government ruled out joining the scheme, and this year when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made a direct request, the British Prime Minister gave only a lukewarm response. Why is it not in the interests of this country to pursue the creation of this scheme, which could go alongside all other schemes?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. I am pleased to see that he has made a full recovery; I know he was battling a very heavy cold during our recent King’s Speech debate. I fully recognise that I am no defence expert, but I thought that the Prime Minister put this point particularly well in his recent Munich speech. He said that
“we must move forward together to create a more European NATO. As I see it, Europe is a sleeping giant … We have huge defence capabilities, yet too often this adds up to less than the sum of its parts. Fragmented industrial planning and procurement have led to gaps in some areas, and massive duplication in others. Europe has over 20 types of frigate, and 10 types of fighter jet. We have over 10 types of main battle tank, whilst the US has one. It’s wildly inefficient, and it harms our collective security”.
The noble Lord may well share that analysis and worldview. That is why the Government’s focus is, as I said, to work on the proposed multilateral defence mechanism with a core group of EU and NATO allies and partners, with the goal of establishing it by 2027.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, on a note of agreement, I agree with the Minister—I think—on his position on the defence bank, which may surprise him. He set out the importance of defence procurement. Given that there was much speculative briefing over the past few days about the Government’s defence spending commitments, is he able to update the House on the much-delayed defence investment plan, which is very important in making those commitments, particularly to the British defence industry?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the defence investment plan is the first zero-based review of defence spending in almost two decades. It will set out the MoD’s plans to ensure that resources are directed effectively to meet its priorities. The Government are working hard to facilitate this and to ensure that it delivers the outcomes the UK needs for defence and for taxpayers, and it will be published shortly.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that there is a significant problem of access to finance for the defence industry, particularly for medium and small enterprises, driven partly by absurd bans on investment in our national defence by financial institutions? Given the failure, frankly, of the City and the Government to address this systemic problem, should we not at least give serious consideration to, and engage in discussions on, this initiative from the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with much of my noble friend’s analysis, but they are two slightly separate issues. The Government have been very clear that there is nothing contradictory between ESG considerations and defence, and that no company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis that they work in the defence sector. The Government are working closely with the defence sector and with financial services to identify the extent of this issue, to reduce barriers to essential banking services and to support a resilient defence industry. More widely, the proposed multilateral defence mechanism will help improve value for money and address fragmentation in the defence sector through joint procurement. It will support greater standardisation and interoperability, helping to ensure that allies’ capabilities work together more effectively. It will increase the availability of munitions and other critical capabilities when we need them most. It will support a more resilient and efficient defence industrial sector, and it will accelerate defence sector investment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is the idea behind this plan to meet vital public expenditure needs without upsetting the bond markets too much? Can the Minister just explain a little more how it will work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The scale and precise focus of the mechanism remain to be determined, but the scope of those activities would include lending to sovereigns and to the sector and providing loans to supply chains and loans for capacity expansion. We anticipate that it will make a material contribution to defence spending and investment across those involved. The intention is that this mechanism will be established as an independent international financial institution underpinned by an international agreement and with sovereign countries as members in the first instance. As with other international financial institutions, paid-in capital will be expected to leverage in private sector funding by a multiple of that initial contribution.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am now completely bewildered. I would have thought that, with the state of the gilts market, the Government would be leaping at the opportunity to find AAA financing for their defence expenditure, and on a multilateral basis. Are we dealing with the underlying problem of a Treasury that basically says, “not invented here”, rather than looking at an opportunity that has been virtually handed to it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, and I do not quite understand why the noble Baroness is confused, because we are doing exactly what she says. We are setting up—or being part of—a proposed multilateral defence mechanism. I thought the noble Baroness would share a similar worldview in terms of wanting to see greater amounts of co-operation and procurement among a core group of EU allies and NATO allies and partners. What she is asking for is exactly what the Government are exploring.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, when we refer to the defence industry these days, we are talking not about the traditional defence companies but about industry much more widely? We have seen clear examples of this in the Ukraine war. Will he therefore ensure that whatever multilateral funding arrangements we come up with, they are used to fund an agile, innovative, high-technology industrial base across Europe that can respond rapidly to crises, rather than going into purely the established defence sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for what he says. I am sure I was aware of it, but probably not as aware as he is because I am nothing like the expert that he is. But, absolutely, that is exactly what the defence industrial strategy is designed to do. It outlines how the Government will support a strong, innovative defence sector to equip and protect the Armed Forces. It focuses on securing supply chains, boosting high-skilled jobs, investing in new technologies and ensuring national security, while delivering value for money and supporting economic growth. The substantial investment in the defence industrial strategy will drive R&D and innovation across the UK, including developing technologies such as AI, quantum and space capabilities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the recent noise around Labour’s leadership meltdown has drowned out the fact that the Government have still not announced a date for the publication of what has become the “defence invisibility plan”. Does the Minister agree that the proposed defence, security and resilience bank is a distraction from the need for NATO countries—and that includes the UK—to increase defence expenditure both significantly and quickly?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I welcome the noble Baroness’s conversion to spending more on defence; she had 14 years to do something about it but did not do anything. To ensure that the UK is prepared to respond to growing threats, the Chancellor has announced a £270 billion investment in defence over the course of this Parliament. We have already invested £5.6 billion more in defence this year alone compared with previous plans, and spending on defence is rising every single year of this Parliament. As the noble Baroness knows, NATO qualifying defence spending is set to rise to 2.6% of GDP by April next year. The Government have also set an ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allow. The defence investment plan will set out the MoD’s plans to ensure that resources are directed effectively to meet its priorities and deliver value for money for taxpayers. We are working hard to finalise that and it will be published shortly.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that much of the expenditure that he just referred to is in Scotland: in Edinburgh, in Fife, in the Clyde and in the islands? Does he think I am overoptimistic in hoping that the new Scottish Government will give some acknowledgement and credit to the UK Government for all that spending in Scotland?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I start by saying what a pleasure it is to take a question from my noble friend again and to welcome him back to the House. He is known for his optimism, so I hope I can join him in that. But he is absolutely right: 68% of defence spending goes to businesses outside London and the south-east, bolstering regional economies in Scotland and the north-west, which is why our defence industrial strategy that I was discussing earlier is so vital.
Climate Change: Government Action
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to tackle climate change.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Since coming to office, the Government have taken decisive action to tackle climate change by accelerating the transition from volatile fossil fuels to homegrown clean energy. Indeed, as we face the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, every solar panel we have put up, every heat pump we have installed and every electric car on the road has made our country more secure and has helped us to tackle climate change while protecting bill payers and creating good jobs.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he join me in sending warmest wishes to Sir David Attenborough on his 100th birthday? I am sure that all in this House would pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Sir David to our understanding of the natural world, but he also tells us what we stand to lose if we do not take urgent action to address the threat of climate change, and he is absolutely clear about the devastating consequences. Does my noble friend agree that the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech is of critical and central importance, not only to the energy security that he references but to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which is essential in combating the consequences of climate change?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
First, I am delighted to join my noble friend in paying tribute to Sir David Attenborough, not only for being 100 years old but for the increasing work he has done in recent years not only in talking about the natural world but in bringing public consciousness to bear on the costs of not doing anything about climate change and on how our natural world will change irrevocably if we do not. The energy Bill in the King’s Speech is a crucial part of the next stage of countering climate change in this country, and, in conjunction with the carbon budget and growth delivery plan, it will enable us to meet our next carbon budgets coming up.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a role for adaptation in tackling climate change? Would the Government see fit to reward farmers for retaining excess floodwater in times of flood to prevent downstream communities flooding?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, a report on adaptation will be coming out shortly. I accept that this is an essential part of a two-legged approach to climate change: we must be aware of what we need to do to adapt to climate change as well as to mitigate it. Farmers retaining water is a very important part of that adaptation process. I hope that we can respond positively to what they are doing in this respect.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our understanding of climate change is fundamentally reliant on international global science, which is under threat. I implore this Government to do more to support international climate science. What specific actions are the Government taking to monitor the cumulative impact of that reduction in science, and what steps are we taking at the international level to support this work going forward?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are completely guided by the science as far as climate change action is concerned. I share the noble Earl’s concern that in terms of the climate change debate in this country we appear to be moving away from the science—which is the underpinning of everything that we need to hold on for future action. The particular issue as far as retaining the science is concerned is continued support for and understanding of the work of the Committee on Climate Change and how it is interpreting the science to make sure that its recommendations are absolutely with the science. The noble Earl will know that the seventh carbon budget that has come from the Committee on Climate Change is up for consideration by the Government by the end of next month. That will underpin its work in this respect.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his Answer and for all that the Government are doing. In the light of the richly deserved tributes to Sir David Attenborough, what is the Government’s view on the role of public education and investment in public education around the climate emergency? Do they commend, for instance, the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, the new film which has been produced? Do they want to increase investment to rebuild the political consensus that we had some years ago that this is a national emergency?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Like the right reverend Prelate, I am very disappointed about the partial breakdown in the consensus that we had on the emergency that climate change represents in this country. It is this Government’s fervent wish that this consensus can be regained. We are already putting a lot of resources into various bodies which can ensure that climate change is discussed fairly and without bias in the public sphere, aiming to get that consensus back again as far as the public are concerned.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the King’s Speech did mention climate change. He said that his Government would be a “leading advocate” in the fight against climate change, yet there is not a single policy specifically about nature or the environment in the whole speech, in the whole government agenda. Given that and given that nature and the environment underpin our economic security, our food security and our productivity, when are the Government going to take this whole issue seriously and produce some policies where nature is supported?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know what the Government have been doing to take on the recent environment and nature plan. That is now at the heart of the clean power 2030 drive to ensure that our power systems are compatible with and supportive of nature and the environment rather than destructive of them. That is a commitment that the Government have. While it is true that this King’s Speech has not put forward specific measures relating to this, it is nevertheless interwoven in everything that the Government are doing as far as climate change and low carbon are concerned.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, we know that climate change is already having an impact on food production and farmers. In one recent survey, 78% of farmers said that they were impacted by the effects of climate change. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to ensure that food production will continue in the decades ahead in the face of climate change and extreme weather events?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The question of food production is obviously bound up, among other things, with how the environment of our country is changing due to the effects of climate change and what effect that has on crops and food production security in general. The Government are actively involved in ensuring that the way we produce food is brought up to date with the changes that are taking place and, indeed, giving support to farmers and agricultural communities in making those changes. It is a very important part not just of the mitigation of climate change but of adaptation, and that is something that the Government take very seriously.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Drax emits more than 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, more than the six largest gas power plants combined. Despite this, it has recently been reported that it is ditching its plans for carbon capture and storage technology. Given this fact, and that Drax receives nearly £0.5 billion in supposedly green subsidies, can the Minister outline whether the Government are reconsidering the entitlements they currently offer the power station?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness will understand that the arrangements that were made for Drax as far as the period up to 2032 is concerned are half as costly as the support arrangements for Drax which were made under the previous Government and they require Drax to produce much less power and be a marginal power producer, along with other power stations, rather than the baseline arrangements that there were previously. The Government have acted to both curtail and balance what Drax is doing, but this agreement ends in 2032 if Drax does not undertake further activities to ameliorate its emissions from biomass—which, admittedly, is lower carbon in the first place—so watch this space. The present arrangement is running its course on a better basis than previously, but there is undoubtedly more to come if Drax does not stand by its obligations for the future.
VAT Relief: Business Donations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the VAT relief on business donations on goods to charities on food redistribution networks, including social supermarkets.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the new VAT relief on business donations of goods to charity came into effect on 1 April this year and it is too soon yet to assess the impacts. We anticipate the relief will incentivise increased food donations to charities eligible for the relief, meaning increased donations reaching those in need. The CBI estimates that the relief will lead to an additional £72.5 million in total donations annually. We are monitoring any possible impacts on social supermarkets.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, while the intention of the policy is welcome, does the Minister recognise that it may create a perverse incentive for businesses to divert surplus food away from community organisations and enterprises such as Community Shop, which provide both affordable food and wider support for vulnerable groups? Will he accept any evidence that may come forward as a result of this policy that this perverse incentive is happening and then consider possibly tweaking the policy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The short answer is yes, of course. We are hopeful that this new relief will help boost the supply of essential items to charities, enabling them to reach the people and communities who need them most. The relief will also make it easier for businesses to give surplus stock a second life, supporting families and communities across the UK and strengthening the circular economy by reducing waste and landfill. I hope very much that what the noble Baroness says is not the case. I understand the disappointment of some at not being eligible for this relief. It was important to maintain the structure of existing charity tax reliefs. However, as she asks, we will continue to monitor any potential impacts and accept the evidence. She might like to know that HMT officials will shortly be meeting with the sector to discuss this further.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of VAT registration for high street businesses such as mini-markets, vape shops and the like? I recently bought a phone charger and was surprised not to see a VAT receipt, and that business—there are many businesses like this—had significant turnover, well above the VAT threshold. If they are not registered for and not paying VAT, and are not paying national insurance, the minimum wage and corporation tax, that cannot be fair to those legitimate business that do pay their taxes.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble Lord. I think we may have discussed this once before, and I agreed with him then as well. As I understand it, HMRC is absolutely cracking down on this type of behaviour.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, most foods subject to VAT are high in fat, salt and sugar and are often ultra-processed. Is there a danger that VAT relief will increase the donation of such foods to food banks and charities, putting people already at high risk of obesity and diet-related illnesses at even higher risk? Will the Minister consider excluding HFSS foods, at the very least, from VAT relief?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am aware of the concerns set out by some, including the noble Baroness, about the inclusion of foods high in fat, salt and sugar within the scope of this relief. The work that many of these companies, such as the Company Shop Group, do to support local communities is crucial, and it is important that the new VAT relief does not undermine their ability to do this work. We have not yet been presented with sufficient evidence to justify carving out from the relief foods high in fat, salt or sugar, but Treasury officials will monitor the situation carefully and maintain an open dialogue with the sector.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about this relief. Could he expand on what regard he had to Article 8 of the Windsor Framework, which requires part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, to be aligned with the EU, rather than with the rest of the UK, in VAT and excise duties? Perhaps he could explain that for not just this instance but other instances where relief may not apply in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I have to apologise to the noble Lord, I am afraid, because I do not know the answer to his question about the applicability of this relief to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. I will investigate that and write to him.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the banks have opened hubs in some very poor communities. Would it be a good idea for the supermarkets to do the same and put food hubs in decent locations in some of these areas where people find it difficult to get good food?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The location of supermarkets is largely a commercial decision for the supermarkets themselves and not one for me, but I believe that that is exactly what the social supermarkets that the Question relates to are trying to do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much agree that food and other waste should be minimised, and we sympathise with the objective of this measure. However, are the Government satisfied that the proposal will be effectively administered? I speak, of course, as a former retailer.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one thing the Government could perhaps do for people who are on very low incomes and suffering from food poverty is to cap the price of some essential items at supermarkets. Supermarkets make a huge profit from us customers, so capping a few prices might help the general population.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure that it is for the Government to cap prices. We are working closely with supermarkets to ensure that they are keeping costs down, and competition is thriving in the sector to help keep costs down for consumers. The noble Baroness knows that we are absolutely committed to tackling poverty and ending mass dependence on things such as emergency food parcels and other charitable support. It is why, most importantly, we are tackling the root causes of child poverty and scrapping the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, it can often be the case that the people who might benefit most from donations such as this are not always aware of the positioning of them. I wonder whether more could be done with local authorities to ensure that there is good signposting for people—perhaps, as the Minister said, through family hubs or schools—so that people know where to go in order to benefit from these donations.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with my noble friend. It is one of the reasons why Sure Start was so important and so successful under the previous Labour Government. It was an absolute tragedy that the previous Tory Government scrapped the Sure Start scheme, and we saw a massive increase in child poverty as a result. My noble friend is absolutely right about signposting. To go back to the original Question, it is part of the good work that social supermarkets do in communities up and down the country.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I was partly responsible for founding Feeding Britain and bringing the first social supermarkets to London. People talk about the fact that only 8% of food waste makes its way towards either a food bank or a social supermarket. There is a staggering amount of food high up in the food chain in companies that cannot be bothered and the ludicrous situation of some companies manufacturing yoghurts to fulfil contracts to produce anaerobic digestion for renewable energy. The Government could do an enormous amount by opening up this can of worms—this secret source of wasted food—and getting it down the chain to people who need it. A lot of it happens to be very healthy food, such as tins of beans.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is far more expert in these matters than I am, but I fully understand what she is saying. I am sure that there is a lot in what she says and I am sure that the Government will look closely at it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, in relation to the question from my noble friend Lady Kramer, does the Minister agree that applying the new nutrient profiling model to surplus food diverted to various organisations could make it easy to carve out less healthy food from the VAT relief?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I totally understand what the noble Baroness is saying. I do not think I said that it was not possible to do that; I said that we had not yet been presented with sufficient evidence to justify doing that. As I say, we will keep monitoring the situation carefully and we will maintain an open dialogue with the sector.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister might be tempted down the route of putting price restrictions on food coming from supermarkets, would it not be better to wait and see whether the experiment in Scotland actually succeeds?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
For the avoidance of doubt, I was not tempted to go down that path. Having heard from my noble friend, I am even less tempted to do so than I was before.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister say something about the role of supermarkets in helping food banks?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
This tax relief is designed to help businesses donate surplus food to social supermarkets. This Government are dedicated to reducing reliance on food banks, which is exactly why we are taking the measures on child poverty that I previously described.
El Niño: Impact
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact a possible El Niño event later this year would have on public services; and what advice they are preparing for businesses and for the general public.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I draw attention to my registered interest as the chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, El Niño is just one of a number of climatic drivers that can influence UK weather patterns. Any potential impacts will depend on how these drivers combine; this will be assessed in more detail later on in the year as forecasts evolve. The Government continue to take action to strengthen the UK’s resilience against severe weather events. The national risk register details the wide-ranging impacts of severe weather to ensure that comprehensive contingency plans are in place.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Some 46 months ago today, the UK suffered its highest recorded temperature—40 degrees in London —which led to nearly 300 premature deaths in London alone and possibly 3,000 deaths across the country. It also led to the fire brigade in London being called out because of the associated wildfires; that marked its busiest time since the Blitz in the Second World War, and, if you look nationally, there has been a pattern of an increasing number of wildfires. Can my noble friend the Minister say what steps are being taken, if not in preparation for an El Niño-related heat event then in preparation for any other heat event, to ensure both that the fire service has the necessary resources and that hospitals and the public are aware of the implications of that sort of event?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: 2022 was the UK’s hottest year on record and saw over 20,000 hectares of land in England burned, the destruction of over 70 properties across the UK and at least 14 fire and rescue services declaring major incidents in their areas, as well as 2,985 excess deaths. We have to learn from each event as it happens and make sure that the lessons learned are reflected in our resilience plans going forward, which is why we now have a severe weather resilience network, which is led by COBRA but includes MHCLG and the Department of Health as key aspects of it. We need to make sure that the most vulnerable are protected and that those who need resources, whether at a local or national level, have what they need to keep us all safe.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, some local authorities have in the past identified places such as churches, which may provide cool shelter during very high temperature periods. Are the Government doing any work with local authorities to make information available for those kinds of preventative action as and when it might be needed?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We saw during Covid and see during every crisis moment that communities come together, and the church and faith communities tend to be at the heart of a response. Details about how communities can respond are available on gov.uk/prepare, which outlines not just what is available and what individuals can do but what communities can do to prepare for any extreme event, whether related to a pandemic or to severe weather. We thank everyone who steps up at times of national emergency, especially those within our faith communities who take local leadership roles.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, returning to the debate we had about adaptation to climate change, would the Minister agree with me that, as well as having the plans in place for how we respond to an immediate emergency, we have to look at the longer term? This has happened already, and it will happen more. Does she agree that we need to design and adapt buildings so that they are comfortable and safe for people during hot weather episodes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: for hot weather and any form of extreme weather, we need to reflect that in design but also in how we look after each other. The national security strategy references climate change 12 times. This is a core part of who we are. As my noble friend referenced, we are seeing an increase in number of wildfires year on year as our climate changes. In preparation for this Question, there was a meeting with the Met Office to talk about the extremes and how we analyse them. It is also about the new modelling that we can do: how we will use AI in addition to traditional modelling so that we can better assess long-term patterns too is important, so that we can make sure that, as a Government, we are working across all sectors, whether building in design or working with our schools and hospitals to make sure they have the right resilience plans in place as and when needed.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Question. The coolest years are now warmer than the warmest years used to be, and all the signs are that we have a record weather event coming up over the next two summers. Can I also return to wildfires? I think they are really important. I know the Government are developing their strategy and action plan. Noble Lords have mentioned 2022 already, but can the Minister reassure me that the lessons from that particular incident are being learned? She may need to write to me, but can I ask what actual fixed and rotary wing aircraft we have available for fighting wildfires, and what consideration is being given to increasing that resource?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Earl is absolutely right: I will have to write him with the detail of the number of planes available for use at that point, because, at a time of national crisis, we obviously also divert resources from other parts of the country if required. On learning steps, I think we absolutely have learned. We have to learn from each new event, because there are unique parts that come through. There is now a national resilience wildfire adviser in post to make sure that we are doing co-ordinated work. I had a very reassuring conversation with my noble friend Lord Roe yesterday about the lessons that have been learned from the fire service and how we operate in the round in this space.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the emergency alerts that one can sign up for via the Prepare website are available in English and Welsh only? If there is going to be an El Niño event later this year, will she commit to taking urgent action to make sure that emergency alerts are available in other languages, apart from English and Welsh, so that everybody can have the information and protection that they need?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point that I was not aware of. I will speak to officials and come back to her.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the weather is, of course, borderless. What contingent planning have His Majesty’s Government undertaken to mitigate the combined impact of potential shortages of essential supplies—including fertiliser, which is so important to British farmers—that might arise from the conflict in the Gulf and from a possible super El Niño event in 2026?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that each crisis moment is different and that we need to ensure that we have strong foundations, which I believe we do as a country in our resilience planning. COBRA is a very effective co-ordinating tool to make sure that we know that we are on top of all those challenges and that we can make assessments as and when required in this space.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My noble friend the Minister is clearly aware of the urgency of this situation and the demands across government that we must respond to it. The sector is now increasingly asking government to adopt a whole-of-government approach to develop a more resilient society. What thinking is taking place in government to ensure that we prioritise national resilience in the face of these weather systems? Is there a need for a more centralised approach to give more leadership to develop that resilient society?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is right, which is why the severe weather resilience network exists. It is led by COBRA and includes Defra, MHCLG, the Department of Health, DCMS, the Department for Education, DESNZ, DSIT, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, UKHSA and the devolved Governments, who meet and co-ordinate a response to any and all severe weather events. As the noble Baroness from the Opposition Benches stated, there are no borders in this space, especially with regards to weather, so making sure that the devolved Governments and the devolved space also have a co-ordinated response is key. I am really hoping someone asks me about the weather for the weekend because I can tell the House.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to ask the Minister about the weather for the weekend. I am going to ask her about a debate around how we tackle wildfires. There is a view that in order to tackle wildfires we have to remove scrub, but at the same time people believe that that reduces biodiversity. There is clearly a tension in wanting to reduce wildfires while keeping biodiversity. What is the Government’s perspective on that balance and how do we make sure that we land in the right place?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there are challenges here, as there are in all issues, about how we balance protection and environmental developments to make sure that the answers work for each community. There will be different answers in different parts of the country depending on their land and the local environment. Some of this is a very localised response, which is why we have local resilience forums to make sure that that is working. If the noble Lord has something specific, I am more than happy to come back to him. I would like to reassure noble Lords that this weekend it will be warm with the chance of thundery showers at times with the highest temperatures reaching into the mid to high 20s in the south-east of England.
Commercial Payments Bill [HL]
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question that was given earlier in the other place:
“As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the Motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case and can provide the following update.
The Government confirmed before Prorogation that they had referred over 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which at the time represented all the documents in scope of the Motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents they have collected to make sure that all those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the committee. As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that they felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and immediately submitted these documents to the committee. As Friday’s statement from the committee set out, it has now considered all these documents.
As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest government publications ever laid in this House. This is reflective of the breadth of the Motion and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise, involving sensitive material from across government. The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC.
Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after the Whitsun Recess, to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me, and the Government, questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would deem that to be inappropriate given that it will be such a significant publication. I refer back to my previous comments. This will be the largest publication, other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report, ever published to the House.
When the Government publish the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and it will be clear from the published information the basis on which any content has been redacted. The targeted redactions made to the material beyond those made relevant to national security or international relations have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous Administrations in responding to humble Addresses.
As I set out to the House on 23 February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on 11 March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the Motion and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
This has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act, and in line with the Ministerial Code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997, which state:
‘Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute’.
I am sure Members across the House will recognise that there is no public interest in the Government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers”.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, what the ISC has said today is profoundly troubling. Materials must not be redacted and withheld from Parliament in contravention of the humble Address. The ISC has a specific role in this process and the humble Address does not allow for redaction of documents sent to the ISC. Indeed, there is no exemption for personal data and, to the extent that the Government are withholding on that basis, they are in clear breach of the humble Address.
If there are legitimate reasons for the redaction of documents, the Government must come to Parliament to amend the humble Address. This is not just a matter of process; it is a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, which must be respected. We have consistently called for a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published. Can the Minister confirm that any documents that are currently being withheld but which are not relevant to the police investigation will be released in the next tranche? And will the Government commit to briefing opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the documents that are being withheld?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows I have huge respect for her, but I find it extraordinary, given her previous roles working at No. 10 when previous humble Addresses were released that followed exactly the same precedent as we are doing now and redacted the personal information of junior officials. The noble Baroness was part of that process, so I find it extraordinary that she would challenge us for following the precedent that her Administration set. In terms of next steps, we are complying with both the letter and spirit, following the precedent of protecting the issues of the humble Address we need to protect. The full tranche of materials will be published after the Whitsun Recess.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, in his comments on the controversy over the release of the documents, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, also rightly raised concerns about the heavy reliance on WhatsApp for conversations between senior officials and Ministers, and the resultant risks to the audit trail as it is not always clear who decided what and when. The Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp states at the bottom:
“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.
When I have raised this missed deadline before, the Government have neither given an explanation for missing it nor committed to a new date for the review. In light of the renewed controversy over the use of WhatsApp, I wonder whether the Minister could both give us an explanation of why that deadline was missed and give us a new deadline for when this review will finally be completed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises genuinely important points about how we make decisions and how we talk to each other, and I share some of his concerns. The Government plan to review the way that non-corporate communication channels are used in government and to update the accompanying guidance to reflect the changes in how we use the technology. I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the ISC was given a clear task to look at documents that were going to be released on the humble Address for national security and international relations harm. We have done that. We spent many hours doing it. I pay credit to the committee members for their hard work and thank in particular my noble friends Lord West and Lady Brown of Cambridge for their diligence in that task. The point of our statement is very clear: the Government need to justify why they are going to redact things other than on the grounds which we have decided.
The other situation is the fact that there is documentation—including the full background files of the vetting of Lord Mandelson—which we have not seen as it has been withheld. We understand why, because to release that would lead to difficulties for the future vetting system. But it does fall within the humble Address, and the Government need to come to Parliament to argue that point—one that the ISC would agree with in that situation.
Can I finally just raise WhatsApp? We are concerned about the use of WhatsApp, the use of low-side systems for information, the lack of audit trail, particularly in the Foreign Office, of decision-making, and the overriding of security concerns raised by the agencies whose job it is to do it. These are all issues that the last committee raised with both the Johnson and Sunak Governments. That culture is continuing; it cannot be allowed to continue. I urge my noble friend, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that proper systems are put in place and that this can is not just kicked down the road.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
First, I thank my noble friend for the work that he and his committee are undertaking that is not normally in the scope of the ISC. We as a Parliament have asked it to undertake a huge amount of work and we are grateful for the work it is doing. As I have set out, the Government will return to Parliament when they publish the second tranche of material. We will set out the methodology that has been followed and the reasons for it. More generally, there are obvious reasons why the Government treat vetting material with exceptional sensitivity. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have held roles where they have been exposed to the importance of vetting and know how the process works and that the number of people who have access to this material remains tightly controlled for a reason. We will be publishing a full methodology alongside the materials.
With regard to the other points raised by the noble Lord and his committee in their correspondence of recent days, I have already answered the point on the inappropriate use of NCCCs. On their other points, including the lack of proper records and inappropriate use of lower-level IT systems, I have more than some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Lord and his committee. We will be taking every measure to make sure both that the culture changes and that appropriate record-keeping is done.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on the timing point and the need for scrutiny? Presumably, the Government are planning on a Minister, in both the other place and this place, making a Statement when this information is published: I see that the noble Baroness is nodding. She was careful to say that this would be a big release of information. Can we have a gap between the publication of that information and the Statement that Ministers make, to give Members of the other House and this House sufficient time to scrutinise what she says is a significant volume of information and to be able to ask pertinent and relevant questions? Dumping a huge number of documents and having a Statement immediately afterwards will not enable proper scrutiny.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, but he will also know that, in government, some of those decisions are outside my control. By convention in our House, Statements are not typically repeated on the same day, so I hope that noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss. I will make myself available as well at any point to any Member of your Lordships’ House who, once they have seen it, has further questions—both in here and outside—to answer about the release of the documentation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, with no disrespect to my noble friend Lord Beamish, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, when this is raised by the Opposition as an Urgent Question, it makes it into an aggressive party- political issue? Is this not better left to the all-party, independent ISC?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As ever, my noble friend is exceptionally wise, but I understand why Members across your Lordships’ House have questions about what comes next and about the material. There is, as I have said, a significant volume of it to be released. We want to do this well and effectively, so that we do not return time after time with additional materials, by making sure that reviews are done effectively and internally. That is one of the reasons why additional materials were passed to the ISC after we thought all the materials had been. We need to do this in a cross-party way. I am aware that Members of your Lordships’ House have questions. I am sure that, when the next tranche of materials is released, we will be discussing their content in great detail.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why has there has such a long delay in the publication of basic materials, such as Lord Mandelson’s application and his declaration of interests, which are of great interest to everyone but surely cannot pose any difficulties?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, as I just said, we are looking to publish only two key tranches. The first has already been done; the second will follow shortly. The third and final tranche will be after police investigations. Those are the materials that are being withheld because the Met is using them for its work. Rather than repeatedly coming back to your Lordships’ House, we want to do this effectively in a way that works for this House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
In view of the practical issues that my noble friend has raised, would it be possible to give this House and the other House 24 or 48 hours’ notice of when the release is going to be? It will not be any good coming back after the Recess on the Monday and all of a sudden being told on that day, “The Statement’s this afternoon”. There ought to be a bit more warning about when it is going to happen.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point and I will have to speak to colleagues.
Supreme Court Dillon Judgment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making herself available today to take this Statement and answer questions on the important Supreme Court judgment; I appreciate that she has a very busy portfolio, so I am grateful.
Can the Minister tell the House what the urgency was that required the Secretary of State to make his Statement in the other place last Thursday when many of Northern Ireland’s MPs, along with members of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, were attending the Balmoral agricultural show? One can only speculate as to what would motivate the Government to make a Statement on a day when they would have known that a significant number of interested MPs would be unable to attend.
Turning to the judgment, the Opposition welcome that the court found in favour of the Government in respect of article 2 of the Windsor Framework. I remind the House that this relates to measures introduced by the previous Government, of which I was a member. The appeal in this area is a continuation of the one we lodged following the High Court judgment of February 2024. We were always very clear that the human rights protections in the Windsor Framework were intended to cover those specific to Northern Ireland, as set out in the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast agreement 1998. It was never our intention that article 2 of the framework should apply more broadly than that and enable the courts to disapply primary legislation where they believe it engages provisions of EU law that no longer apply in Northern Ireland.
However, as the Statement points out, the judgments in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had implications for the effective implementation of government legislation on a UK-wide basis, not just in areas of national security as the Statement refers to but also, for example, in tackling illegal migration. We are naturally pleased, therefore, that the position we took has now been vindicated.
Turning to the issue of conditional immunity, I regret that the Statement continues the current Government’s wilful mischaracterisation of what is contained in the 2023 Act. There was never a general immunity—to which I would emphatically have never agreed—but a conditional scheme in relation to specific cases where an individual co-operates fully with the commission, with tough sanctions including revocation, fines and possible prosecution where somebody knowingly sought to mislead or hide the truth. The effects would have been to facilitate information recovery, helping to provide answers to victims and survivors while ensuring that individuals, including veterans, could speak freely without fear of further consequences.
Notwithstanding what it says about ECHR compatibility, which is more nuanced than the Statement implies, the court’s judgment is also clear that the immunity provisions in the 2023 Act do not breach article 2 of the Windsor Framework and therefore do not need to be disapplied. Can the Minister confirm this is the case and that, as the law currently stands, any veteran engaging fully with the commission could apply for conditional immunity and this could be granted? Does it not also follow that the decision by the Government to use the Human Rights Act to remove these provisions is a political choice, rather than a legal requirement, and one that will once again lead to the prospect of investigations and prosecutions? It is a political choice that will not be lost on so many of those who served to keep people safe and secure from terrorism during 30 years of Operation Banner.
The court also ruled that the current commission can carry out investigations to an article 2 and 3 standard and can operate independently of the Secretary of State—not least in part thanks to the amendments passed in your Lordships’ House. Does this not render the sweeping changes in the Government’s own Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place as far back as November and has not yet had its Committee stage, almost completely unnecessary? We all know that the reason for the delay has been an impasse between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence over additional protections for veterans after the ones announced last September were shown to be wholly inadequate, with all but one applying in equal measure to paramilitaries. Can the Minister tell the House whether these new protections have now been agreed and, if so, when they will be published? Have they been backed by the Dublin Government, who have been seen by many as driving this process, over which they have effectively given themselves a veto?
The commission that was established in 2024 has, from a standing start, so far received requests from 290 individuals from all parts of the community. It is conducting 123 live investigations, involving approximately 200 deaths, with its first reports expected imminently. Rather than burdening this House with yet more unnecessary legislation, the Government should get behind the commission and ensure that it has the tools to do its job. Instead, they have made the political choice to embark on a course that will once again leave veterans exposed, facilitate the republican rewrite of history and, regrettably, only delay the provision of answers for so many victims and survivors of the Troubles.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for dealing with questions following last Thursday’s Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The judgment is undoubtedly a complex one, but we believe it firmly vindicates the many concerns that were raised during the passage of the previous Conservative Government’s Bill in your Lordships’ House, as well as elsewhere, about the immunity provisions contained in the 2023 Act.
From these Benches, we consistently opposed the unacceptable equivalence that the immunity provisions made between terrorists and those who had served the Crown in Northern Ireland. It was this position of equivalence that led to all political parties in Northern Ireland—we should not forget—victims and survivors’ groups, as well as many veterans in Northern Ireland, opposing it. Although those provisions never came into force and were not before the Supreme Court in this case, I know that the Minister is all too aware that there remain many concerns about both the remedial order and the Troubles Bill among veterans’ organisations. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes getting those protections right more urgent, not less.
The court confirmed that the ICRIR’s design is not fatally flawed in principle, but only by deferring key questions to be resolved case by case. That approach creates precisely the uncertainty that veterans fear most of all, particularly given the inherent evidential disadvantage they face. Dillon has not resolved these questions; it has simply postponed them. We believe that that makes it even more important that the protections built into the Troubles Bill are robust and clearly defined from the outset.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that protections for veterans
“will be published in advance of Committee”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/26; col. 146.]
in the House of Commons. Can the Minister confirm that these provisions to protect our veterans will also be shared with noble Lords, and that our views and concerns will also be taken into consideration? Can the Minister also confirm that these will be real and substantial protections that recognise that there is not, and never should be, equivalence between those who serve our country and those who have committed terrorist atrocities? The judgment clearly has consequences beyond this case alone. Can the Minister say what she believes the wider implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on article 2 of the Windsor Framework will be for both Northern Ireland and the Government’s ability to legislate going forward?
Finally, does the Minister agree that, in all the heat and fury surrounding these issues, it is vital not to forget the families, victims and survivors, who simply want to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones and to have some prospect of justice? I had the privilege of visiting the Wave Trauma Centre in Belfast recently. Speaking to a small group of victims and survivors was deeply moving. They just want to have hope that, after all these years of waiting, they might have answers and some sense of closure. Does the Minister also agree that it is equally important that this process does not lose sight of the objective of long-term reconciliation, including measures to promote genuine cross-country understanding, such as measures to advance integrated education?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their contributions. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns, considering both the time available to us and the complex nature of this judgment, which I am sure that both noble and noble and learned Lords will be taking time to digest. I will also reflect on Hansard and, if I have missed any of the specific questions raised, I will write.
I start with the final comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about the victims. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, advised me when I took on this role that, every time I speak at the Dispatch Box, I should check the anniversary dates. That should remind all of us of the actual consequences of what we are dealing with and why we are doing this work. On 17 May 1973, five British soldiers were killed by the Provisional IRA in Omagh. On 17 May 1974, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings by the UVF occurred, and 33 people were killed. On 15 May 1977, Captain Robert Nairac, known to Members of your Lordships’ House, was disappeared. On 19 May 1981, five British soldiers were killed at Bessbrook by the Provisional IRA. On 18 May 1984, three soldiers were murdered at Enniskillen and two soldiers were murdered at Camlough by the Provisional IRA. On 20 May 1985, four members of the RUC were murdered near Killeen by the IRA. This is within a week in the history of the Troubles.
However, there is always hope: on 22 May 1998, we had the referendum on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, in which 71.2% of the residents of Northern Ireland voted for peace to take us forward. Everything we do has to be within the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and of the Stormont House agreement to take us from where we were to where we are. There are Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House who lived and breathed the reality of the Troubles and, for every murder I have just referenced, dozens of people were hurt and still live with the consequences today. So, as we talk about these issues, people are still grieving every single day and do not have answers. I have been privileged in my role to meet many of the families, victims and veterans’ groups who served and are still dealing with the consequences.
I turn to some of the specific questions. I commend, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did, the families who brought the case against the legacy Act. They were utterly opposed to the Act and, most notably, to the provision it made for a conditional immunity scheme, which would have offered immunity to terrorists who perpetuated horrific acts of violence against our service personnel, as well as our service personnel—an immunity that has never been put into law. The action they took resulted in the conditional immunity scheme and several other provisions of the legacy Act being found by the High Court, and then again by the Court of Appeal, to be incompatible with our obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Government have and are opposed to the immunity scheme. It was wrong in principle and had no support in Northern Ireland, which is why we dropped the appeal on immunity.
On the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, although I am not as noble and learned as my mother had always wished I might be, there was one key paragraph in the finding:
“In our view it cannot be said that the Strasbourg court has established a principle in its case law that there is a reconciliation exception to the general ban on amnesties for grave breaches of fundamental rights or that the question has not come before that court. Absent such a ruling, there is nothing to which the mirror principle can be applied by the United Kingdom courts through incremental development to the circumstances in Northern Ireland”.
As I said, I am definitely not learned, unfortunately, but my understanding, and my briefing, is that that is clear, in legal language, that amnesty would not be found to be legal.
I turn to the remedial order. This point is particularly important to note. I know that some in this House have shared the view that the Government did not have the grounds on which to bring forward the remedial order, which would finally strike the immunity provisions from the statute book. As noble Lords will be well aware, the conditions for laying an RO under the Human Rights Act are that
“an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned”.
The Supreme Court recognised this, and therefore immunity was not an issue before it. However, it stated very clearly that no exemptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. As such, the Government will move forward with the remedial order as soon as parliamentary time allows, and I look forward to discussing the detail of the remedial order with Members of your Lordships’ House at that point, in what I am sure will be an interesting discussion.
I turn to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Supreme Court has provided important clarity on how this should be interpreted and applied in future. It has confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework are those concerned with the cessation of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, and that specifically. While reaffirming the Government’s position on this, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the legacy Act should not have been disapplied by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. For absolute clarity, this does not equate to endorsement of the immunity scheme, as has been suggested by some.
I turn to the Troubles Bill that is before the other place. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out, the Troubles Bill is now the only viable way to generate confidence across communities, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and put in place the necessary safeguards for our future service personnel. We have been listening to victims, families and our brave veterans and service personnel in developing this legislation. I have met numerous victims and veterans’ groups and have heard first hand of the violence—the Troubles continue to impact their lives today. It is for them we are seeking to act. This is why the Government are committed to progressing this legislation as soon as possible, while balancing that against the need to get this right.
The Government will be tabling a series of amendments to the Bill in due course, which we hope will give all communities confidence in legacy processes and ensure that our veterans are treated fairly and with the respect and dignity they deserve. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, yes, absolutely, I am more than happy to share them with Members of your Lordships’ House. As and when the legislation gets to our end of the building, however, I am convinced that we will be discussing specifically those parts of the legislation for many hours.
One of the other issues, and why we need the legislation to come forward, is tackling interim custody orders. That was not referenced by either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but we do need to deal with this issue, and we will do so within the legislation as it comes forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, also touched on immigration. He is absolutely right that there are impacts of this judgment across Whitehall as well as across Northern Ireland departments. It is a very complicated judgment, so we are reflecting on what it means in the round, but the Government were successful in our appeal, so we look forward to moving forward.
On the other issues, I put on record my support for WAVE. It is an extraordinary organisation, and it is not the only one. We work closely with many others across the piece, whether they are smaller groups such as MAPS or SEFF—which is not a small group at all—or WAVE. Noble Lords who have been touched by this issue will be aware that veterans in Northern Ireland require different types of support than other members of the community do. It would it be impossible for a member of the unionist community to access certain services if they did not know who would be there too, and vice versa, so making sure that there is a range of organisations is key, and it is my privilege to get to work with them.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. To get in as many questions as possible from all sides of the House, we need questions, not speeches. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches and we will then go to the Cross Benches.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I commend to the Minister the Amnesty Act 1924, which she will know was passed by the Irish Government at the conclusion of the civil war. It was a very useful precedent, and I commend it to the House as a very sensible way forward.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Viscount makes an important and interesting intervention, but there are so many people who are still in such pain and who made huge compromises and sacrifices in order to deliver the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. While I appreciate that the concept of amnesty could be appealing, and there are other mechanisms that could be as appealing, there are those, including me, who want to see as many paramilitaries prosecuted as we can.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the way she introduced her response to the Statement this afternoon, I link that with thanks to the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn MP, for the way they both engaged with the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the remedial order and the Troubles Bill. Given that scrutiny on those things continues, can she promise us, given that the remedial order was agreed by the committee on the basis of urgency, that it will be expedited and brought forward without any further delay, and that the new amendments, a tranche of which she alluded to in her remarks, will also be brought to the committee to see before it publishes its report on the Bill? Lastly, in the light of Peter May’s recent report raising concerns about the corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, will the Government use the forthcoming Bill to address any of the issues identified in the report, enabling the commission to deliver high-quality Article 2-compliant resolutions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and for his work and interest in this area, both personally and through his committee. On the timing of when the RO comes, the noble Lord will appreciate that that might be above my pay grade. The Chief Whip has now left the Chamber, so I could get myself in a bit of trouble—and I would prefer not to. On amendments, the noble Lord makes a reasonable request; let me speak to the department and the Secretary of State to see what I can facilitate. On the Peter May report, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we have just had an internal review of the workings of ICRIR. The findings of that review were stark and suggest that we absolutely need to bring forward the legislation to strengthen the governance arrangements, so that every community can have confidence in the process and so that the workforce can also have confidence in how the legacy commission operates.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. One of the families that was part of the Dillon judgment submission was a former constituent of mine, John McEvoy, who was sitting in a pub in Kilcoo, County Down, when his friend was shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries in November 1992. Provisions within the EU withdrawal agreement of 2020 give statutory authority to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission to act as a dedicated mechanism for the protection of rights under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. Therefore, will my noble friend the Minister, working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ensure that this statutory authority given to both commissions is not diluted and is protected and that they have sufficient resources to continue their work in a non-restricted manner?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises yet another heartbreaking case related to the Troubles; every Member of your Lordships’ House who has been touched by the Troubles has their own story and their own heartbreak. On my noble friend’s substantive point, the Government remain fully and unequivocally committed to the protection of human rights and safeguards in Northern Ireland, including our statutory obligations under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission play a vital role in the dedicated mechanism to monitor, advise on and report on these commitments.
While the funding of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, the Northern Ireland Office maintains regular active dialogue with executive colleagues on a wide range of issues impacting rights and governance across Northern Ireland. The UK Government also provided ring- fenced funding of £1.1 million in 2025-26 to enable the ECNI to deliver its dedicated mechanism commitments, with similar levels of annual ring-fenced funding committed to until the end of the current spending review period. I have a much more extensive answer than that for my noble friend, but I will write to her with the details.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the Supreme Court judgment has not affected the intended role of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework as the lodestar of human rights considerations in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that its provisions will still be relevant to the exercise of discretion, for example in the public interest test in decisions concerning prosecutions, alongside considered provisions for veterans? Will she be kind enough to welcome the forthcoming consideration of Article 2 by the House’s Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which contains many very distinguished Northern Ireland politicians and which I have the privilege to chair?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, that is the easiest question of the day: of course I welcome the noble Lord’s report. I thoroughly enjoy our conversations about the work of his committee, which I argue is one of the more important committees at the moment—but then I would say that. The Government remain committed to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Supreme Court’s judgment has not affected this commitment and has provided important clarity on how Article 2 should be interpreted and applied in future. It has confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework are those concerned with the cessation of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. However, given the length and complexity of the judgment, the Government and stakeholders will need the requisite time to digest its content, and I will need many briefings by KCs to understand it. We are happy to continue that conversation with the committee in due course.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the way in which the Minister introduced her remarks by referencing the sacrifices made by members of the security forces, who suffered grievous losses to protect everybody in Northern Ireland. That is often forgotten in the perverted twisting of history that is now going on relentlessly in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court in seeking to restrict the application of EU law as far as human rights in Northern Ireland are concerned, but she will be aware that the quangos that were mentioned earlier have spent a large amount of money seeking to expand the application of Article 2 in ways that are erroneous and wrong. That has undermined public confidence in those quangos in both communities. That must be central to the Belfast agreement and its application, something that the Government need to be very aware of. Can the Minister confirm that Article 2 still has a direct effect in terms of the application of the law in certain circumstances? Will she elaborate on what those may be?
Finally, if she looks at the legacy legislation, can she confirm what representations her Government have made to the Irish Government—who have had a de facto amnesty for decades against IRA and other terrorists who used their country as a safe haven during the Troubles, and also in relation to refusing to co-operate with the ICRIR—about their continuing case in the international courts against the United Kingdom? The Irish Government refuse to co-operate with the commission; the noble Lord, Lord Caine, has outlined and spoken of this and talked about the need for more resources. The Irish Government refuse to co-operate. Has that been called out by the Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend—I do not think I am meant to say “my noble friend”, but I am going to anyway. His advice and support while we are undertaking this is key, and while we may not be able to agree on every point in the legislation as it comes forward, I am very grateful for the time that he gives me.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. We have always been firmly committed to Article 2 and to the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity it protects, as set out in the Good Friday agreement. On the specifics that he is asking for, I hope he will indulge me and let me write to him about the detail, but he raised a very important point about the Irish Government. The Government have done a joint framework agreement, which includes unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government. I am aware of the scepticism from certain parties about what the next steps will be. Although the interstate case is a matter for the Irish Government, the Secretary of State will raise it directly with the Minister for Foreign Affairs this week to discuss how it should be going.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords will forgive me as we start again down this road of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. I feel again the trauma of the bomb which took my unborn baby’s life, and I find it very difficult. We have to think very carefully here. I would like to say that I accept and value the contribution made by the military and all the other security forces in Northern Ireland. My own family served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. But given the fact that 25,000 to 30,000 paramilitaries were convicted, as opposed to three members of the military who were convicted during the Troubles, and given the fact that one person from the military has been convicted in the 28 years since the Good Friday agreement, is it perhaps time to refocus?
I hear constantly about the veterans, and I know how important it is, but is it not important not to make the victims the afterthought—the last reference in every case? Is it also not important that we look at the things that will enable them to have confidence in the new legacy commission? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the findings of the May report, which referred to the very significant structural weaknesses as a consequence of the Troubles Act 2023. I hope that the Minister will ensure that those structural weaknesses are removed in the new Troubles Bill. Although she told one noble Lord that the remedial order will be introduced but she cannot say when, can she write to us and tell us when it will happen, and can she tell us when the Troubles Bill will come back to the Commons? These things need to be dealt with.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness demonstrates, as she has previously, the heartbreak and the personal cost that too many Members of your Lordships’ House have faced, and that there is a face behind every one of the statistics and the stories that we read out. There is nothing I can do to fix some of that hurt; I wish there was, but this is our final attempt to do what we can, so that people can access the information and the answers they have waited for, in some cases for over 50 years.
On the specifics that the noble Baroness asked for, she raises an important point. Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself part of the military family—although on the periphery, unlike some of my noble friends, who are at the heart of it—and I also have the privilege of being allowed to wear a uniform, so the veterans’ provisions are incredibly important to me personally. But there is an issue here about the victims; we need to make sure that we are moving forward for them and that they are able to access what we put in as protections—as many protections as we can reasonably do for veterans.
The noble Baroness raised a very interesting point about the number of prosecutions and the number of people previously charged. As regards the current prosecutions that are under way, there are currently 10 live proceedings, six of which are about republican and paramilitary activity, two about loyalist paramilitary activity, one RUC and one military. When you look at those numbers, it is still quite clear that, although some of the narrative is elsewhere, the focus is still on the actions of the paramilitaries, as it should be. That does not mean we should not put the protections in place.
In terms of the specifics, I am not a business manager of this place or the other place, but noble Lords will have heard that the gracious Speech, which we are still discussing, referenced the Troubles Bill, and we will be discussing that in your Lordships’ House in due course.
Lord Swire (Con)
For clarification, can the Minister tell the House what the current status is of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains: whether it remains funded, whether it is dormant and needs to be provoked into action if there is new information, whether it is properly staffed, and whether it still enjoys the support of the Government in Dublin?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. I myself visited one of the sites earlier this year, where they were looking for one of the disappeared. I have never had that kind of experience before, while I stood on the side of a bog while people were looking for a body. We will continue to fund the commission and we will do everything we can to make sure that the structures exist for the families of the disappeared, including the family of Robert Nairac but also others, until we get answers for all of them.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work she has done on this hugely important issue, including in the previous Parliament, when we considered the legacy Bill, as it then was. It was very well-meaning but ultimately was not successful because it did not have sufficient all-party support in Northern Ireland. Can she assure me that, before the Bill comes up the Corridor to this House, she will have talked to all the political parties in Northern Ireland, represented here and in Belfast, and that she can get consensus on that? Unless we get consensus, that will not work either.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend has just used the word “consensus” in relation to Northern Ireland politicians. With the best of efforts—looking at the noble Lord, Lord Caine—while I consider myself not to be a bad politician, I am not sure that I have those diplomatic skills that will deliver for everybody. I say that as someone who just called the noble Lord “my noble friend”.
Having said that, we are working cross-party with all key parties. The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is one part of our politics that genuinely should not be party-political in a GB sense: the politics of Northern Ireland and making sure that peace is sustainable in Northern Ireland and that we are doing what we can collectively and taking the responsibility of being the main political parties in the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of NI as we do for every other corner of the country. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are always challenges in this space, but I will try to be as charming as possible to deliver what I can in getting a level of support, as my honourable friend in the other place, the Secretary of State, is doing too.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The Minister referred to the interim custody orders, and how the Bill is going to put beyond doubt the validity of interim custody orders, and the reappraisal and reconfirmation of the Carltona principle. This is a reference to how the first-instance judgment in Dillon was going to allow Gerry Adams and a number of other people to sue for the alleged unlawful detention by the Government. The previous Government was appealing the first-instance decision, but this Government abandoned the appeal. Can the noble Baroness explain why they abandoned the appeal? Does she accept that, had they not abandoned the appeal, they would not now need to legislate to at last put right the status of the interim custody orders?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord lived and breathed this during the last piece of legislation: the legacy Act that we are discussing. The appeal was not continued—I have said this from the Dispatch Box before—because it was made very clear to us by the courts that we would not win. Therefore, we needed to come up with an alternative solution. That is what we are seeking to do in the new Bill.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am a simple sailor. Recently, I have spoken to a number of simple soldiers, who may be even simpler. When we joined the military, we felt that there was an agreement that, as long as we acted in good faith, the country would support us.
I understand that this is a highly complex subject. I served in Northern Ireland. I do not know where we have got to in the answers, but can I ask my noble friend the Minister to make absolutely certain that we do honour that contract, because already it is having an impact on recruiting, particularly in the Special Forces? We must look after those people who went out every day to try to look after the safety of people in Northern Ireland—they might have got it wrong occasionally—rather than those who went out every day to damage and injure the people in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and look forward to discussing the detail of our future amendments and having further conversations in this space with him as the legislation progresses. Like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, I am personally grateful to those people who put on a uniform, today, tomorrow or, in this case, yesterday. They ran towards the Troubles to protect the rest of us and we should be forever grateful to them. That is not to say, as the noble Lord will appreciate, that putting on a uniform protects you if you did do ill.
I would like to put something on the record. One issue that has been raised repeatedly in this space is how the conversations we are having about the Troubles are having an impact on recruitment and retention. Recruitment into our Armed Forces is up by 13% and outflow is down by 8%. I appreciate that people’s concerns are real, but we need to be careful with our language to make sure that we are not talking people out of joining our military at a time when, as all noble Lords will appreciate, we need people to sign up.
King’s Speech
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open the fourth day of our debate on the gracious Speech. His Majesty’s Speech recognised the challenges facing our country and set out a clear plan not just to meet those challenges but to build a more resilient Britain which protects people for the long term and spreads opportunity for all. Today’s debate will cover some of the issues at the heart of the Government’s plan, including energy security, education, technology and culture.
I will begin with energy and our response to the second fossil fuel shock in just four years. Almost two years ago, this Government came into power with a mission to take back control of Britain’s energy security. As my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out in our debate on the previous gracious Speech, it was clear then that the only way to bring down bills, drive growth across the country and tackle the increasingly urgent climate crisis was to end our dependence on unstable fossil fuel markets that we have no control over and instead harness our immense potential for clean, homegrown energy.
As someone who has been campaigning and advocating for, and writing on, clean power for just shy of half a century, it is a privilege for me to be part of a Government who are now delivering on their promise. Since July 2024, we have secured enough clean, homegrown power for 23 million homes through two record-breaking renewables auctions. That clean power is already making a difference: new wind and solar saved Britain around £7 million per day in gas purchases during the first month of the Middle East crisis.
We have moved solar power from the margins to the mainstream, making rooftop panels standard for new builds and bringing plug-in solar to the UK for the first time. We have established Great British Energy, our publicly owned clean energy champion, which has already installed solar on hundreds of schools and hospitals, as well as investing in cutting-edge floating offshore wind projects. We are delivering the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history with our £15 billion warm homes plan to get solar, batteries, heat pumps and insulation into more homes to save energy, cut bills and ultimately lift up to a million households out of fuel poverty—all of which is contributing to record growth in our domestic clean energy workforce, which is set to double to around 860,000 jobs by the end of this decade.
While the Government have made remarkable progress, the House needs no reminding that our mission has taken on renewed urgency and importance following the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Just as we saw four years ago when Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices soaring, the impacts of 21st-century conflicts are felt far beyond the battlefields. Once again, it is businesses and households here, including, as is so often the case, the most vulnerable in our society, who are bearing the brunt of wholesale price rises. In response, the Government have taken direct action to bring down bills, as well as expanding the £150 warm home discount to 6 million people.
There are those who believe the long-term solution to this latest fossil fuel crisis lies in doubling down on our dependence on oil and gas—the very problem which led us here. This Government believe that would represent a failure to learn from multiple crises going back to the 1970s and an abdication of our responsibility to households and businesses across the country, which would continue to suffer. Instead, as the Energy Secretary has set out in the other place, we are going further and faster for clean, secure, homegrown energy to ensure we are never at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets again.
That means bringing forward the next renewables auction to July, exploiting untapped public land for solar and batteries, and working across government to speed up the electrification of our economy. It also means taking direct action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices, which is responsible for some of the extreme costs that we have seen in recent years. Noble Lords will be aware that successive Governments have failed to address the complex challenge of delinking but, from next year, we will seek to transfer existing low-carbon generators that have renewable obligation contracts and which supply about a third of our power on to fixed-price contracts that deliver value for money for consumers. In doing so, we will safeguard households and businesses from spikes in the price of gas.
The next great step forward on the road to energy security, as set out by His Majesty in the gracious Speech, is our energy independence Bill. This legislates for the powers that government needs to deliver the full benefits of the clean energy transition to the British people. It will underpin action on three core objectives.
First, it is about standing up for working people by tackling the cost of living crisis. The energy price cap fell by £117 in April because of the decision taken in last year’s Budget to move the cost of some levies from bills to the Exchequer. This Bill will place that change on an enduring legal basis, removing an average of around £90 a year of costs from household bills, as part of the £150 reduction in costs announced in the Autumn Budget. It will also pave the way for the warm homes agency—a dedicated public body that will deliver the warm homes plan and tackle fuel poverty across the country. It will bring in new rules to ensure that landlords invest in home upgrades that cut bills for renters as well as giving the energy regulator the powers that it needs to be a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system.
Secondly, this Bill will speed up our drive for energy security as well as the electrification of our economy. That means transforming market, planning and regulatory frameworks to get projects, including offshore wind and hydrogen, built more quickly. It means speeding up the buildout of vital grid infrastructure, with a package of measures to reduce unnecessary delays, including reforms to land access rules and networks consenting.
Thirdly, the Bill will deliver a fair, managed and prosperous transition, with the North Sea at its heart. This Government’s view is that neither drilling every last drop nor turning off the taps completely is a realistic plan. Instead, we are led by the science, the facts and the needs of workers and communities, so we are managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifetimes, including through new transitional energy certificates for areas adjacent or in close proximity to existing fields, linked via a tie-back. We are also demonstrating the climate leadership that people expect of us by meeting our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields and the commitment to ban fracking.
At the same time, we will keep investing in the rapidly growing energy industries of the future and help workers and communities take up the opportunities that they offer. Bearing in mind that the green economy is expanding three times faster than the economy as a whole, we are locking in this growth for the future. The Bill will also expand workers’ rights and protections, as we pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy.
In the gracious Speech, His Majesty also set out plans for the nuclear regulation Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that we are on the cusp of a new age of nuclear power in this country, driven by government investment in the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century—from Sizewell C to our small modular reactors programme with Rolls-Royce SMR.
Nevertheless, according to last year’s Nuclear Regulatory Review, the sector is still held back by a system that is overly complex and “bureaucratic”, and which favours process over safe outcomes. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C, for example, was 44,000 pages long and left neither side particularly happy. It is not hard to see why the UK is the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear.
The measures in the nuclear regulation Bill will deliver a pro-nuclear, pro-nature approach to building, with a co-ordinated system that reduces costs and timeframes. This is not about compromising safety; it is about simplifying a needlessly unwieldy and frustrating system so that we can unleash the potential of this rapidly growing industry. It epitomises everything that this Government are doing to get Britain building things and owning things again. Alongside the energy independence Bill, that is how we will become more resilient and create more opportunities for today’s and future generations.
Turning to technology, the gracious Speech was clear that every path to stronger growth in this country has innovation front and centre. That is why this Government have made a record investment of £86 billion in research and development, as well as launching five AI “growth zones” across the country. In the Department for Energy, we are exploring all of the possible ways in which AI can improve our power system and cut out inefficiencies.
The Government’s task is not only to fuel innovation but to help people navigate and benefit from the changes that new technology inevitably brings. Free AI training is being rolled out to 10 million people—a third of the country’s workforce—in the biggest national training effort since Harold Wilson’s Open University. We are introducing a national digital ID through the digital access to services Bill, which will provide people with a free and optional proof of identity to access services without needing to rely on physical documents that can get lost or be stolen.
It is clear that people need to trust the technologies they use every day and, in particular, that their children are safe online. In the last eight months, we have legislated to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, and we have stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate deepfakes on its platform. Our cyber security and resilience Bill will better protect our most essential services, such as hospitals and water supplies, from advanced cyber attacks.
We know that parents everywhere are grappling with how much screen time their children should have and the impact of social media. That is why we are running a national consultation on the best ways to protect children’s well-being, including a possible social media ban, overnight curfews and other measures. The question is not whether we will act but how.
The gracious Speech set out plans for an “education for all” Bill, based on the principle that every child should be supported to achieve and thrive. The measures include national inclusion standards, with tools to help teachers identify and support those with additional needs. For those with the most complex needs, new specialist provision packages will be designed with experts and tested with parents to set out exactly what support is required.
We will set clear expectations of public services and hold them to account. For the first time, Ofsted will inspect nurseries, schools and colleges to see how well they include children with additional needs. We will regulate independent special schools, ensuring that children get the right placements without unnecessary costs. We are investing billions of pounds across the system to support early intervention and make it easier to access specialist expertise. We will also invest in the transformation of local SEN—special educational needs—services, including £1.8 billion to bring experts, such as speech and language therapists, into settings.
Finally, let me touch on culture. This Government are determined to maintain the UK’s reputation for world-class events, while ensuring that working people up and down the country can both enjoy them and feel the wider economic benefits in their communities. The new sporting events Bill will ensure that events such as the 2028 European football championships can be delivered as efficiently as possible, while securing the jobs and world-class facilities that our regions deserve. It will also strengthen our claim to host future global events and tournaments, including the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup.
We also need to ensure that real fans have fair access to matches, concerts and other major cultural events. For too long, fans have been ripped off by touts buying large volumes of tickets online at an industrial scale and reselling them for vastly inflated prices. We are introducing secondary ticketing laws to end the scourge of touting, by making it illegal to resell a ticket for more than its original cost. In this context, I pay tribute to the work of Robert Smith of The Cure, who has done exactly that with his ticket prices and world tours and has encouraged many other artists to do the same—I thereby out myself as a dedicated Cure fan in the process. This will support our world-leading creative industries by diverting profits back into our live events sector and the pockets of hard-working people. This could save fans £112 million each year and result in a £37 reduction in the average ticket price on the resale market. Therefore, Robert Smith’s efforts will become just the norm as far as tickets are concerned, with all the consequences that that involves.
I began by setting out some of the challenges we face as a country in a world which is more volatile and dangerous than many of us can remember, but as the expression goes, necessity is the mother of invention. As we face up to these challenges, we have an opportunity to strengthen our foundations, and not just get through hard times but build something stronger from them: by getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and embracing the security of clean, homegrown energy; by putting science and technology at the forefront of economic growth; by ensuring every child gets the support they need to succeed; and by making the UK one of the best places in the world for sporting and cultural events, with British citizens feeling the direct benefits. That is how we will make our nation more resilient while ensuring everyone has the platform they need to go forward and thrive.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am delighted that this debate will include the maiden speeches of several noble Lords. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Blackwater, whose historical understanding and insight into Britain’s constitutional makeup will be an asset to the whole House. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, with his experience at Citizens Advice and in advocating for society’s most vulnerable, brings a public-facing experience to the House from which we shall all benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, has had an extensive career within the education sector, and I know I speak for the whole House when I say that his expertise will be welcomed and appreciated in this important forthcoming education legislation. Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, brings to the Liberal Democrat Benches a wealth of experience, and I look forward to supporting her campaign to address the scourge upon our society that is violence against women and girls.
I will first briefly touch upon education, beginning with the SEND system. This Session will introduce legislation that recognises the crucial moment we find the system in. Costs are ballooning and councils are flailing, and it is the most vulnerable children who are the worse off for it, yet the impression remains that there will be no additional departmental spending until 2029, when central government will absorb SEND provision. When this occurs, it will account for £4 billion of the £6 billion annual shortfall, and that is before we account for the projected council deficits of £14 billion. I hope that the Government will, in due course, set out a timeline to deal with these costs.
I reflect briefly on the impact of the Government’s policies in the past Session. We began with a new tax on education, advertised as an equaliser, which has served only to funnel more children into a struggling state sector. The number of pupils leaving private schools is now almost four times more than the 3,000 originally estimated due to the Government’s policy. That tax was meant to be one half of a trade-off that helped recruit 6,500 new teachers. That plan has failed: there are in fact 400 fewer teachers now than when they took office.
Under-25 apprenticeship starts are down, gender-questioning guidance has been watered down, parental and school freedoms have been reduced, and the Government have yet to put forward a concrete policy regarding poor-value degrees which shackle graduates with decades of spiralling debt. My noble friend Lord Markham will speak to that latter point, but I can only hope that the Government recognise the damage of these policies in the last Session and will have learned something from them.
Turning to the focus of my contribution—energy— I declare my interest as an independent consultant to Terrestrial Energy, a US nuclear technology company developing generation 4 advanced nuclear technologies. In the light of the still mounting costs of energy, I shall use this opportunity to give an overview of the policies that have brought us to this point and highlight the need to change course in order to prevent this Session’s legislation rendering us entirely energy dependent upon undependable power and unreliable imports.
The Secretary of State is doubling down on his headlong rush towards renewables without properly acknowledging the consequences of this approach. Britain continues to suffer some of the highest wholesale electricity prices in the world. Since the Government were elected on the promise to reduce energy bills by £300, they have risen by £73. Meanwhile, constraint costs reached £1.7 billion in the past financial year, while balancing costs stood at £2.7 billion. By the Secretary of State’s 2030 target, those combined costs are projected to rise to £15 billion.
The blind pursuit of renewables is costing the British economy and the British people. The problem is not renewable energy itself, but rests on the fact that there is currently an absence of perspective and balance in the Government’s strategy. The Secretary of State is committing the country to intermittent power generation without ensuring that sufficient firm power exists to support it. Hoping that the wind will always blow and the sun will always shine cannot and will not deliver a competitive, affordable and secure energy sector. What it will do is leave the British public increasingly dependent upon the whims of the weather, while paying for the privilege.
The Secretary of State does at least quietly acknowledge the need for firm power. We welcome his acceptance of the Fingleton regulatory review and look forward to working constructively with the Government on its implementation in the forthcoming nuclear regulation Bill. Nuclear power should form the future foundation of our national energy system. It remains the only source of low emissions and firm power capable of delivering genuine domestic energy security. However, the Fingleton reforms will have to cut through the layer upon layer of environmental and planning bureaucracy that has paralysed development. We will see whether the Government are really going to take on the many MPs in the parliamentary Labour Party and the Green Party when it comes to accelerating the delivery of new-build nuclear.
Recent nuclear projects have been characterised by soaring costs and ever-extending construction timelines. Environmental impact assessments and planning procedures have too often become more burdensome than the construction of the plants themselves—and that is before we even begin to discuss the procurement of the most cost-effective technology. We welcome the announcement of the Rolls-Royce SMR development at Wylfa, but it is disappointing that building will not commence until 2030. Meanwhile, there is ample room on that site for a gigawatt-scale development as well, to commence development much earlier alongside Rolls-Royce.
All these projects need skills, and there is an acute shortage at all levels, from technical skills—welders, electricians and general engineers—to apprentices both graduate and postgraduate. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on this skills shortage for renewables, but I encourage the Government to consider establishing an SMR fleet technical education centre in North Wales to complement the work of the Bangor University nuclear department at M-SParc. There is also an urgent need for a thermal hydraulics facility and a materials test reactor to put us at the forefront of global research. If we are to build global expertise in this field, we need to start developing this critical infrastructure now, not only to provide technical support and training facilities for the operating fleet here and overseas, but to create high-value clusters around these technologies of the future.
I sincerely hope that the forthcoming legislation will address these shortfalls, but such reforms will inevitably take time to produce results. Given the projected timelines for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, nuclear power is unlikely to provide reliable, large-scale firm power before the mid-2030s. In the meantime, we must still rely upon oil and gas as the foundation underpinning intermittent renewable power. The Secretary of State knows this. Last year, he instructed NESO to ensure that 40 gigawatts of backup electricity generation is available by 2030 through new gas-fired power stations to guarantee supply when wind and solar output is low. Yet, while he acknowledges this, the Government have simultaneously pursued policies that make oil and gas less secure and more expensive. Indeed, the flagship policy in the energy independence Bill will be the statutory ban on the licensing of new onshore oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
Gas still accounts for roughly a quarter of our annual energy consumption, half of which is imported. Banning new licences will only increase our reliance on these foreign imports. Increasing reliance on imports makes little environmental sense; in fact, it is positively damaging. The average carbon emissions intensity of North Sea gas production is 24 kilograms of CO2 per barrel of oil. The Jackdaw field, were the Secretary of State to approve it, would produce just 8.5 kilograms per barrel of oil. That is what the ban on licensing will prevent. And what will replace it? In its place, we will be reliant on imported LNG, which has an average carbon emissions intensity of 85 kilograms per barrel of oil. That is not a sustainable energy policy.
Similarly, banning new licences only makes us less secure. Renewables and firm power are inseparable. Wind and solar provide only as much security as the reliable backup capacity supporting them. By relying on imported LNG, we make ourselves very vulnerable to international instability. The most recent war in the Middle East demonstrates precisely why dependence is so dangerous. What happens when the Ras Laffan is disrupted? What happens when global shipping lanes close? What happens when another international crisis sends imported energy prices surging overnight?
We have already seen, specifically across the Iberian Peninsula, the very real risks associated with instability in energy supply. Blackouts become a real risk and carry with them profound economic and human consequences. We constantly hear that the North Sea is a declining basin, yet for 40 years annual projections have repeatedly underestimated the remaining reserves. Norway was supposedly written off in 2010, yet last year it produced 4.1 million barrels of oil a day compared with the United Kingdom’s 1 million. It drilled 49 exploration wells—us, none. The only thing that separates many of these fields is an arbitrary line across the continental shelf.
With constantly improving technology supplemented by AI, the potential to exploit undiscovered reserves remains substantial. The companies are ready to invest; the expertise exists. All that is lacking is a Government willing to reconsider their own self-defeating policy.
Beyond the environmental incoherence and insecurity inherent in the Government’s policy lies the question of cost. The Minister will no doubt continue to argue that oil and gas prices are set internationally and that increasing domestic production therefore brings little benefit. But this ignores the economic reality. The more Britain develops its own reserves, the less exposed we become to international supply shocks, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Greater domestic supply does not insulate us entirely from global markets, but it does improve resilience and it reduces the current exposure to volatility.
Secondly, quite apart from production levels, the Government still exercise enormous influence over energy costs through taxation. The reason why energy bills now sit £73 higher than when the Government took office is not merely international pricing; it is that the Government are accelerating towards net zero while loading additional policy costs and levies on to consumers to fund that transition.
Even if wholesale prices were to halve over the next five years, forecasts suggest that consumers would still face electricity bills 20% higher than they currently stand. It is no wonder that, faced with these burgeoning costs, the Treasury’s own economic modelling predicts that energy-intensive sectors will be forced to cut over 160,000 jobs this year. That loss is a direct result of deindustrialising, high-cost policies and, thus, entirely lies at the Government’s feet.
The economic principle remains straightforward: if you reduce taxation and regulatory burdens, you reduce costs, and the market does the rest. If the Government were serious about lowering bills, they would consider the Conservative proposal to scrap the renewable obligation scheme, which currently guarantees some wind farms prices three times above the market rate for electricity. They would repeal the energy profits levy, stimulating investment and protecting jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and they would remove the carbon taxes which continue to inflate electricity costs for households and businesses alike.
Jobs are declining and bills are rising. Far from increasing our energy security, the Government’s current approach risks making Britain more vulnerable to blackouts and more dependent upon unstable imports.
True energy independence requires reliable, firm power on which the wider system can safely operate. In the long term, I hope sincerely that nuclear energy will fulfil that role, but, until the necessary reforms are enacted and new nuclear capacity is operational, we face a straightforward choice: imported oil and gas, or domestically produced oil and gas. The latter is environmentally preferable, supports British jobs, generates revenue for public services, reduces exposure to international instability, and helps moderate costs for consumers. The Government remain trapped within a dogma that serves no one except the most rigid net-zero ideologues. The forthcoming legislation gives Ministers an opportunity to rethink that approach. They should seize that opportunity, reduce the tax burden, restore investment confidence and allow domestic production to proceed. If they do that, Britain may yet achieve genuine energy independence.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate on energy security. I look forward to the maiden speeches of all the new noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and I wish them well in their time here.
If a week is a long time in politics, the period since the last parliamentary Session feels like an eternity. Our world continues to be ever more dangerous and unstable. Families and businesses are feeling the reality in their bills and their shopping baskets and have a sense that something is wrong with the way we are managing our affairs. If there is one lesson we need to draw from the turbulent events of recent months, it is that what we need now is not internal party politics and leadership battles but a change of policy backed by renewed ambition, upscaled delivery and a clear national commitment to cut dependence on volatile and unreliable fossil fuels.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the work they have continued to do, quietly and diligently, through a period of considerable turbulence. My gratitude is genuine, but it is not a substitute for greater urgency. There will be shocks ahead and we must be ready for them and honest about their impacts. The International Energy Agency has been clear that this global energy crisis is among the most severe. Global energy stocks are being depleted at record pace. There is a quality to this moment. Rather like watching an explosion at a distance, the flash has already occurred, the light has reached us, but the destructive pressure wave has yet to arrive. Our task is to prepare for what is coming, not to persuade ourselves that it will pass us by.
This crisis is not simply a question of oil and gas prices, uncomfortable as those are; it cascades through the whole economy, into jet and heating oil, diesel, fertiliser, food production, and supply chains of every kind. It will increase government borrowing costs in many economies, triggering recessions. The United Kingdom, with some of the most expensive domestic energy bills in the G7, is particularly exposed.
The longer we remain dependent on fossil fuels, the longer we remain price takers and not price makers, subject to decisions made in foreign capitals and boardrooms over which we have little influence. The cost of dependency is tangible. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has calculated that the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels led to direct economic impacts of £183 billion in the four years following the invasion of Ukraine. To put that figure in perspective, it exceeds the entire annual budget of NHS England in 2024-25. These are not ideological arguments; they are arguments of economic necessity.
America, once our closest ally, now pursues a National Security Strategy that speaks explicitly of global energy dominance, backed by a denial of climate change—a belief that is contrary to responsible energy policy. The consequences are only beginning to impact us now and resolution of the Iran conflict is not imminent. In this context, or any other, it would be a “delusional fantasy”, as Ed Davey put it, to suggest that North Sea oil offers any serious answers to our energy insecurity. It does not, and the Official Opposition should stop pretending that anything else is the case.
The answer lies in what Carbon Brief has already demonstrated in hard figures: since the Iran conflict began, Britain’s existing renewables have shielded us from some £1.7 billion in additional gas import costs. That is hard evidence that clean power is already working and saving us money. The Climate Change Committee has also made it clear that the total cost of another fossil-fuel crisis of this kind would exceed the total cost of reaching net zero. This is the most powerful argument for added urgency.
I am genuinely pleased that the Government are moving at speed and scale towards the achievement of Clean Power 2030. Renewable projects to power the equivalent of 23 million homes have already been secured. We want Labour to succeed in this endeavour, not from any partisan generosity but because, if it does not, the days ahead will be considerably darker.
We therefore broadly welcome the energy independence Bill, and we will engage with it constructively, but we will press for a ban on fracking that contains no loopholes: one that cannot be quietly unpicked by future political pressure. We will seek to require solar panels on suitable new warehouses and car parks as a matter of standard practice. We also want communities to be genuine participants in the energy transition, not merely its hosts. People who live alongside new infrastructure ought to share in the benefits it generates. That means a right to sell electricity, restored funding for Great British Energy, directed in part towards community coastal onshore wind, and better access to local generation and storage. On market reform, we are clear: more levies must come off electricity bills, the system must properly reward clean power and a social tariff must be introduced for households that cannot absorb repeated bill shocks. These proposals are not radical; they are proportionate and compassionate.
Brexit has left us poorer, less secure and more energy vulnerable than we need to be. Our future lies in closer energy ties to our nearest neighbours. Rejoining the EU internal energy market and linking our emissions trading schemes, where that is practicable, will reduce costs and strengthen resilience. In a modern energy system, isolation is just inefficiency by another name.
On the nuclear regulation Bill, we recognise the case for faster delivery and for streamlining where it is genuinely warranted, but we will scrutinise the detail carefully. Public confidence in the safety and accountability of nuclear power is not a luxury; it is a precondition for its success and should be treated as such. Nuclear power requirements cannot override our nature protections. If Labour is backing a renaissance of nuclear power, it must extend to greater efforts to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste and ensure that those costs do not spiral.
The electricity generation levy Bill implements the pot-zero proposals that my party called for over a year ago. While we support them, these matters are rightly complex. Persuading companies to negotiate new contracts will also be complex and take time, while the savings may be slower than anticipated. Beyond this, more must be done to further fundamentally reform our outdated energy market arrangements. We call on the Government to develop proposals for a strategic reserve for gas-fired power stations outside the market, as we move towards a more wholly renewable energy market.
I turn finally to a matter that troubles me. I checked the gracious Address carefully. The word “nature” does not appear in it and the phrase “climate change” appears only once. We do not wish to see Labour following the Green Party’s latest example, so we call on the Government not to ignore climate and nature in their discourses. This omission reflects our real concern about the current limits of the Government’s vision and ambition. Energy security—any security—cannot be meaningfully separated from the climate and nature crisis. They are, as my party has long argued, two intertwined aspects of the same emergency.
Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries. That matters for our food, our water, our health and our long-term resilience. Since 2020, we have had five of our worst harvests. Last year was the worst year for burning from wildfires. The real consequences of an ever-warming climate are a national security issue and must be treated as such. Our adaption pathways are, by any assessment, inadequate for the climate impacts already under way. We need a proper national strategy for nature and adaption: properly funded, integrated into policy-making and treated as a matter of national security rather than an afterthought.
I ask the Conservative Benches to return to the cross-party consensus on climate and nature that this country once led and that many of them helped to build. I ask the Government to stop treating nature as something that can be omitted from their legislative programme. This Government should lead the world on climate change and must provide adaption and support for those less fortunate who live on the front line of climate impacts.
The Liberal Democrats will support this Government where they act in the national interests and we will hold them to account, courteously but firmly, where they fall short. We stand ready to work co-operatively on the difficult decisions ahead, because on these matters co-operation makes the near impossible merely difficult and its absence makes the merely difficult impossible. The clean energy transition is not simply the right thing to do; it is the affordable thing, the secure thing and the only thing that seriously answers the crisis we are in. The opportunity is before us; let us not waste it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to the Back Benches, we have over 70 speakers taking part in the debate, including four maiden speakers, and I know that noble Lords are looking forward to well-informed and concise speeches. I encourage noble Lords to stick to the four-minute advisory time limit, so that we can finish at a reasonable time and give respect to other speakers in the debate. Whips are a kind and generous group of people, so please excuse us if one of my number needs to get up during the debate to remind people of the four-minute limit.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, imagine if, this morning, a child could go to school in the United Kingdom knowing that the technology in their classroom was designed to support their learning rather than simply to harvest their data and that their personal information, whether their educational record or visits to the school nurse, was protected from commercial exploitation.
Imagine if safety by design was the price of access to children, if addictive functionality was no longer the business model of social media, and if online protections started at birth and continued to adulthood. Imagine if social media and AI companies were required to fix all identified risks in their products. Imagine if generative AI systems had to check that they could not be prompted to create child sexual abuse material. Imagine if chatbots were not permitted to manipulate, exploit or provide unsafe advice. Imagine if tech companies had a duty of care.
Imagine if Ofcom had enforcement powers that worked and if tech executives were held responsible for risks they chose to ignore. Imagine if, when a parent watched helplessly as their child was groomed by a chatbot, they could turn to the police, a court, a regulator or a hotline for an emergency halt to the service.
None of that is fanciful. None of that is technologically impossible. It is simply the list of proposals in my name that this Government refused in the last legislative Session.
Last week, Jess Phillips said in her resignation letter:
“It has taken me a year to get you to agree to even threaten to legislate in this space. Not legislate, just threaten”.
She was talking about child sexual abuse material. Her fury mirrors my warnings to Ministers that they will regret kicking these issues into the long grass. A narrow consultation, vast powers to the Secretary of State, long timelines and photo opportunities with bereaved parents are not action.
My amendments did not stop with child safety. They extended to AI accountability, data sovereignty, public sector dependency, workers’ and creatives’ rights to their labour and property, procurement, security and the basic question of whether this Government are willing to govern in the national interest rather than subsidising and creating further dependency on a handful of rapacious American firms. This is not a collection of isolated failures; it is a pattern. Again and again, when forced to choose between the needs of UK citizens and democratic accountability or the demands of Silicon Valley, this Government have chosen the latter.
The King’s Speech says remarkably little about tech, an issue that controls every aspect of private and public life. The Government promise transformation, efficiency and empowerment for UK citizens, but their legislative programme does not provide the means. If there is a beautiful technological future over the horizon, I am afraid this is not it. Unless we recover the confidence to govern technology in the public interest, the Government will be found profoundly wanting, particularly where children are concerned. This weekend, I spoke to campaigners in Canada who are supporting UK families as their loved ones are groomed by chatbots, because our Government refused to provide a route to protection—in fact, they whipped against it. It is on our watch that lives will be lost.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I look forward to the maiden speeches to come.
In the words of the King’s Speech,
“an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom”.
The Government will respond “with strength” and in line with
“the British values of decency, tolerance and respect”.
Not all threats are visible, though all need an intentional response.
The potential of artificial intelligence is clear, but there is rising public concern about the risks and dangers, both present and future. There is concern about employment and jobs being displaced by technology—which is already registering in statistics—and in the aspirations of the young. There is concern about the toxic effects of social media on public discourse. Nearly 1 million children are in the mental health system and, according to a report by Smartphone Free Childhood, youth worklessness has doubled over the last 10 years. There is concern about public truth, abuse perpetrated through and by chatbots, and increasing violence against women and girls. There is concern about the proliferation of AI in warfare, and there is growing concern about the international competition to develop general AI and the lack of guardrails for technology companies.
There are some things on technology in the King’s Speech to welcome, each of which will require careful scrutiny in this Chamber. However, for me, there is a massive hole in the centre of government policy in the area of online safety and security and the relationship between government and technology companies. The best interests of our citizens are simply not being served by a small number of global companies pledged to generate revenue and meet the demands of their shareholders. We are seeing, and will see, an increasing distortion of human dignity and value in the interests of profit. I look forward very much to Pope Leo’s forthcoming encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, which will be on AI, to be published on Monday, and to your Lordships’ House exploring these issues in more depth on 5 June in the debate on human-centred AI, sponsored by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Where in the gracious Speech is the legislative vehicle to deliver the urgent changes needed to the online safety regime? Where is the strategic approach to AI safety? Where is the careful balancing of ethics with innovation? Where are the laws binding development on superintelligent AI? Will the Minister please comment?
Finally, as the bishop of a diocese with over 280 schools, and which has two of our own MATs and is a partner in 22 further MATs, and on behalf of the Church of England, I welcome the proposed reforms of the special educational needs system. They align with the Church of England’s vision for education, centred on human dignity, belonging, inclusion and enabling every child to flourish, regardless of their needs or abilities. However, we need to pay much more attention to the ordering of the digital world our children will inhabit.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak about the vital importance of creativity and imagination, the twin engines of our world-leading creative industries, and of books in particular. I declare my interests as a former publishing CEO and book charity founder.
Research conclusively shows that reading for pleasure fires the imagination, builds empathy and is the single greatest predictor of academic success, life outcomes and well-being, regardless of social background. Books are also a major economic force, driving exports and inspiring global film franchises, TV series and plays. It is therefore alarming that, according to the last yearly survey, only one in three—32%—of eight to 18 year-olds chooses to read for pleasure. That is the lowest figure on record. Less than 50% of adults read a book a year, and too many parents no longer read to their pre-schoolers: 50% of five year-olds have never been read to. This is despite powerful evidence that, when adults read to babies, their breathing, heartbeat and brain rhythm synchronise in the most magical way.
The problem runs deeper. The Financial Times reported that human beings may have reached peak cognitive powers in 2022, and we have been in decline ever since.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
It might also be true in this House.
University students struggle to concentrate on classic texts and, this year, the first UK reading census found that 30% of the population are too distracted to read, and a further 16% are completely disengaged. As the Guardian editorial highlighted, we live in an attention span crisis, with a tsunami of data, where truth is downgraded and reality itself sometimes seems fake.
This is such a troubling environment for our children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, so often and powerfully reminds us. They are captured by addictive algorithms and rising anxiety. Books, by contrast, offer quiet, immersive pleasure, real entertainment and, as the Children’s Laureate argues, genuine happiness rather than digital “sedation”. Neuroscience from the Queen’s Reading Room charity shows that just five minutes of reading a day can reduce stress by 20%.
The Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, announced a national year of reading this year, 2026: the first in the age of AI and a true public/private collaboration, delivered by the National Literacy Trust. Already, the campaign has reached 2 million children, distributed 600,000 books and signed up 11,000 teachers, 7,000 schools, 3,000 libraries, 150 local authorities and 800 partner organisations, ranging from the Premier League to parent-teacher associations and prisons. The campaign is also recruiting a growing army of community volunteers, already at 30,000 and aiming for 100,000, linking schools, homes and libraries. I welcome the Education Select Committee’s investigation into reading for pleasure, the Government’s commitment to a library in every primary school and additional funding for secondary school books. I also support calls for regular story time in primaries that distinguishes listening for pleasure from formal skills teaching.
King’s College research also shows that, like reading, looking at a painting reduces cortisol levels by over 20%. Our splendid free museums are a brilliant policy legacy, and anything that adds friction and complexity, such as charging for visitors, should be avoided in my opinion.
In the book industry, we must protect the creative pipeline with robust copyright and ensure that writers are fairly and transparently remunerated. AI is trained on human creativity. Human imagination has never been more important or more under threat. Reading for pleasure should be nurtured throughout the school years, including a re-evaluation of cuts to arts and humanities in further education, which the Minister might want to comment on later. Interestingly, McKinsey has pivoted to hiring philosophy and literature graduates, who are able to think creatively and are better equipped for the AI world of work.
The Government have a key role to play in reversing the decline in reading for pleasure, restoring its enrichment and joy for a generation, and thereby turbocharging the creative economy. The journey has only just begun.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, the gracious Speech spoke of a country in which
“every child is included in the nation’s highest aspirations”
and in which no child should be held back by poverty, special educational needs or lack of respect for vocational education. Well, that is quite a challenge on the day that an 11-year high in youth unemployment has been announced. Among 16 to 24 year-olds, the rate has surged to 16.2%, with a 24.6% spike in London: one in four of that age group is unemployed.
We are promised a Bill to raise standards in schools and introduce generational reform of special educational needs. Let us hope that that is ambition enough, but the test is whether it makes a real difference in classrooms, communities and cultural institutions, where too many people fail to receive opportunities for a worthwhile education.
The gracious Speech failed to refer to culture, the arts or the creative industries—unless you count sport. There was much about growth, economic security and public service reform, but education is more than just achieving standards and examination success. Culture is not an optional extra to be afforded only when times are easy. The creative industries—if not our Eurovision songs—are part of Britain’s national pride and strength. A country that nurtures talent, widens opportunity and develops human potential will gain socially and economically.
How serious is the Government’s growth agenda when so many of their actions impede growth? The increase in employer national insurance contributions, and lowering employee pay thresholds where the employer has to pay, have a harsh impact on labour-intensive sectors, including the arts. Theatres, orchestras, museums, galleries, festivals and production companies are all suffering as a result of the steps this Government have taken. Higher employment costs mean less rehearsal time, less touring and fewer new commissions. A Government praising creative industries as drivers of growth should not make it harder for those organisations to survive and flourish.
Of course, our cultural model is a mixed one. We do not have the high public subsidy of Europe, nor the scale of private philanthropy seen in the US, but what we are seeing is the pressure on private giving and philanthropy. Those who studied the Rich List report last weekend will have seen that one in six of those who were on the list two years ago did not appear. One-third have left the country. This is a really alarming result of a Government who make success, prosperity and wealth seem unworthy. We are losing the people who so often have funded many of our major activities.
The Government have announced that they are accepting or exploring much of the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I welcome that and I hope it makes a big difference. I have often referred to Hull as being a great centre of creative activity. The head of the National Theatre, the most important theatrical job in the country, and James Graham were among those educated there, and what it did for a community with high unemployment and low pride is quite remarkable.
Let me quickly refer to those young people and older people of all ages who fail to get the recognition they deserve: those in prison education. I call on the Government to end the ludicrous ban on prisoners taking university degrees. Too often, education in prisons is short-changed, due to understandable employment and funding problems. Victor Hugo said:
“He who opens a school door, closes a prison”.
Education is critically connected to the prison population.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I welcome culture being part of today’s debate and the acknowledgment by the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, of its importance—and, if I might say so, its wonderful celebration by the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck. Culture and our consequent creative industries provide social glue and are an engine of economic growth—and my goodness does our country need both. We, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, welcome the review of Arts Council England by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, including her endorsement of the arm’s-length principle and the need to properly fund big national organisations. They support smaller regional ones, contributing to the talent pipeline and to touring, as well as providing international reach. We also welcome strengthening regional decision-making through new regional boards.
I will again address skills. For our creative sector to thrive, we need a skilled workforce, but creative education has been almost eroded from our state schools. This has serious implications for the creative sector. We are relieved that the Government’s new, revised curriculum aims to address this, but I ask the Minister to give us the timetable.
Next is the nurturing of skills. The recent creative industries skills audit paints a sobering picture. Necessary skills are changing at speed. Continuing development of the workforce is essential. The apprenticeship system needs to be more flexible to fit a freelance workforce, and the new growth and skills levy must be put to good use. Will the Minister listen to the industry’s needs and asks? Also, can she tell us when the freelance champion will be appointed and what the terms of reference will be?
Then there are the calamitous consequences of Brexit. The ability to access the continent involves complicated paperwork, carnets, cabotage and visas, which inflict punishing costs and red tape across the creative sector. In addition, our young people have been cut off from European culture. We must pursue visa waivers and a youth mobility scheme and apply to participate in Creative Europe.
Finally, and crucially, I turn to the BBC. Recent Reuters Institute data shows that the BBC remains the most trusted source of news not just for the UK but for the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality. However, the BBC is not just about the news; it develops and invests in talent and R&D; it is radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, Bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, the World Service and BBC Sounds; and it is David Attenborough. It is the glue that I referred to earlier. It plays a pivotal role in promoting the UK around the world, through both the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to the Voice of America. It has also drawn American streamers to our shores.
Audience viewing patterns are changing. The BBC has responded—its new partnership with YouTube creates BBC content, including news, for YouTube viewers—but we need to help PSBs navigate this new environment. Does the Minister agree that the provisions of the Media Act on prominence and discoverability must be properly enforced and strengthened? We on these Benches applaud the Secretary of State’s support for the BBC, but we have some asks. All non-executives to the BBC board and the chair should be independently appointed, and the Government should maintain long-term public funding for the BBC, crucially protecting the principle of universality.
This is of course against the backdrop of that 10-year event, charter renewal, so I have another request: the need for renewal should go and the BBC should have a forever charter. Without that and in the wrong hands—Farage-like hands—the charter can simply be terminated on its last day. There would be no negotiations and no BBC—it would be gone. I end with the words of the embodiment of the BBC and PSB, Sir David Attenborough:
“Every section of society, for one reason or another, should be glad that the BBC is there”.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, decarbonising energy and deploying AI are the defining technology challenges of our times. They are fundamental to growth and are intimately linked. The greatest constraint on technology deployment in the United States is energy availability. In the UK, Ofgem has 140 data centres on its books, so the energy independence Bill will scale up renewables, accelerate the deployment of clean power and build out the grid. As we have heard, the nuclear regulation Bill will speed up new nuclear and deal with the damaging delays.
I turn to technology and AI in particular. The UK is the world’s third-most important hub for AI start-ups. We are an AI maker as well as an AI taker, so the Government’s streamlining of planning, the new UK compute road map and the AI hardware plan are all vital infrastructure fundamentals, but they must be matched by pace in deploying AI. I welcome the AI growth opportunities plan, the funding of start-ups and the growth labs to train new UK AI. Regulating for growth will create new sandboxes, relaxing existing rules for new AI products that can transform lives. The UK is raising its game around innovation, and regulators will be required to support growth, boost investor confidence and speed up the time to market. All these actions signal a new, largely cross-party consensus that Britain should prioritise outcomes over processes.
It is hard to overstate the long-term impact of AI, as we have heard already: two-thirds of jobs exposed to some form of automation and many entry-level jobs will be changed for ever.
Let me conclude on the security challenges that have already been touched on. The cyber security and resilience Bill will strengthen our cyber defences, but post Mythos, we have to ask whether it is enough. Mythos, of course, found severe vulnerabilities in every major operating system: the systems that run our electricity grids, retail networks, military systems, emergency services and hospitals. The US Administration have been compelled to act. Project Glasswing gave leading firms a head start in patching vulnerabilities. However, the American media is now awash with talk of executive orders, bipartisan Bills and co-operation with China—all moves towards greater oversight.
Balancing AI growth and security is complex. As with climate change, we need to balance national and international action. International co-ordination matters: 80% of Europe’s digital services are provided by non-European companies. The European Union’s own attempt at legislation was too broad and created disincentives. In the UK, our AI Security Institute operates without statutory authority or parliamentary oversight; indeed, some have argued that that very ambiguity has been the key to the trust it has built.
So what do we do? Many AI company CEOs talk sincerely about balancing growth and safety, but profit invariably takes precedence in corporate cultures. That is why some risks—the Economist calls them “externalities” —are better overseen by citizens. We can draw lessons from other sectors: more transparency, safety by design cultures and corporate liability as a potential lever. That is what lies ahead of us. The technology has huge potential, and Britain has great potential in that for realising the upsides. As other noble Lords have noted, this Chamber is well equipped to discern the public interest. That is the opportunity before us and the really interesting times that we live in.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander. It is also a pleasure to speak on the same day as so many distinguished maiden speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Blackwater. We are fellow alumni, and those of us who are devotees of his magisterial tomes know that he will bring a splendid erudition to your Lordships’ proceedings.
I want to touch on a part of the gracious Speech that is a bit of a minority interest. It is the words on the Civil Service—the proposals that the Government pledge to bring forward to
“strengthen the delivery, accountability, innovation and productivity of the Civil Service”.
I welcome this; I applaud it, although tinged with a little bit of déjà vu. Few people are better qualified than me to know that the easy part is the bringing forward of the proposals to address the failings of the institution of the Civil Service— not the civil servants, because we still have brilliant civil servants in this country, but the institution itself, which is flawed and needs serious reform.
The flaws are well known: the churn, the unplanned movement of civil servants from one post to another, the class distinction, the lack of parity of esteem between those charged with delivery and implementation versus those who make the policy—the Whitehall civil servants who get nearly all of the top jobs—and the lack of openness to influence from outside the Civil Service. All these are flaws which have been identified going well back even to before the Fulton committee report in 1968. Therefore, we look forward to these proposals, but the hard bit is making it happen. There are three things which need to happen to make it even possible for these changes to be introduced and then to stick.
The first is authority. Real authority needs to be given to the head of the Civil Service, and that authority can be given explicitly only by the Prime Minister, whose statutory powers can be delegated so that the head of the Civil Service does not need to rely upon her admittedly splendid powers of charm and persuasion to ensure that these reforms can be implemented on a whole-of-government basis. They need to be implemented on a whole-of-government basis, although that may give offence to those in the Treasury who worship at the altar of the hermetically sealed departmental silos. Authority is essential.
The second is transparency. It is time to lift the veil that conceals the sensitive area of the management of the Civil Service. This is deemed too precious, rare and sacred to be exposed to view, particularly to the view of politicians—the people who, after all, are required, rightly, to take responsibility and to be accountable for everything that is done by civil servants.
The third element that needs to be strengthened is mentioned: accountability. It is time for there to be genuine, external accountability for what is actually being delivered as regards the Civil Service’s capability. For too long, the Civil Service has scrutinised itself. It is time to beef up the role of the Civil Service Commission to make it a genuine external regulator of the Civil Service. The tendency now is for the Civil Service to mark its own homework.
Authority, transparency and accountability: if these are introduced genuinely, there is at least a chance that these no doubt splendid proposals will actually be put into action.
Lord Hobby (Non-Afl) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to give my first speech in this House. I declare an interest as the chief executive of the Kemnal Academies Trust.
I want to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for all the support I have received. I have been genuinely bowled over by the warmth and the kindness that I have found on every Bench and in every part of your Lordships’ House. I want to say a special thank you for my introduction by my noble friends Lady Bousted and Lord Kestenbaum, and the guidance of Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and her team, the door- keepers, all the staff, and especially my noble friends Lord Kennedy, Lady Wheeler and Lady Smith, and the team behind them. A final thank you to my family —Vic, Keir, Cameron and Fred—for literally everything.
Waiting for this moment has given me the chance to make my contribution in a debate on education, which has been at the centre of my career for the last 30 years —despite, dare I admit, never having taught in a classroom. Luckily, I have not mentioned that anywhere with a permanent record of what is said.
I did not know it at the time, but this journey began at the age of eight. I was at a family funeral, and as I stood outside at the end I saw a familiar figure walking away. It was Mr Peacock, the head teacher of my primary school. What sticks with me is not just that he took the time to come but that he sought no attention or credit for doing so.
There is no standard, professional qualification or inspection judgment that properly captures these daily acts of care that characterise everybody who works in our schools and colleges. I work in education to back those people and because the answer to almost every challenge our country faces leads back to the classroom.
Above all, if we want greater unity and cohesion, we must ensure that everybody has a stake in the future. I admire all who work in our education system to make this happen. But you can see why I have a particular fascination for the role of the head teacher.
It was a famous Member of the other place who once said, “God has not seen fit to grant to Prime Ministers the power he has granted to head teachers”—a line that is a little poignant right now.
So, it was a great honour for me to represent 29,000 head teachers and their deputies when I became general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers in 2010. After the NAHT, I became chief executive of Teach First, that amazing charity founded to encourage talented graduates to spend part of their career teaching. Because the evidence is clear: the most important in-school factor driving educational outcomes is a good teacher.
Today, I lead the Kemnal Academies Trust, a group of 45 schools in the south and east of England. This is a fantastic opportunity to say thank you here to my 56 head teachers, 3,200 staff and 22,000 students, many of whom are in the middle of their GCSEs and A-levels, who do a stunning job in demanding circumstances. As I speak, we have Ofsted in one of our schools, so best wishes to Rainham School for Girls. I am being grilled by the inspectors tomorrow and I am not sure which of those events I am more nervous about—this speech or my inspection grilling.
We have a good education system, but it does not yet do well by every young person. Those who grow up in poverty and those with special educational needs and disabilities do not achieve all that they deserve. It was right to remove the two-child benefit cap. I saw the damage that caused every single day. Whatever you may think of the motives, incentives and choices of adults, surely we do not penalise children for those choices. The reform of special educational needs will be difficult, but it is essential if these most vulnerable of young people are to thrive as they deserve. Our current approach is broken—an adversarial system that encourages conflict, delays diagnosis and forces separation. As a practitioner I am nervous about the reforms, like many, but these proposals were well received in the sector. I have come to realise that the expertise and scrutiny that is characteristic of this Chamber will be a crucial part of navigating the development of these reforms.
As we debate education matters, I hope we will remember that having gone to school does not make us experts on pedagogy any more than having been to hospital makes us experts on surgery. What teachers and heads want from us are the resources to do their job, clarity on direction and support for the difficult decisions that they must often make. We can give that to them, and we as a country can reap the benefits. As families regain their stake in the future, the unity and the optimism that we all crave will grow again.
Lord Kestenbaum (Lab)
My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I follow that excellent and very moving speech from my noble friend Lord Hobby. He is renowned as a person of strong values and deep conviction—two attributes that will serve him well in this Chamber. His has been a lifetime of service, at the heart of which have been his tireless efforts to elevate the sacred profession of teaching and, in particular, the delicate task of getting teachers to those places where they are most needed and in front of children who most need them. My noble friend has done more than most to place schools and their people at the heart of the nation’s affections. For this reason, your Lordships’ House will be thankful for his presence and will look forward to many more outstanding contributions.
In that spirit, I will focus my remarks on the Government’s intentions on education, as set out in the gracious Speech. This Government are rightly focusing attention on the grave dangers of nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training—the so-called NEETs. The NEET title masks the toxic cumulative effect of chronic disadvantage, often over many years and often since early childhood. Forthcoming research from Teach First, where I serve as a trustee, will set out the profound impact that sustained poverty through childhood will have on educational outcomes and life chances. The correlation between child poverty and low GCSE attainment is sobering. These challenges are especially acute where disadvantages are geographically concentrated—some coastal areas, some rural towns and, of course, former industrial centres.
However, we know that these outcomes and this hopelessness do not have to be inevitable. It is the blessed combination of great teaching and strong school leadership which consistently demonstrates that life chances, in particular post-16 year-old destinations, can be profoundly altered for the better. The best available evidence, notably from the Education Endowment Foundation, is incontrovertible. Put simply, great teaching and strong school leadership are the most important levers that schools have to improve outcomes for their children.
There is another correlation, but this one an inspiring one. Wherever you find children from disadvantaged communities consistently achieving excellent outcomes, you will always find inspiring teachers and remarkable school leaders—heroes who know that what is at stake is not just qualifications but the opportunity to build strong aspiration, personal confidence and stability.
We are often told that there is no silver bullet. That may be so, but we know one undeniable truth: as government policy seeks to attract school leaders into communities facing the greatest disadvantage, it will, in so doing, change the face of this country. A former Member of this House, the late and revered Lord Sacks, said in his own maiden speech that:
“To defend a country, you need an army”,—[Official Report, 26/11/09; col. 493.]
but to defend a society, you need teachers. It is no exaggeration to say that there is an urgency to this challenge, as set down by the late Lord Sacks, equivalent to the very defence of this realm.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, on his maiden speech and look forward to those maiden speeches that are to come.
If there was precious little in the gracious Speech about the arts per se, social cohesion was mentioned, and they are inextricably intertwined, as we have heard. A society bereft of culture cannot question itself and cannot rejoice in itself, but whenever the economy comes under pressure, the arts are one of our first casualties.
We seem gifted at scoring own goals. Whatever your feelings about Brexit, few would deny that it has been catastrophic for the creative industries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, graciously conceded that his Government got wrong the negotiations on artists and musicians performing in Europe. That has had a disastrous effect on countless artists, in terms of reputation and income, and on the Treasury and the cultural reputation of the UK. When I put this to the Prime Minister in an interview on Radio 3, he agreed. So here we are with agreement across the political spectrum—Reform, possibly, aside—but no advance, though I hope that Erasmus might be a chink of light, as a door gradually opens. Can the Minister make me feel better by reporting on progress on European access for artists and musicians?
I also tackled Sir Keir on AI and copyright, and the implacable concern of colleagues such as Elton John that allowing the unfettered use of copyright in AI training is the thin end of the wedge. Intellectual property either belongs to its creator or it does not; there is no halfway house. The long-established principle of ownership being vested in the creator cannot and must not be watered down to appease big tech. The UK must of course be at the forefront of AI, but not by ceding control of copyright.
I too admired the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her report on the Arts Council. Can the Minister say whether her Government will mandate the Hodge recommendations, particularly on tax cuts or tax easing for performing organisation? We are in real danger of diminishing beacons of innovation such as the London Sinfonietta, an aural equivalent of the Tate Modern, through funding cuts. It is 41% down on its grant. The equivalent in Paris, the Ensemble Intercontemporain, works to a budget 12 times that of the Sinfonietta, and it is the same in Germany.
Finally, I turn to where it all begins—music in schools and tuition for all, not just the well-off and privileged. I felt shame when the mother of that wonderfully gifted tribe, the Kanneh-Masons, told me that, in today’s educational set-up, her children would not emerge. I know that the Government are very committed to work at this stage, and I welcome that, but there is so much more to do so that every child is exposed to music, if only, for example, at assembly. Some schools do a very good job here, playing a piece of music at every assembly—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, can confirm this. It is such an easy and cheap thing to do. Hearing three minutes of music, be it pop, classical or jazz, can change lives. This is something that I would love to see the Government insist on in every school.
We have much to be proud of, but we need to continue the legacy for the next generation. It is our legacy, it is their legacy and it is society’s legacy.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords making their maiden speeches today. I wish to highlight the emotional needs of children and our duty to ensure that their happiness and well-being are at the very heart of the Government’s policy, because childhood lasts a lifetime. It is our responsibility to ensure this happens, and that includes what content they consume in the media, especially on online platforms. The content that children watch in their formative years will have an enormous impact on this outcome. We need to consider how they are being influenced and who is shaping their lives, because many are suffering from mental problems and anxieties.
I declare an interest, because this year it is 50 years since I first appeared on children’s television. Back then it was a thriving industry, contributing millions to the Treasury, but today it is no longer a viable business. Children’s television is in crisis: it has collapsed; it is on its knees.
I took millions of my “Play School” babies, the nation’s children, through the round, square and arched windows, exposing them to their world, full of fun, education and creativity. This was done with unconditional love, continuity and age-appropriate content, helping them to live through adversity and face the future. At present, we are failing our children as the content they watch in droves online on platforms like YouTube and TikTok is adding to their mental vulnerability.
The BBC has announced plans to get rid of 10% of its staff, but I make a plea that it tightly ring-fence its children’s programming output. Apart from a trickle of preschool programming from Channel 5, the BBC is the only public service broadcaster commissioning children’s TV content. If it does not, it will join Sky and ITV, which have completely abandoned children’s commissioning. Any cuts could be the hammer blow that kills off the industry completely.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to cut down kids’ screen time, especially as the endless algorithms on YouTube and TikTok are engineered to make our children dedicated to watching content that is not culturally relevant, is highly imbalanced and does not represent their lives, voices or communities. Teachers are noticing how many children now speak with an American accent and have very little concentration span because of the way the content is delivered.
There is no use funding content, because the way the system is set up by online platforms means UK content is not easily found, which is the biggest problem. We need prominence and regulation on these platforms to ensure that the cleverly and carefully crafted, trusted content that Children’s BBC provides is not buried under content from around the world which does not reflect our children’s lives.
Streamers should give prominence to content that passes a cultural relevance test—content not just made by the BBC but from independent UK producers who at present are suffocating. With this policy the problem of finding will then be solved. Funding can be supported by having a culturally relevant tax rebate for producers, equal to that given to independent UK films. The combination of prominence and tax rebates can help increase the creation of content here in the UK. It is not where children watch but what they watch that matters. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to rescue our decimated children’s media industry?
I believe the answer is to require online platforms, including social media companies operating in this country, to obtain a licence from Ofcom with binding conditions, just as television broadcasters are required to do. Also, as the future of the BBC is debated, I urge the Government not to consider commercialising this great and unique institution, especially its trusted children’s output, but to celebrate and support it in every way possible. It is our legacy for the future.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, on his maiden speech. It seems not five minutes—in fact, it was 10 years ago—since he was visiting the Department for Education to gently point out where we were going wrong with government policy; more gently, perhaps, than some of his colleagues on these Benches. We will return to that later in debates on education. I declare my interest as chair of the Careers & Enterprise Company.
I want to focus on the issues of tech and education. First, I welcome references in the gracious Speech to cyber resilience measures and the digital identity Bill, and I look forward to debating those. But as we have already heard, there will have to be much focus in this Session on online safety and the implications of new technology. I entirely support the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the Online Safety Act version 2-shaped hole in the gracious Speech. I also support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on the need for tech companies to have a licence for broadcasting to children, and on the impossibility otherwise of Ofcom enforcing successfully many of the obligations under the Online Safety Act.
Something we are looking forward to in this Session is the report on the under-16 social media ban, due fairly shortly thanks to the last-minute government amendment. The first report from the Secretary of State on how that consultation is to be implemented is due by the end of July and is of deep relevance to many families and many Members of this House. The House will also have to consider the impact of new technology, particularly AI chatbots, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has spoken about so powerfully not just today but in other debates.
I am reminded of the damage that AI-generated child sexual abuse material can do. The Internet Watch Foundation says that in 2025, it saw over 260 times more AI-generated child sexual abuse videos—more than 3,400 of them—than in 2024, when it saw 13. This is a growing problem.
One other element of harmful content is, sadly, the rising tide of antisemitism online. Given the link with education in this debate, I think it right to mention the StandWithUs UK report, which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has seen, on the scale of antisemitism faced by Jewish students, particularly at UK universities. However, there was a report today in the Times of the antisemitism faced by schoolchildren in the classroom. I have been told that the report includes a recent bomb threat made via Instagram to the Jewish Society at Royal Holloway University. The Community Safety Trust has told us of over 1,500 online antisemitic incidents in 2025. This is another issue that the House will have to return to in this Session.
On schools, I support the direction of travel, and have said so publicly, of the Government’s reforms to the education of those with special educational needs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, I think there are questions to be asked, particularly about the preparedness of teachers and schools for more inclusion; about how families who have children with the highest needs, particularly the highest medical needs, will be catered for; and about the timing of transition for families who currently have education, health and care plans, many of whom are rightly concerned about having some of their entitlements taken away.
I remind the Minister that she has promised that we are going to return in this Session to dealing with the extension of relationship and sex education to the over-16s in our colleges.
Finally, I support the moves in the White Paper on more enrichment in schools, but it is not just about activity; it is also about the development of character, values and traits, and I look forward to debating that. This is undoubtedly going to be a heavy Session, and this House will have to do much of the heavy lifting in relation to its legislation.
Lord Isaac (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, on an excellent and very moving speech. I intend to focus my remarks on education. Before I do, I declare a number of interests: as the provost of Worcester College, Oxford; as the chair of governors of the University of the Arts London; and, as will become obvious in a second, as the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
If this country is to remain globally competitive, economically successful and socially cohesive, a strong education system is indispensable. Investment in education should never be regarded merely as a cost, nor as a luxury. It is an investment in the future prosperity, resilience and fairness of our country. A good education equips young people not only for employment but for citizenship. It enables them to think critically, engage confidently and participate fully in our democracy.
At present, we are facing a troubling combination with declining levels of reading, as we have heard, and analytical thought, alongside an increasing dependence on social media and fragmented sources of information. The consequence, I fear, is that it becomes even more difficult for people to distinguish fact from falsehood. This creates fertile ground for simplistic populism and division.
During my time as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I was deeply concerned by the extent to which children and young people with SEND were too often treated as second-class citizens. The 2021 census showed that disabled people are three times more likely to have no formal qualifications than non-disabled people. It is against that background that I welcome the Government’s commitment to education for all in its Bill to improve provision for children and young people with SEND. I recognise that some families fear that this will have a negative impact on their access to care plans, but overall I am persuaded that the proposed investment of more than £4 billion, as I understand it, with greater inclusion in mainstream settings, will absolutely move us forward and address these long-overdue improvements.
I also welcome the commitments in the Government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper to strengthen support for further education, its staff and its students. Employers urgently require more skilled young people, and the FE sector educates and trains at least half of those who do not pursue a university route. We also know that FE funding has declined substantially over the last two decades. We cannot neglect a sector that is so essential to national productivity and social mobility.
As noble Lords will readily acknowledge, further education is often described as a Cinderella sector in comparison with higher education, but I fear that the higher education sector now faces profound challenges itself. I see at first hand the pressures confronting universities: the long-term erosion in the real value of tuition fees, rising pension liabilities and increasing operational costs. Across the country, especially in the humanities, I see the closure of departments, wholesale redundancies, restructuring and institutional mergers. I therefore welcome elements of the White Paper that seek to support the HE sector, including increased research funding, improvements to governance and measures to enhance the student experience. They are fundamental to driving change in the sector. Greater collaboration between institutions may help to strengthen resilience, but we must not overlook the huge dependence on international students. The proposed international levy creates additional uncertainty for institutions that are already financially fragile.
We cannot ignore the importance of the arts in education. I welcome that the Government are now committed to restoring art subjects more fully within the school curriculum from 2028. If the United Kingdom and its citizens are truly to flourish, we must be willing to invest seriously in education, skills, culture and the arts. To neglect them is not simply short-sighted; it is to diminish our collective future.
Lord Blackwater (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, and his extremely intelligent speech. I speak partly as a professor, and I know that what he is saying about higher education is exactly true and that it is a great challenge for all parties across this House.
I also echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Hobby—I speak as a fellow debutant—who made an exceptional maiden speech. I congratulate the noble Lord on that, and I echo what he said about the welcome that we get when we come to this House. In the short time I have had the privilege to sit here, I have been deeply gratified by the warmth of the welcome extended not just by my noble friends—who may perhaps feel that they have a duty to do so—but by noble Lords from all parts of this House. For this great generosity of spirit I am sincerely grateful.
With equal sincerity, I readily salute the kindness and professionalism of the clerks, our magnificent doorkeepers and all the other staff who make this important part of our constitution actually work. They did an exceptionally superb job during the induction process and in preparing me for my introduction. As those of us who write books say in our acknowledgements, all mistakes are entirely the responsibility of the author.
I am particularly grateful to my sponsors—my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Swire. I have had the honour of knowing both for, I realise, more than half my life. Such is their distinction that I always knew that they would one day adorn these Benches; it never occurred to me, however, that I would sit here with them. It is rather humbling. I could not have wanted for better sponsors, nor better friends.
My one regret is that a man for whom I have the highest regard, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, had to make his valedictory speech yesterday. He has been a great friend to me for many years, a great example and a great mentor. He was also my PhD examiner, so I owe him a great deal, and I wish him the happiest and longest possible retirement. I know that he had enormous and sincere tributes from this House yesterday, and that we will all miss him, but I presume to say that I may miss him more than most.
I have taken the title of my barony from a river. The Blackwater enters Essex from the North Sea and flows first through the ancient borough of Maldon, famous for the battle where the Vikings beat Ethelred the Unready’s Anglo-Saxons in 991. This established a tradition of euroscepticism in Essex that lasts to this day. Maldon is also known for its annual mud race, in which hardy people heave themselves from one bank of the Blackwater to the other, at low tide, swamped by brown sticky stuff. I am striving to avoid an oratorical emulation of this in my speech.
I have lived near the Blackwater all my life. Growing up on the Essex marshes, I would go and paddle in it and—usually unsuccessfully, because they sank—play with toy boats in it. That at least helped me to realise that I was not cut out for a naval career. Now it is the main river nearest to where my family and I live. A little further downstream, it changes its name and becomes the River Pant. I am relieved we live where we do, because the comic possibilities of a Lord Pant are self-evidently endless.
Noble Lords will recall the tension of preparing for their maiden speech. For me, there was an extra complication: I am conscious of the convention that one must not be controversial. Although I have been a professor of history for some years, since the 1980s I have earned most of my living as a Fleet Street columnist. In that line of business one tends to get sacked if one is not controversial, so your Lordships see before you a man struggling to break the habits of a lifetime.
However, there is one subject very close to my heart and relevant to today’s debate on the gracious Speech that might, I hope, provoke noble Lords into only agreement: the importance of teaching music in schools, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Sixty years ago, at my tiny state village primary school, I and my schoolfellows were all taught by a visionary teacher to play the recorder and read music. An attempt was also made to teach us all to sing, although it rather failed in my case.
Today’s reality is different. I am associated with two musical charities: I am the chairman of one of London’s greatest choirs, the London Chorus; and I am the president of the Chamber Music Foundation. Despite the excellent review of music education by Darren Henley in 2014 and the promise by the then Government to develop a national plan for such teaching, the availability of both general music and specific instrumental and voice teaching in schools has continued to decline. It did not help that my noble friend Lord Gove, who was a superb Education Secretary in many respects—including this one—was moved on, after welcoming the Henley review, before he was able to ensure that its recommendations were properly implemented.
Henley’s first recommendation was that a child’s experience of music should include performing, composing, listening, reviewing and evaluating it. This has come nowhere near fruition. One of our leading music professors recently told me that there are whole areas of the country where music teaching is simply unavailable to state school pupils beyond the age of 14. Arts Council-funded hubs exist to assist schools in teaching music, but many schools have no contact with them and no qualified music teachers. To fulfil the demands of the national curriculum, primary schools need offer only one hour of music a week; that usually leaves no room at all for instrumental teaching.
In the time available to me today, I can barely begin to describe the deficiencies of music education— I hope to return to it at length another time—but I should like to leave noble Lords with one statistic to contemplate: the number of students taking A-level music in England has fallen by more than 44% since 2010 to fewer than 5,000 in 2025. These are the same people whom the great Sir Hubert Parry, a distinguished forebear of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, called “we singing English”—no more, I fear.
The profession of music in Britain, in the way it creates both performers and their audiences, must inevitably suffer. However, since we all know that music expresses so much that words cannot, all those who fail to encounter it properly are having not just their civilisational development but their emotional development severely retarded. For generations, we have rightly expected children to leave school literate. All I ask is that we should be able to expect them to leave school musically literate as well.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, it is a singular honour to follow my noble friend Lord Blackwater’s excellent maiden speech. It was a privilege to be one of his supporters along with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, who seems to have attached himself permanently to my noble friend Lord Blackwater’s side. My noble friend has already revealed the length of all our friendship, if not the depth, and I, like many others here, welcome his presence on these Benches.
My noble friend is a polymath, as well as being one of the country’s foremost and respected commentators on conservative politics. His interests are extensive and varied, from French politics to ecclesiastical architecture and, of course, music—in particular, English music, his knowledge of which is matched only by his passion for it, as we have just heard.
My noble friend’s writings would enhance any library. His authoritative book on Enoch Powell, Like the Roman, which was first published in 1998, has just been reissued and is required reading for anyone seeking to understand that complex man better. Of course, his three more recent works—High Minds, on the Victorians; The Age of Decadence, on pre-World War I Edwardian Britain; and Sing As We Go, on Britain between the two world wars—are unmatched. I am currently half way through—that is saying something, as my noble friend does not do short or small books—that last book, Sing As We Go. The arguments about conscription and rearmament then are the same arguments as we are having today; indeed, they are similar to the arguments we were having in the 1930s. Sometimes, it seems, we never learn. More recently, my noble friend’s editing of the three volumes of the life of Sir Henry Channon—or Chips, as he was better known—was masterful as well as being hugely informative and entertaining. We know that political diaries can often be so, do we not?
Yesterday, it was a privilege to hear at first hand in the Chamber the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Case, and the valedictory speech of his former pupil-master—as we have just heard, he was also the pupil-master of my noble friend Lord Blackwater—the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. They showed this House at its best, and I have every expectation that we can expect contributions of a similar quality from my noble friend; that is needed now more than ever.
My noble friend Lord Blackwater spoke briefly about the London Chorus, formerly the London Choral Society, of which he is the chairman. He and I have discussed the problem in raising funds for them, which is, unfortunately, not uncommon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said earlier in her contribution, funding for the arts has become a very real problem, if not a crisis, of late—not least because so many high-net-worth individuals have been driven out of the country or are uncertain about the way the economy is heading. These are precisely the people who fund our museums, galleries and other cultural institutions. So I ask the Minister: what assessment has he made of this flight of capital and its impact on the cultural sector? What measures is he contemplating to make up for the loss? I can see precious little about this in the gracious Speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, has produced an excellent report on Arts Council England. It is full of good ideas, but one area it seems to shy away from is the issue of free admission to our national museums. I do not have time this afternoon to rehearse all the arguments for or against free admission, which I understand as well as anyone. I bear the scars of this as someone who, as the shadow Culture Minister, argued this in our 2005 arts manifesto:
“We will support museums that provide free access, and we will not impose entry charges. Neither will we penalise those institutions that feel it is in their best interests to charge”.
I would argue that that approach was balanced and fair then, and remains so today. However, since 2005, there has been one fundamental change: we have now left the EU. Our membership was always given as a reason why museums could not charge non-nationals, but museums are currently suffering a financial crisis. Some are closing galleries, while others are limiting opening. The current funding regime is unsustainable, forcing museums to ramp up dramatically the prices they charge for temporary exhibitions.
On 1 December 2018, there was a letter on this subject in the Daily Telegraph from a perhaps unexpected source: Sir Roy Strong. The article states:
“National museums and galleries should charge an entrance fee and subsidise discounts for millennials because high ticket prices—
for special exhibitions—
“are ‘excluding’ young people”.
It goes on to say that, although Sir Roy, when he was a director at the V&A,
“objected to his then trustees forcing him to introduce voluntary charges - which were later ‘swept away’ - he now believes that national collections have little choice because they are so strapped for cash”.
Only today, we read that the British Museum is preparing to charge up to £33 to see the Bayeux Tapestry for a 40-minute slot, although there will be the usual concessionary tickets. Our major museums are being forced into these sensational blockbusters to make the money they desperately need simply to keep the lights on. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Louvre now discriminates against non-EU members, charging €32. The Prado charges €15, the Uffizi up to €29, and the Rijksmuseum €25. Why cannot we do the same?
There has, unfortunately, been this obsession about the number of people who visit our museums, but there is a fundamental difference between visitors and visits. As Nicholas Penny—once the director of the National Gallery, where I was the first sponsorship secretary and then the first development director—wrote:
“Attendance figures … make no deductions for the protestors and celebrators in Trafalgar Square who enter the National Gallery to use its facilities, for teenagers attending rock concerts in the garden court of the V&A, and for the coachloads of tourists decanted into the British Museum while their hotel rooms in Bloomsbury are being prepared”.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I am sorry—could the noble Lord wind up, please? He is well over his time.
Lord Swire (Con)
There are many ways of slicing the cake, such as concessions for pensioners, student days or even free admission off season. The problem is that this argument has become politically hijacked, and it should not be. Let us build on the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, and re-examine all aspects of our funding, including allowing our national institutions to raise much-needed funds by introducing charges if that is what the trustees and directors choose to do.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, on two fine debuts. I think we can all look forward to many important contributions in their many years ahead.
I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I urge the Government to engage positively and constructively with the creative industries to strike the right balance with AI. I declare my interest as a board member of the BPI, which represents recorded music.
We all want growth, but there is a feeling sometimes that we are compelled to worship at the altar of AI, no matter at what cost to other industries. There are other very powerful engines of growth, and those include the creative industries and culture.
We are blessed across these shores with such creative riches. Our creative talent is a precious national resource. We export our music, film and fashion all over the world. Our museums, galleries, opera, orchestras and theatre bring people to our great cities, and they support and nourish hospitality and tourism. If anyone is looking for something to watch, I can highly recommend “1536”, which is about three young women in a small village in Essex in Tudor England, and the satirist Rosie Holt’s play called “Churchill’s Urinal”, which is all about a rather stressed out and frazzled female Chancellor—it is entirely fictitious, by the way; it is also very funny.
We get that AI is very important, but so too are our creators, and intellectual property and strong copyright laws are the bedrock of a successful knowledge-based economy.
This debate also draws together education, tech and culture, and I welcome the Government’s ambition to regulate young people’s access to social media, but we cannot delay and cannot be timid. We are seeing young men and women scarred and, I think, permanently damaged because of their access to hardcore violent pornography in the palm of their hands. Of course, there are many other threats from social media, and not just for our young people.
One of the most frightening things we are witnessing as a result of unfettered and unregulated social media is the rise of extremism and polarisation: unhinged hate, antisemitism, racism, anti-Muslim vitriol, misogyny—the list goes on. We are living in deeply anxious times, where algorithms run by billionaires who have an agenda are exploiting very human emotions of fear and insecurity and manipulating them into something far darker. We used to hear, “It is just words”; it is not. We are seeing this play out with terrifying consequences on our streets, in our schools, campuses and colleges, in our synagogues and in our mosques. People are being threatened, maimed and even killed. We know that bad-faith foreign actors are using social media to unleash fear, loathing, terror, division and violence in this country. We have to ask in this House why we are just letting this happen. This is the time to fight back. We need action, courage and a sense of urgency—for the sake of our country, our children and our grandchildren. If we do not try to take on the algorithm of hate now, we will regret it for generations to come.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, and my noble friend Lord Blackwater on their excellent maiden speeches. My noble friend has a deep knowledge of English culture and English history, and we had that on display as he rooted his Euroscepticism in a battle in Essex in 991. Now I understand it, and I very much look forward to his interventions in the future.
I should declare my interests as chair of the Regulatory Innovation Office and a visiting professor at King’s College London, because I want to touch on the technology and education themes in the King’s Speech.
The speed of technological advance means that regulations cannot just assume the old ways, and, of course, there are deep concerns about AI and online safety, which have been expressed already in this debate. But those 44,000 pages of environmental assessment before a nuclear power station can be built are a scandalous waste of public resource. We need to get the balance right when we set regulation. I very much support and hope that the nuclear regulation Bill and the regulation for growth Bill will be opportunities to do just that.
Universities are key drivers of new technologies and innovation. They are also a key route for young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to transform their lives, so it is very frustrating to read this week that Alan Milburn, leading the NEETs review for the Government, said that he wanted to steer young people away from higher education because of graduate unemployment.
The Minister is responsible for NEETs and policy. If we look at young adults aged 22 to 24, we will find that 10% of graduates will at some point during that period not be in work, which is a problem, but will she confirm that 30% of non-graduates will have that experience while they are aged 22 to 24?
Getting into higher education is a great way of boosting job prospects and reducing welfare dependency. Can I therefore also ask the Minister why the legislation to index university fees, proposed in the Government’s own White Paper with the promise of legislation, does not appear in the King’s Speech?
We do have a problem of NEETs and youth unemployment. When we compare our performance to other countries across Europe, we find that the big reason for our poor performance is quite simply that we have fewer people in education and training. Particularly, things go wrong at the age of 16—the transition from GCSE. We do not have enough people staying on for level 3 education and beyond. We heard in the excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Blackwater a powerful example, a case for the cultural and educational benefits of that education. Our problem in this country is not too much education; it is too little.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the contributions of the two noble Lords in their maiden speeches today have enriched this House, and I look forward to their contributions in the future.
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, an honour I share with my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. A while ago I visited an autistic unit in a mainstream school, where the head was very keen that I should meet a pupil who had behavioural problems and was about to move on to a comprehensive school. “You’ve heard I’ve got behavioural problems”, he said to me when we met. “Yes”, I said, “I have”. “I’m trying to do something about it”, he said, looking for approval from his head teacher. “Have you heard I’m going to comprehensive school?” I said, “Yes. Are you looking forward to it?” He answered, “Yes, and I’ve decided on my career”. “Have you?” I said, “What are you going to do?” He said, “I’m going to become a High Court judge, and I tell you now, if you come up before me, you’ll get a lenient sentence”. Who knows? Perhaps he will become a High Court judge. I know that, as a result of the education and support he had at that school, he has a future.
I wish that were the case for all autistic children, but it is not. Some 74% of parents think their autistic child’s school place does not meet their needs, and 26% of autistic pupils feel unhappy at school. To be fair, the Government’s proposed SEND reforms are most welcome. In particular, the plan to ensure that every child with SEND has an individual support plan is good. This has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of autistic children and their families. However, further clarity is needed.
Issues remain around accountability for the plans and the lack of legal options to challenge inadequate support if a plan is not implemented fully. More information is needed on how education and health care plans will be restricted to those with what the Government call “more complex needs”. The Government must clarify what will be considered more complex needs. Parents urgently need clarity on what support their child can expect for their level of need. There are doubts about the level of funding. The funding set aside does not match the level of ambition proposed, particularly the investment in staff training programmes. Adequate funding is the only way to guarantee that these reforms are not implemented in a haphazard way.
I have some questions for my noble friend. Do the Government plan to ensure that there are legal mechanisms for parents to hold providers accountable for implementing individual support plans effectively and appropriately? How do the Government intend to ensure the meaningful involvement of families in the assessment of their children’s needs and in the development of the plans? Have the Government assessed the number and availability of trained professionals needed to meet the Experts at Hand plan included in the schools White Paper? Finally, will my noble friend commit the Government to work closely with groups such as the National Autistic Society and the Disabled Children’s Partnership and others as they develop their SEND proposals? That is the better way, the effective way, to make things right and get it right from the start.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of Members’ interests as chairman of the Countryside Alliance and related positions, and I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, and my noble friend Lord Blackwater on their fine maiden speeches.
On Thursday, the Gambling Commission will decide whether to approve the rollout of affordability checks on online betting. When the previous Government announced these checks three years ago, Ministers said they should be totally frictionless. The pilots have not been. Immense damage has been done to horseracing already, and to what effect? Betters resent intrusive checks and are driven to the black market. Racing loses revenue, an estimated £250 million over five years, and so in turn does the Treasury. While I appreciate the potential harm of other forms of gambling, betting on racing is simply not in the same league. The risks are akin to those of playing National Lottery scratchcards. Should these be restricted, too? There has been no proper evaluation of the affordability pilots, and it appears that the checks will be green-lighted with no parliamentary debate or scrutiny. Affordability checks are directly contrary to the Government’s declared support for racing, so I urge the Culture Secretary to step in now and revisit an ill-targeted policy which, after all, was not the Government’s in the first place.
When racing is damaged, so too is the rural economy. I wonder whether the Government understand how rural communities feel about successive policies that have been directed at them. First, we had affordability checks; then we had the family farm tax, which had to be partially reversed after a year of protest; and then, out of the blue, we had an extraordinary plan in the land use framework to license game shooting. Now we have a proposed ban on trail hunting. Tony Blair’s Government faced enough opposition when they forced through the hunting ban, but they were not so unwise as to attack racing, the nation’s second most popular spectator sport, farming and shooting at the same time.
When Members of Parliament so obviously face a mortal challenge from Reform UK, these unforced assaults on rural voters are not just bad policy; they are inexplicably bad politics too. Twenty years ago, Ministers justified the abolition of hunting by telling people they could hunt trails instead. Now, this Government want to ban this activity too, on the grounds that it risks the pursuit of animals. But this is already a criminal offence. Outlawing the following of an artificial trail is akin to banning cars to prevent speeding. It is illiberal, disproportionate and completely out of step with voter priorities.
After the local elections, there is much talk of a reset, and I hesitate to intrude on the bloodsport of leadership challenge, but I offer this suggestion for future policy. There are enough real problems in the country and the countryside to address without creating new ones. The job of DCMS is to back sport, not to undermine it; the job of Defra is to support rural communities, not to attack them; and the job of the Government is surely to improve people’s lives, not to behave like new Puritans, telling everyone what they can and cannot do. The gracious Speech committed the Government to promote the British values of tolerance and respect for difference. That respect should extend to rural communities, and I suggest that freedom is foremost among British values too.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow maiden speeches, and I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, on their distinctive and excellent speeches.
There was no AI Bill in the gracious Speech, but AI will play a major role in NHS modernisation and education for all. Here, I declare an interest as a senior adviser to the Alan Turing Institute, the national AI institute. Over the past six months, the institute has argued that the time has come for the UK to train its own sovereign large-language model. At present, the choice is between closed-source models, such as ChatGPT or Gemini, from US big tech companies or open-weight models, mostly from China. Neither type of model can be fully trusted as they may be poisoned with sleeper agents or may harbour back doors. For uses of national importance—and I argue that these include education and health care, as well as defence and national security—the only way to have 100% security when using an LLM is to have complete knowledge of both the training data and the model’s weights. Other countries, such as France, Switzerland, the UAE and South Korea, keen to reduce their dependence on the US and China, have announced their own sovereign LLMs in the past 12 months.
There are further advantages for the UK in going down this route. First, a sovereign LLM will be trained using UK values with full transparency, respect for the law on copyright and the possibility of creating a process to remunerate training data providers. This would help to end the standoff between the UK’s growing AI sector and its world-leading creative industries. Secondly, the UK has unique datasets in both its health service and its school education system, including BBC resources, that could and should be treated as sovereign data assets prioritised for use in training the country’s sovereign LLM.
Is it affordable when it costs US big tech companies tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to train their frontier LLMs? In contrast, the Alan Turing Institute, supported by evidence from the Swiss model, estimates that it would cost only between £5 million and £10 million pounds to train the UK’s sovereign LLM. How can that be? US big tech companies do raise hundreds of billions of dollars to train the next general-purpose frontier model, but the key lesson from DeepSeek 18 months ago was that frontier-level performance on application-specific tasks can be achieved with much simpler models through distillation and fine-tuning.
The UK sovereign LLM, distilled and fine-tuned on NHS data, will be able to give healthcare advice as accurate as, if not more accurate than, GPT-5. It will not be able to translate Hamlet’s soliloquy into Arabic, as a general-purpose LLM such as GPT-5 can, but that is of no consequence to an NHS doctor or a patient seeking a second opinion.
With the Health Data Research Service due to launch its first services by the end of this year and with AI tutoring tools now being developed for secondary schools, we urgently need a UK sovereign LLM. This would enable fully trusted, application-specific models fine-tuned on our unique NHS and education datasets. The Government launched a sovereign AI unit last month; it should now support the development of sovereign AI models.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the excellent maiden speeches of an old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, and my noble friend Lord Hobby. I remember when Teach First was established during Tony Blair’s premiership. It is a brilliant organisation—my step- daughter is an alumna—and my noble friend took it to great heights.
I look forward to the Government’s response to the Timms and Milburn reviews, and the aim of supporting both young and disabled people to flourish in work as the basis of their long-term economic security. That will require further reform of the welfare system. I welcome the Education Bill, targeting support for those at risk of joining the growing number of NEETs, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. This is a particular concern of mine, as is the pipeline being built, inspirationally and educationally, for the workforce of the future, alluded to by other noble Lords.
The Engineers 2030 report from the Royal Academy of Engineering—I declare my interest as a former director—is a wake-up call to the perilous skills gap we face. There is demand for engineering skills in clean energy, defence and housebuilding, as well as skills in the emerging digital technologies such as AI, software development and cyber security. These sectors will experience the highest growth in employment, by a factor of six to one, with entirely new roles emerging all the time.
Some 76% of employers are struggling to recruit personnel with the required skills now. Improving the take-up from underrepresented groups is vital. Women make up 17% of the engineering workforce, minority ethnic groups 14%, and disabled people and people with special needs also 14%; and all have higher attrition rates. At age 10, only 11% of girls say that being an engineer would fit well with who they are, compared with 44% of boys.
The Royal Academy of Engineering’s recent submission to the Women in Tech Taskforce praises the Government for upskilling 10 million people in AI and the new AI apprenticeships, but recommends urgent systemic reform of the entry barriers, starting with an updated and dynamic curriculum and advice for young people. Present arrangements are uneven, not tailored to underrepresented groups, and not prioritised. I know that the Government are working hard to meet our future employment challenges, but I urge a greater emphasis on careers advice in the early years that captivates and inspires.
I end by welcoming the prescient Bills to strengthen our energy security and national security. I urge the Minister to read the report published today, again by the Royal Academy of Engineering, regarding the digitalisation of the grid, which will enable the Government to go further and faster to deliver clean energy.
I sit on the National Resilience Committee, which has been a tremendous education, both reassuring and alarming, in the nation’s preparedness for the myriad threats we face. The committee has heard repeated warnings of the interconnected nature of these risks. Energy security is a resilience issue, not just about supply but about the systems that depend on it: transport, communications, finance, health, food, water, and local emergency response.
We have also heard evidence relating to the rapidly increasing number and AI-engendered sophistication of cyber threats. Some 43% of UK businesses have suffered some form of cyber attack, most notably JLR last year. Imagine a concerted assault on our energy installations. I hope that the Minister will take into account our recommendations in due course.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, and my noble friend Lord Blackwater, on their maiden speeches. It is great to have both noble Lords in the House, with their differing views; I am sure that they will add much value between them.
It will not take noble Lords many moments to realise that nearly 1 million young people in the country are NEET. The Minister will no doubt stand up and say that these problems worsened after Covid under the previous Government, that we are to blame and that we should look at ourselves before criticising this Government. So, to save her the trouble, I will say it for her. Are noble Lords listening? Yes, part of this problem is structural. Yes, part of it reflects the long shadow and economic scarring of the pandemic. But what we cannot ignore, excuse or allow to slip by are the deliberate political choices that this Government have taken which are actively making the situation worse.
If the objective is genuinely to support youth employment, improve labour market participation and reduce barriers to work for younger people entering the labour market—and, surely, that should be the objective—you do not tax employment more heavily. You do not increase the marginal cost of taking on an extra member of staff. And you certainly do not increase employer national insurance at precisely the moment that businesses are already becoming more hesitant about hiring those at the edges of the labour market. Nor do you create uncertainty for business through the Employment Rights Act and make employers even more cautious about taking someone on.
The unemployment figures are going only one way and I would desperately ask the Government to rethink their policies on this. If we are serious about getting young people into work, we need to focus on two things at the same time: a young person’s readiness for work through skills, education and support, but also the cost and risks of employing somebody in the first place.
The Government have at least recognised that there is a problem—I welcome that—but the youth guarantee scheme, while it has many good parts, leaves a great deal to be desired. With the number of young people not in education, employment or training continuing to rise, we have to be honest: this is not simply a temporary labour market fluctuation, nor a problem to be solved by a single programme at the end of the process. Something more systemic is going wrong further up the line.
Let me suggest what should happen long before a young person ever reaches the point of becoming NEET. The school curriculum should have fundamentally running through it preparing young people for the world of work. I have told this story before and I will tell it again: when I was at Tomorrow’s People, we had a young girl who had never worked. We got her a job in the Unipart factory in Oxford, booking the executive director’s travel; she had died and gone to heaven with that as her first job. On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday she turned up, but on Friday she was a no-show.
We got in the car and drove round to her house. She came downstairs in her pyjamas. We said, “What’s going on?” She said, “I never went to school on Friday and nobody ever said anything”. We told her to get dressed, took her back to work and thought that was it. The second week, the same thing happened again. We took her back to work. By the third week, it was right.
I do not have long enough for this, but I will just finish quickly. I will leave the Minister with these questions. How do the Government believe their current approach helps young people such as the one I have just described? How does increasing the costs and risks of employment make employers more likely to take a chance on younger workers? When will the Government recognise that, if we truly want to tackle the NEET crisis, we must focus not only on programmes at the end of the process, but on the deeper cultural, educational and economic barriers that are stopping too many young people entering the world of work in the first place?
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in the debate which saw such wonderful maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater. There is much in the gracious Speech that I welcome. I particularly welcome the proposal for an overnight visitor levy Bill, and I hope that the proceeds of such a levy can be directed half to local cultural activities and organisations and half to the place-making which will enhance the experience of both visitors and citizens.
I want to focus, though, on two other things. The first is the consultation under way by the DCMS to explore the possibility of charging overseas visitors for entry to national museums and galleries, on which I cannot disagree more strongly with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. Such a proposal would undermine one of the very best achievements of the new Labour Government—and I was pleased to play a small part in ensuring that it came about. First, there are huge practical difficulties. How on earth can you tell who is a British citizen and who is not? We have no national identity card system as yet in this country. There is also the need to install turnstiles, barriers, ticket desks and to employ supervisory staff. This will undermine any savings that come from charging visitors. Secondly, fewer visitors means less spend in the café, the shop and the restaurant. Thirdly, having barriers in place effectively puts up a sign saying, “You’re not welcome here”, and that will have an impact on British visitors as well as overseas ones. Fourthly, this is an important part of Britain’s soft power. Free museums for all has a major reputational benefit for the UK and means enhanced tourism income for the country. Fifthly, imagine the opprobrium if we are charging visitors from Greece to see the Parthenon marbles and visitors from Nigeria to see the Benin bronzes. Sixthly, the overnight visitor levy is a far better way of ensuring that foreign tourists contribute to the life of this country. Do not, for heaven’s sake, I plead with the Government, go down the road of changing free entry for all to our museums.
The other issue I want to raise briefly—and I remind the House I am the chancellor of Cambridge University—is the complete failure of the student loans system. The system is broken. It is causing enormous harm to young people and beginning to be a deterrent to going to university. I regret there is nothing in the gracious Speech to reform this system. Young people’s university experience ought to be full of excitement, aspiration and hope. It is a passage to adulthood, an experience that teaches them how to explore, discuss, learn and discover. Yet because of the student finance system in place at the moment, the experience is darkly overshadowed. I plead with the Government to bring the light back in.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I too congratulate both maiden speakers.
As my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes noted yesterday, a new political era has opened in Wales. Plaid Cymru First Minister, Rhun ap Iorwerth, emphasised in his first conversation with Keir Starmer a wish to work constructively with Westminster on issues of common interest. An indicator of reciprocal good will would be an early review of Wales’s funding formula. We have today in another place heard about the reset of HS2—a massive £100 billion boost to England’s transport infrastructure—so can we now have an assurance that this time Wales will receive consequential funding previously denied?
We are today discussing education, culture, technology and energy security. Education and culture are largely devolved, so I will concentrate on creating job opportunities in the energy sector in Wales. Coal, nuclear and hydro have long been part of Wales’s industrial structure. Long-lasting bitterness arose when profits from coal were rarely used to Wales’s benefit, yet we were left to clear up the mess and live with dangerous tips. Please will the energy independence Bill ensure that the full costs of removing or securing remaining coal tips are not lumbered on to the Welsh Government, nor left to private companies to work residual coal in a largely unregulated way? I welcome the decisions to move ahead with SMRs at the Wylfa site. Will the Government, in collaboration with Senedd Cymru, work to ensure appropriate training facilities to equip local workers with the necessary skills?
Another aspect of energy security is energy storage. Pump storage hydroelectricity generation, such as the Dinorwig power station, is an essential partner to nuclear, tidal, solar and wind-generated electricity to balance supply and demand. It is quite outrageous that public money—as much as £346 million—was paid in 2025 in Scotland alone to those operating wind turbines, compensating them for turning off their generating equipment because there was, at certain times of day, a glut of electricity. The figure for the UK was almost £1.5 billion last year. Pump storage schemes, along with developing battery technology, are the obvious answer to such challenges of mismatch. Will the Minister please clarify what is delaying the licensing of new pump storage capacity, and will he review the schemes queuing up in north-west Wales for approval and accelerate that process?
Finally, will the Government take steps to defuse the tensions in some rural areas in Wales where local communities are in conflict with large-scale wind generation projects with their networks of highly intrusive transmission lines? These detract from the natural beauty, and have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry, to the cost of local communities. Surely, there should be an agreed protocol that either such lines are placed underground or those suffering such impositions should be financially compensated. In the absence of any such offsetting benefit, people should have a veto over schemes which undermine their quality of life.
Plaid Cymru looks forward to playing a constructive role in scrutinising the Government’s programme as we move forward.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, it really is a pleasure to speak in a debate after two such excellent maiden speeches. During them, I realised all the things I had done wrong in mine, so apologies, for instance, to my sponsors, who I never thanked—thank you to my noble friends Lord Alli and Lady Winterton. Thank you to the doorkeepers et cetera.
In that spirit, because I am half way down the speakers’ list, I can simply say I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, everything the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said and everything the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. I agree with quite a lot of things—but not everything on Brexit—that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, said, and very little that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, other than his tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater. Obviously, I pay tribute to my new noble friend Lord Hobby. His expertise in education is clearly going to be very welcome.
I must declare up front that my registered interests include being a very part-time chief executive of the UK Opera Association and, currently, chair of the Women’s Prize for Non-Fiction for 2026. Being half way down the list also means that I can dispense with anything that has already been said, which is really handy. So I am going to spend just a couple of minutes talking about the political economy of arts, culture and heritage.
If arts, culture and heritage are, as I believe, the important features of our national life that they truly are, we need a well-articulated political economy which deals with both the demand and supply sides, as well as the most important bit of all: the joy. I think the joy is self-evident, and so many august Members in your Lordships’ House have spoken of it eloquently—far more eloquently than I can. I have experienced it myself as a cellist and musician for 56 years now, and so many of your Lordships have done likewise. But for that to work, we need a political economy with political arguments made for economic questions.
Those economic questions are about how we make sure that, from early childhood, every child is given the education and, to pick out bits that have not yet been mentioned, the specialist education—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did mention this—that includes conservatoires but also specialist music schools, as well as music hubs, which serve slightly different needs for slightly different groups of young people. They are both important if we are to have world-class musicians, as are art schools and the arts and humanities departments in universities.
If we attend to the careers, we also need to attend to the employment conditions. The Employment Rights Act, which I was proud to support, does not really deal with the freelance conditions experienced by most creators in the arts, culture and heritage sector, and so I welcome the small business late payments Bill. I hope that, by the time it becomes law, we will have named a freelance champion. That has been well trailed, and we need such a freelance champion, if only to make sure that freelancers actually know what their rights are.
I confess that I am slightly confused about the ticket touts legislation. First, I saw “draft” and I was irked, because quite a few of us in my former Commons team, as well as my dear friend Sharon Hodgson, campaigned on this long and hard, and it was in the manifesto. Then I saw that there is mention of ticket-touting in the Sporting Events Bill. I gently ask my colleagues on the Front Bench whether, as an amendment to the Sporting Events Bill, we can just insert the entire ticket touts Bill. I would really like to know, as we have done loads of work on this already. We know how much it is going to save. The only people who benefit from a delay to the ticket touts legislation are ticket touts. The corollary to that is we will give more joy if we bring it forward.
What else is needed? My noble friend Lady Rebuck mentioned so much, and I meant to say, “And everything Gail said”. My noble friends have said so much about the importance of reading, music and the BBC, and of sorting out the AI legislation, but I want to finish on this. If we want a thriving creative sector, we need a political economy that articulates how we train, sustain, develop and grow the body of work that makes our country so great, that identifies the UK to so many people, at home and abroad, and that helps bring us together in a series of national stories, which matter now perhaps more than ever.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to be contributing to this debate in response to His Majesty’s most gracious Speech and it is an honour to be following such excellent maiden speeches. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
I want to speak to your Lordships about the removal of peerages Bill, which, as my noble friend Lord True said, will need to be looked at carefully,
“lest it ever become a licence for the social media lynch mob”.—[Official Report, 13/5/26; col. 11.]
He referred to it as Peter’s law, since it is clearly inspired by the Government’s desire to punish Lord Mandelson, and therein lies the problem. The threshold for removal will have to be low enough to bring Lord Mandelson’s behaviour within scope, which means that removal will almost certainly not be limited to Peers who have been convicted of a criminal offence. It will of necessity be retrospective, since the sins that the Government want to punish Lord Mandelson for are those he has already committed. I fear the threshold will be something along the lines of bringing the House into disrepute.
I know from numerous cases the Free Speech Union has fought that this is a nebulous standard, easily weaponised by political activists seeking to punish their opponents. I will give just one example. It is the case of Anil Bhanot, a Hindu community leader who was awarded an OBE in 2010 for fostering community cohesion. In January 2024, he received a letter from the honours Forfeiture Committee, which sits in the Cabinet Office, informing him that it was minded to recommend he be stripped of his OBE because he had
“brought the honours system into disrepute”.
What had he done? Following a campaign by Muslim activists, the committee had received a number of complaints about replies that Mr Bhanot made to social media posts some three years earlier, regarding the murder of Hindus by mobs of Islamists in Bangladesh. Those replies, according to the committee, were Islamophobic; it singled out one in which Mr Bhanot said that accusations of Islamophobia were sometimes used as a weapon to chill free speech. That argument in itself, said the Cabinet Office, was an example of Islamophobia. The same complaints that were made to the Forfeiture Committee about Mr Bhanot were made to the police, the Charity Commission and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. All three cleared Mr Bhanot, but not the Forfeiture Committee. It went ahead and stripped him of his OBE.
Would Members of this House be at risk of being stripped of their peerages for saying something similar, or even for making the same point in this House? Parliamentary privilege might not protect us, since the Conduct Committee can consider complaints about things said on the Floor of the House—and I assume that the committee would play a part in deciding whether noble Lords should be stripped of their titles. If that is a genuine risk, Peter’s law will inevitably have a chilling effect on what Peers feel at liberty to say, including in this House.
When arguing for Peter’s law earlier this year, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said the reason the Government are bringing it forward is to restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of Parliament. But if it ends up preventing Peers speaking out about matters of national importance, for fear of being accused of bringing the House into disrepute, it will further erode the reputation of Parliament and not restore it.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I too echo the congratulations to the two maiden speakers who we have heard so far this evening: the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, who I worked closely with when I was a shadow schools Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater. I particularly enjoyed his devastating critique of the previous Conservative Government’s policy on music in education and hope to hear much more of it from him during his time here in this House.
Culture is part of our debate today and this is Ivors week, because the Ivor Novello Awards take place on Thursday. It is the world’s greatest award ceremony for songwriters and composers. I should declare that I am a member of the Ivors Academy and I pay tribute to Tom Gray, the chair of that academy, and Roberto Neri, its chief executive. They do so much to try to enhance and protect creator remuneration in this country. It is also because Ivor Novello came from Cardiff, which is where I come from.
I praise the Government first for introducing and laying an SI, which many noble Lords may not be aware of, that will put the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority on a statutory footing, as an external whistleblowing authority for the creative industries. I congratulate both Jen Smith, the CEO of CIISA, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, on their work in getting that important body to this stage. I hope the Government will also take reserve powers to ensure it gets properly funded.
In the King’s Speech, we heard about the draft Bill regarding ticketing. I welcome that, though I wish it was more than a draft Bill. It was one of the recommendations in my own recently published report, commissioned by the Culture Committee in the Commons, on live and electronic music. It contained what I call the seven essentials of live music: celebration, by embracing live music not just for money-making but as a public good; grass roots, by nurturing grass-roots and community live music for its own sake and as an incubator of future success; safety, by prioritising fans from harm of injury, crime, violence, harassment and discrimination at live events; accessibility, by thinking and acting accordingly at all times; transport, by making live music a central part of transport policy; having a voice to promote and support the voice of music fans; and ticketing, by treating fans with respect, providing transparency and ending rip-off practices.
I hope that the Government come forward sooner rather than later with the actual Bill and introduce it to Parliament. I hope that, when they do so, they also put into the Bill another recommendation in my report: to at least take the powers to put the live trust levy, which is currently voluntary, on a statutory basis to ensure that it is properly funded.
Last week I attended the Great Escape music event in Brighton, which promotes new music, where I met a young man called Isaac Neilson. He is a working-class artist from the Derbyshire town of Buxton who has been trying to build his career as an artist and songwriter since 2022. Isaac is performing a gig every day in 2026 to try to build his career. He is currently on day 139 of that challenge. If any noble Lords, or anyone else listening to this debate, has any venues in their area that they think he might be able to perform at, I hope they will offer him that opportunity.
I want to mention one other thing to the Government, which concerns recorded music. Battery Studios, one of our iconic studios, is in danger of closure and redevelopment. We ought by now to have measures to designate assets of cultural value to protect such places, where everyone from Paul McCartney to Kylie Minogue have recorded.
Baroness Leaman (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, for the past seven years, I have served as chief of staff to my right honourable friend Sir Ed Davey. While I declare this interest, I must say that it has not all been wet suits and splash parks. I am not sure that my new leader, my noble friend Lord Purvis, is up for bungee jumping between votes on College Green either.
Together with an extraordinary team of colleagues, including my noble friend Lord Dixon, whose own maiden speech I am very excited to hear later in this debate, Ed and I had the task of rebuilding our party. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats returned our largest number of MPs in a century. I say this because it matters. With populism on the rise across the world, it matters that we have a thriving liberal force in this country: one committed to holding Governments to account when they fall short, and, crucially, prepared to stand firm against those who would drag our politics and our communities to the extremes of left or right. Division and demagoguery are not inevitable, but they must be resisted, and I intend to play my part in that resistance from these Benches.
In joining this House I follow in the footsteps of many former political staffers across all Benches. I would like to acknowledge two of them in particular today: my sponsors and friends, my noble friends Lady Grender and Lady Suttie. They have been generous mentors to me over many years, providing wise counsel, encouragement, wine and, on occasion, the perfectly timed piece of rather blunt advice. While I thank them, I also thank Black Rod, our doorkeepers and attendants and staff across this House for their support and good humour in helping me find my way at this end of the Palace, as well as our wonderful team in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office. I would like to add my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, on their maiden speeches, both of which gave a real sense of the contribution they will make to this place.
It is a huge privilege to speak in this debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. It certainly feels a very long way from Chipping Sodbury where, along with my brother and sister, I was raised by my lovely mum. Mum spent more than 40 years as a nurse in the NHS, promoting the health and protection of children and those who look after them. I was fortunate to be able to draw on the values mum instilled in me to support Ed Davey to tell his story of care, and to place the millions of unpaid carers across our country at the front and centre of our general election campaign to help make the case for those who form the invisible backbone of our communities—those who constitute an economy within the economy: uncosted, too often uncounted and still, overwhelmingly, women.
I am going to focus my remaining remarks on the families who are often part of that same story of care: children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the parents and carers who spend months, often years, fighting for support. The SEND system is broken. That is the lived reality of families across the country. Children are failed every day. Parents are forced into exhausting battles simply to secure what their child should have been entitled to from the start. Teachers and school leaders are doing their best in a system stretched beyond capacity. Meanwhile, local authorities are being driven to the brink by costs they cannot meet.
That is why reform is urgent, and why I welcome the education for all Bill as a step in the right direction. But reform will succeed only if children and families are placed at its heart. If reform means removing rights from parents who already feel powerless, weakening routes of appeal or disrupting settled placements, it will fail. This is particularly true for neurodivergent children. Understanding of autism, ADHD and other forms of neurodiversity has grown enormously, but support has not kept pace. Too many children wait years for assessment. Too many families are told to come back when things are worse. Too many children learn far too young that school is a place where they are misunderstood.
I know this not only as a matter of policy, but as a parent. My son and daughter each waited three years for their diagnoses. In my daughter’s case, I am not sure she would have been referred at all had it not been for one teacher, Miss Holmes. She saw my daughter clearly when the systems around her did not, and advocated for her when she could not yet advocate for herself. But I think of the children who do not have a Miss Holmes: the children whose distress is quiet; the girls who mask until they break; the young people whose underlying neurodivergence is missed, as my own was.
The challenges within the SEND system are complex and fixing them will not be cost-free, but failure is not cost-free either. We pay for delay in crisis placements, parental exhaustion, children’s mental health and lost potential. I look forward to working with colleagues across this House, of all parties and none, to make the case for children who cannot wait, for the families who should not have to fight, and for a country that is at its best when it sees, hears and values every child.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the speech of my noble friend Lady Leaman, of Chipping Sodbury. I congratulate her on setting out with her customary clarity the important case of neurodiversity in children. They will have a great new champion in this House. I also welcome the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater.
Having worked with my noble friend for over a decade, her dedication to SEND issues comes as no great surprise. Our collaboration started with a request from her for mentoring. To be honest, she showed such political know-how that I have never quite been sure whether it was me doing the mentoring or her. My noble friend Lady Leaman has political intuition, tenacity and a level of drive that leaves most people who work with her sprinting to keep up. Being a chief of staff to a party leader, as many on these Benches and others know, is one of the toughest leadership roles in any political party. To take on that challenge at a point when the question was whether that party would continue to exist, helping to deliver the best general election result in a century, shows extraordinary strategic leadership and skill.
My noble friend Lady Leaman worked alongside Sir Ed Davey and told his story of care, humanity and love with something that everyone involved in caring recognised. She managed to make it moving, human and just a little bit of fun too. Her ability to put care and social care at the heart of politics, alongside her experience working for Save the Children, means that I look forward to her future work in this House with some relish.
I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Dixon. I should declare an interest, in that he was my boss for three years when I was director of communications for the Liberal Democrats. He was a brilliant chief executive and friend. I thank him, my noble friend Lady Leaman and Dave McCobb, our campaigning guru and Hull luminary, for being part of a leadership team that was one of the best experiences of my life.
Sadly, we are seeing the opposite of teamwork at the moment in the House of Commons, and I fear for its programme. These plans lack the ambition and urgency we seriously need. For too long, communities have suffered while water companies profited, polluted our rivers and seas and let their customers down. The water Bill is therefore welcome. But the Government already hold many of the powers they need to act. Stronger enforcement of existing rules should accompany any new legislation.
We continue to believe that the Government should go much further on transparency, stronger regulation and ending the broken financial model that has failed customers and the environment and simply rewarded the shareholders. The Government’s own environmental improvement plan points to important work on water farming, land use and food. However, the gracious Address—and debates this week—had a lack of information about the all-important issue of Defra, and the Government do not yet show the urgency or ambition needed to deliver.
The Address is also striking for what it leaves out on food security, at a time when affordable food and domestic production matter more than ever. There is still no clear plan to back British farmers or strengthen our resilience. That matters, because food security is national security. Urgent measures are needed on sustainable food production, food affordability and farming resilience. Unfortunately, for years the Conservative Government neglected British farmers. Subsidies have fallen by 20% in real terms since 2015, and now Labour is cutting further. Our over-reliance on imports, alongside continuing energy price pressures, leaves food inflation as a real danger. Who is exposed? It is the poorest families who are exposed. In February of this year, these risks were raised in a joint letter from 100 food companies that called for a White Paper and legislation to confront these problems.
The Government promised to legislate to end peat sales, but without a timetable. That is not good enough. We need to meet environmental commitments and restore business confidence to UK horticulture. On water, farming, food security and nature, the Government must move at the speed of the current crisis, not at the glacial pace of their own internal wrangling. We on these Benches will be on their case on these issues.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman; it is excellent to have another woman on our Benches. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, on their excellent speeches. We look forward to hearing much more from all of them as they move forward.
Three of the themes for today’s humble Address debate—education, culture and technology—offer the ideal context to highlight the benefits of aligning them more effectively in our work in schools. I declare my interest as chair of Camden STEAM. Central to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act and the forthcoming SEND Bill, which together will do so much to improve opportunities for all, is the introduction of the new national curriculum. Its ambition—to be cutting edge and fit for purpose—is essential if we are to equip children and young people for their future lives and work. Digital and creative entitlements have emerged as priorities, as has the critical area of media literacy within that.
Officials are currently working on what that will mean in practice, at a time when the intersection between the national curriculum, creative digital skills and online safety continues to ever intertwine. Ofcom has a statutory regulatory duty regarding the national curriculum, which, in practice, is developmental and advisory and does not extend to curriculum design. However, Ofcom’s research, guidance and regulatory expectations for platforms have significant implications for what children need to learn to participate safely and creatively.
Ofcom defines media literacy as
“the ability to use, understand and create media and communications”
across a range of platforms. The Department for Education, while not using a specific definition, currently emphasises thinking critically, understanding and evaluating digital technologies and participating safely in civic life. The difference is striking. The DfE’s framing omits “using and creating”—activities children are already immersed in, and which make learning practical, relevant and come alive. I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that bringing together the best of both approaches and aligning them at this development stage is essential. Will the Minister act to help support positive progress in this area?
A further concern is that media literacy at post-16 was not addressed by the national curriculum review. There are currently A-levels in film and media arts, and other related qualifications. The answer may be that, within the national curriculum review, there was no definition of the arts used beyond the distinction between core and foundation subjects set out in the current legislation. As that did not include the GCSEs and A-levels in film and media, they were not considered. Why were they not included? Officials report that those decisions were taken as part of earlier curriculum reforms, with no detailed record as to why, although we may all have our thoughts on that—Mickey Mouse is wandering across my eye.
The latest review was asked to refresh the curriculum and address growth, innovation and the future of work. It has done that in many areas, yet on this issue it chose to look backwards rather than forward. At a time when these subjects are fundamental to creative and digital knowledge and the foundational skills that are needed both for media literacy and roles right across the economy, both now and in the future, they remain the only expressive arts sitting outside the curriculum and the remit of the National Centre for Arts and Music Education. That stands in stark contrast to much international practice.
I look forward to the urgent establishment of the advisory committee, recommended in the review of Arts Council England by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, to establish something that aligns the work between DfE, DCMS and anchor stakeholders. If it had been in place, perhaps we would not be in this position. I ask my noble friend the Minister to see if a deep dive exercise into film and media arts can now be commissioned to address this omission and find a positive way forward. I look forward to her reply.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin by marking the sad and sudden loss of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as did the noble Lord, Lord Horam, last Thursday. Professor Lord Skidelsky’s distinction as an economist and historian was a shining advertisement for the excellence of UK higher education. He was also a stimulating colleague and friend to many of us in this House. I congratulate all the maiden speakers, singling out my noble friend Lord Hobby, if only because he is my very welcome roommate.
I wish to speak about education and culture. Both are central to the sort of society that I believe all noble Lords wish to promote and live in, but they are also vital drivers of economic growth, directly and indirectly, short-term and long-term. In the context of education, I declare an interest as a trustee of LAMDA for a few more months, and, in relation to the creative industries, as a director of Digbeth Loc. Studios and the Theseus Agency.
The gracious Speech did not contain a lot on education in general and higher education in particular, although I welcome the education for all Bill—even if the devil is likely to be in the detail. Nearly three years ago, the Industry and Regulators Committee of your Lordships’ House, in its report on the OfS and higher education, flagged the looming financial crisis for the sector. The OfS, backseat-driven by the last Government, insisted that all was well. Since then, the accuracy of these predictions has unfortunately become ever clearer.
Mergers such as those recently announced between the Universities of Greenwich and Kent, and King’s College London and Cranfield University, may bring some improved resilience to the sector, but these will not solve the chronic underfunding described by my noble friends Lord Isaac and Lord Smith. The OfS funding for smaller, specialist institutions is an essential support for world-leading conservatoires and other institutions. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the process for awarding the next round of these grants will begin? The OfS requires universities to provide rolling five-year financial forecasts, yet, too often, decisions on grants, essential to an institution’s viability, have been left until the last minute.
The funding crisis in the cultural and arts sector is if anything even greater than that in higher education. The Hodge review, which I hope we will get the opportunity to debate in this House before the Summer Recess, set out a number of modest recommendations for increasing funding. Although the Government accepted these and all the review’s recommendations, they will only scratch the surface of the funding gap. From where will the rest of this gap be plugged? It should have been, as I have previously argued, from the lottery, where the new operator, awarded the licence under the last Government without any enforceable sanctions for failing to deliver on its ambitious financial promises, is struggling to maintain even previous levels of support for good causes. What does my noble friend the Minister intend to do to ensure that the lottery operator delivers on its promises?
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, we have heard three wonderful maiden speeches, each distinct in its own way. I can see clearly that each of our contributors today will make an important contribution to our future debates, and I congratulate them all.
I will focus on the proposed SEND changes in the forthcoming education Bill. Perhaps the House will be surprised that I do not intend, for once, to single out autism, because I hope to cover this in more detail on 10 June, when we debate the Select Committee report on the Autism Act 2009. My noble friend Lord Touhig flagged up many issues of concern in the legislation as far as autism is concerned. That SEND needs to be reformed is not disputed but, following the Government’s consultation, we are short on the detail. This has raised concern, particularly from charities, parents and professionals. So today I will ask questions that I expect to be raised during the course of the Bill and that I hope will give the Minister an opportunity to do a bit of prep before the Second Reading begins.
If children are no longer to have education and care plans—ECPs—how do the Government intend that both education and health will be brought together to provide a whole-person plan? They do not work well together now, except in casework that has reached a crisis. Something needs to be done to make this more mainstreamed for a much wider group of children.
Following on from that, how do the Government plan to deal with long waiting times for assessment involving both health and education? If it is the case that intervention will begin before assessment, does that mean that children will be grouped under umbrella labels, and how will that affect the concept of “No decision about me without me”? It is a good thing to seek to provide more support and services, but will the Bill provide more detail about the number of staff needed, their funding and, most importantly, their training? We are looking at a very wide range of disabilities, with many comorbidities. Without specialist training, this merely provides staffing at best to manage children in the classroom, as opposed to educating them in the broadest sense of the word—academically where you can—to build confidence, speech and language, mobility, and independence, which is so important, as the child develops.
Compared with the present, is it intended that children who are assessed and diagnosed will be treated under umbrella terminology rather than a specific diagnosis, even when that diagnosis has been provided by a clinician? How do the Government view the changes in the Bill impacting when schooling is over? How will they prevent the cliff face between further or higher education and, ultimately, employment, and of course independent living? Will specialist schools currently providing all these post-16 facilities for disabled children be affected? If so, what analysis have the Government made of how they will be affected? Where do the Government see parents’ role in the SEND programme? Will parental rights be diminished? How easy will it be for parents to challenge decision-making?
Disabled children live longer than they did previously and they have higher expectations when they leave school. I hope this Bill will ensure that this improvement continues.
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, to govern is to choose, and I commend the Government on their choices in the areas covered today: in education, their choice to start change with early years; in culture, their choice to put arts back on the curriculum; in technology, their choice to harness the power of the digital age to change and improve access to public services; and, in energy, their choice to invest in the transition to green power. So I welcome the education for all Bill, the digital access to services Bill and the energy independence Bill.
However, I will focus my contribution on culture. In a world where truth is made to look like lies and lies to look like truth, both social media and the BBC become vital. I wait with huge interest for the Government’s response to the consultation on social media, and I support the Government’s steadfast commitment to the BBC. Why are these two issues so important to me? I know, like many noble Lords, that the most important thing is truth, which is the cornerstone of any strong democracy. I believe it has to be safeguarded, protected and fought for.
The BBC is one of our country’s greatest assets in that fight, and I welcome my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to ending the cycle of charter renewal. But I also believe that the BBC needs the resources to invest in local, national and international journalism, because that is the front line of the fight for truth. I also believe that tech and social media companies should be under the same obligations of truth. That means less talk and more doing when it comes to the protection of children from harmful content.
When the Government bring forward their recommendations after the consultation closes, they should put themselves on the side of parents as they struggle with this new media age. They should introduce a ban on mobile phones in school, they should strengthen the enforcement of age restriction, they should remove anonymity from social media users and they should work with other countries to turn tech and social media platforms into publishers, responsible for the content that they produce. I also believe that the Government should bring in the long-overdue independent press regulator. That is what a fight for truth looks like.
This King’s Speech is a choice. It is a choice to govern from the centre ground. It is a choice not to govern from the extreme left or the extreme right. It is a choice to spend more on public services, because we have seen the chaos and harm of not doing so. This is a King’s Speech that I believe makes the right choices to further strengthen our economic security, our energy independence and our national security. But there are also cultural choices, and we will see those unfold over this Session. I remain hopeful that the choices will be rooted in the values of my party and my country, but also the battle for truth.
Before I sit down, I too will congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, on their maiden speeches, and I look forward to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, in a few moments.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, we have been lucky to hear three absolutely first-class maiden speeches today. I look forward to a fourth in just a few moments—no pressure. In the last King’s Speech debate, in July 2024, I praised the Government’s ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate by helping 2 million people from welfare into work. Now, 22 months on, the figure required is 2.2 million, meaning the target is 10% more difficult to reach. In the same timeframe, we have seen unemployment increase from 1.4 million to the 1.8 million announced this morning, with those signed off with no requirement to seek work up from 2.7 million to 4.2 million. I want to focus on one cohort within those figures, the 960,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training—another figure which has increased since 2024.
The Prime Minister called the gracious Speech
“a King’s Speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands, and who work hard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/26; col. 24.]
Last Monday, he said that
“incremental change won’t cut it”.
For the 1 million NEETs, there is a mismatch between the Government’s programme and their rhetoric. To tackle a NEETs crisis, it should have included a Bill to ensure that our education system properly prepares young people for employment. It should have included a Bill to reform welfare so it is targeted at those who genuinely need it, rather than those who can work. It should have included a Bill to help businesses create jobs and provide training opportunities, an essential element to get Britain working. To be fair, the Government have said they will respond to the Milburn review, but the hole in the King’s Speech on NEETs betrays the Government’s view that new legislation is not required to solve the crisis.
What will happen between now and the next King’s Speech? The rate of change is likely to accelerate, but at the foothills of the AI transition. British Chambers of Commerce research suggests that AI use has doubled since 2024, with the majority of businesses now using it. By the time of the next King’s Speech, its use will be universal. Our labour market is therefore heading for a fundamental shift. Taking King’s and Queen’s Speeches as a barometer of how seriously UK Governments, both Labour and Conservative, are taking AI is revealing. Of the six gracious Speeches since the 2019 general election, AI has warranted just two mentions, once in 2023 and once in 2024. Trawling through the explanatory notes for those six Speeches, AI tells me that buses were mentioned more than AI, with 33 and 28 references respectively. I suspect that Claude does not realise how interested voters are in public transport, but when historians look back at this period, it is safe to say that the AI revolution will feature more prominently. In fact, I argue that there is a strong case that AI should have been the key theme in this King’s Speech, rather than an add-on.
To conclude, I urge the Government to consider a strategic AI review on a par with the strategic defence review to properly and thoroughly examine the impact and opportunity of AI. Such an approach is needed, not just to prevent the NEETs crisis from worsening but to prepare our economy, our society and the public sector for the future.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that when I saw my name so far down the speakers’ list, I hesitated and thought, “I’ll have so many speeches I have to listen to”, but I am so glad that I have spent the afternoon and early evening here, because as an ordinary but avid consumer of the arts, I have a whole new level of motivation. My learning has increased, especially listening to the impressive maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. I anticipate that my learning will continue further.
I want to focus my remarks this evening on energy policy. I would argue that the starting point for energy policy has to be the stark realities of climate change, as has been mentioned much earlier in this debate. The Climate Change Committee confirms that we are already experiencing more frequent heatwaves, heavier rainfall and conditions conducive to wildfires. These are not distant risks; they are happening now, and the UK, we have to be honest, is not adequately prepared. We see the consequences immediately, at first hand. As my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier at Questions, in 2022, extreme heat contributed to over 3,000 deaths and disrupted vital infrastructure. In 2024, the UK faced 50 consecutive days of rain and a number of named storms. Across the globe, extreme weather is intensifying, with enormous consequences. The evidence is all around us and the science is clear: we face not isolated incidents but cascading and compounding shocks across sectors, with threats to national infrastructure and global supply chains’ disruption and fragility. I do not have time to begin to list all the consequences that we face, but let us listen, as of course we should, to Sir David Attenborough, who reminds us that what happens over the next 50 years will determine the fate of all on the planet.
We know what we need to do, and what happens next is up to us. That is why the legislation in the King’s Speech is so important and makes it clear that it is time to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and accelerate our transition to clean energy. The energy independence Bill is central to the ambition of change. It will strengthen our energy security at a time of global instability. We have experienced two major energy shocks in just five years, and in fact we have been experiencing energy shocks since the 1970s, with increasing costs to families and businesses. It will help build national resilience—and I too sit on the National Resilience Committee. We need to reform markets, improve planning and produce better regulatory frameworks.
I also welcome the nuclear regulation Bill, because it will play a vital role in delivering reliable, low-carbon power. We must acknowledge the challenges in delivering nuclear power. Delivery is too slow and costs remain too high.
But all in all, we need absolutely to accept the need for urgent action. Energy policy has rightly been a central focus of government action and it must remain so. We stand at a defining moment. The Government must keep their nerve and focus with these measures in the King’s Speech. We must act to protect lives, livelihoods and the foundations of our economy. Inaction is the costliest choice. Now is the time for leadership, ambition and enduring commitment. We must not back off.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the three excellent maiden speakers today and wish the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, luck in a few minutes’ time.
I will restrict my comments to technology. Much of the gracious Speech involves and impacts tech, but I was sad to see nothing that holistically addresses the positive and negative impacts of technology, especially AI, on society. There was no resolution on protecting copyrights, no updated online safety Bill for the AI age, no approach to societal guardrails for superintelligence and indeed no AI Bill at all. Instead, there are various references to growth being equated with inward investment, and specifics such as the NHS single patient record and digital ID.
Noble Lords may say that it is right that tech is embedded in everything now, so it should just be part of each piece of legislation, but I think that that misses the point. We are living in an era of huge technology change. It is reminiscent of the late 19th century. Tech companies are more powerful than countries. They are making huge fortunes and delivering much positive innovation, but also great societal harm. We need to build the moral and legal frameworks for this new AI age, and in this regard, the gracious Speech is sorely lacking.
There are two Bills in particular that will be important in establishing this moral and legal framework but, unfortunately, not for the right reasons. The competition reform Bill will change how the Competition and Markets Authority makes competition decisions. It risks reducing the CMA’s independence. This matters because AI investment is like catnip for all politicians: we risk being bedazzled by short-term investment from these tech titans. In this House, many of us fought hard for the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, and I worry that the competition reform Bill risks weakening this regime as it only just gets started. Can the Minister say how this Bill will not reduce the CMA’s independence and how it will ensure we have fair and competitive digital markets rather than even stronger tech monopolies with faster CMA decision-making?
The second Bill that I am concerned about is the one on regulating for growth. The critical question is: what kind of growth do the Government want—short-term investment in data centres or sustainable growth that comes from competitive and fair markets? Will this Bill place beyond doubt copyright owners’ rights and prevent tech companies stealing their content? The robber barons of the 19th century needed regulation—anti-trust regulation and health and safety regulation—for society to get the sustainable and fair benefits that growth from their technologies promised. The same is exactly true for the digital AI era, and it is only if we regulate sensibly that we will get that sustainable growth.
Finally, what is missing is a legal and moral framework for AI that does not accept that “just because we can” means “we should” and instead sets out the legal barriers we wish to impose on new tech, just as we do in all other parts of society—a proper AI Bill that addresses child safety in an AI age and that puts to rest any doubts about copyright protection and starts the process of building genuine citizen trust, so that we can benefit from the undoubted upsides the technology could bring. Without that, I fear all these other Bills will not actually bring society with us. Like my noble friend Lord Elliott in front of me, I fear that this is a big hole in the gracious Speech.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we have already had three excellent maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Hobby, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. I am looking forward to our fourth maiden speech, that from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon; I am sure he will make it a great quartet. I congratulate everybody.
The King’s Speech proposed a number of really positive legislative changes to improve productivity and stimulate growth, offering much-needed hope. I think particularly of the Social Housing Bill, on which I will speak at Second Reading, as well as those on reform of water companies, tackling bureaucracy in the National Health Service, a defence housing service and calling out the awful antisemitism threatening our communities.
We have only one opportunity to speak at this stage, and I welcome the Government’s recognition in the King’s Speech of the central role education plays in driving economic growth, social mobility and national resilience, and their continued emphasis on skills, innovation and improving opportunity across the education system, including SEND reform. I will focus on higher education, an area in which the United Kingdom remains a global leader, and which is essential to the delivery of the Government’s ambitions for growth, productivity and international competitiveness.
Over the past year, the Government have taken several welcome steps to support the sector by increasing tuition fees in line with inflation for the next two years, by acknowledging the significant financial pressures universities face and by the retention of the graduate route visa to maintain the UK’s attractiveness to international students, who contribute enormously to our economy and society. It is also encouraging to see the ways in which universities themselves have recognised the need to evolve, to improve accountability and to ensure students receive genuine value and opportunity from higher education. In that spirit, I welcome Universities UK’s future universities programme, focusing on working closely with employers, communities and government while equipping students with the adaptability and resilience needed in a rapidly changing world.
Our universities are among this country’s greatest national strengths. They generate more than £265 billion in economic output, support hundreds of thousands of jobs, drive innovation and research, and anchor regional economies across the United Kingdom. It is a success story, but it is under strain. The current funding model is no longer sustainable. The value of domestic teaching funding has been steadily eroded in real terms over many years. Research funding is under pressure, with institutions increasingly forced to cross-subsidise research from other income streams. At the same time, uncertainty surrounding international student policy has increased financial instability for institutions that rely on overseas recruitment to remain viable.
This is not simply a challenge for universities themselves; if institutions weaken, the effects will be felt across our economy, our research base, regional growth and the opportunities available to future generations. The Education Select Committee’s recent report on higher education funding and insolvency rightly highlighted the urgency of these issues and called for a more strategic and sustainable approach— I echo that call today. The sector now urgently needs clarity on the proposed inflation-linked tuition fee mechanism.
There are ways forward, including practical steps the Government could take right now. They could protect the strategic priorities grant in real terms, supporting institutions with rising Teachers’ Pension Scheme costs, and maintain the balance of dual support for research funding. Ultimately, what is needed is a coherent funding settlement that recognises the full economic and societal value of higher education. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether she will urge the Government now to provide clarity on inflation-linked tuition fee uplifts and to set out a credible plan to secure the financial sustainability of our universities?
Lord Dixon of Jericho (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate. It is an honour to follow the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater. I am not sure whether protocol also requires me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, on the delayed moments of her earlier speech, as she did part of her maiden speech today.
Making sure that people have a fair chance in life has been the core of my work: at Victim Support, in government, at Citizens Advice, and at the drug, alcohol and mental health charity I was privileged to lead with the support of my noble friend Lord Carlile as chair of trustees.
I want to start my speech today by congratulating another noble friend, my noble friend Lady Leaman, on her maiden speech. There are few people with deeper and truer instincts about what is right and what is wrong, and with the courage to say so. It is good to see her step into the light.
I want to thank all noble Lords for their welcome here. This is a daunting place, and the warmth I have experienced from right across the House has been quite something. To all of those who have smiled, inquired or pulled me on to the Benches when I was sitting in the wrong place: thank you. This is a culture that is fragile; it is a hard and rare and precious thing, and I will do my very best to sustain it and foster it. I want to add my thanks to the staff team here: the doorkeepers, the attendants, the clerks and the wider teams right across the estate. They are always reasonable and always kind, and there is often a twinkle in the eyes.
I want to thank my supporters: my noble friend Lady Grender, who has been both impish and wise counsel to me, as only a true friend can be, as she has been for the past six years; and my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, sat here in front of me, who has been a kind and astute interpreter of this place, its customs, its history and particularly its architecture. If anyone ever wants to ask a question on that, I highly recommend his advice. Of course, I thank the staff in our Whips’ Office, who have guided me through this strangest of experiences with care, expertise and real attention. Most of all, I thank my mum, who brought me up by herself, in Jericho in Oxford—not the other Jericho—to believe you should be kind and that you should try.
Before I move to the matter of the gracious Speech, I need to declare an interest as the current chief executive of the Liberal Democrats.
I have always believed that the best policy, the best legislation and the best decisions come from truly understanding what matters to people, and what people actually do. That sounds obvious, but in my experience in lots of organisations it is all too rare. It is so easy to make assumptions from our own lives about how people will respond, and so easy to miss the nuances in what people say. One of the things I have most valued about the debate today has been the care and attention with which people have both listened to what others have said and tried to hear the meaning and motivation behind the words. It can be hard to get the words right, but the meaning and the motivation have been approached today in a spirit of generosity.
Since January, volunteers across the Liberal Democrats have held more than a million conversations with people across England, Scotland and Wales, asking them what matters in their lives. I mention this not because it lies behind my party’s success. Volunteers in other parties have also worked hard, but sadly that data on how hard they have worked is less accessible to me than I would like it to be. I mention it because I truly believe that that is how politics should work: by starting with, listening to and serving people as you find them.
A decade ago, I was at Citizens Advice, and the website there was written in very precise and technical language that got the law absolutely right and was completely impossible for most people to understand. With a brilliant team, including many people who worked on the prototype of GOV.UK with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, we took it from being used by 4 million people a year to 38 million people a year. That one change has probably helped more people than anything else I have done in my entire life. We did that by listening to the language people used, understanding the way people approached problems in their own lives, and designing our tools and giving our advice in a way that was simple and clear. If government needed to bend to how people thought about a problem, we made sure that it did so.
I have also spent countless hours in drug and alcohol services, where one simple change we made had a huge impact. The regulations used to require charities such as mine to ask an astonishing number of, frankly, pretty impertinent questions to people who had just walked through the door of a drug and alcohol service, which is one of the hardest things to do in life. Too many people would never come back, and our country has lost too many people as a result of the way it was regulated. Our front-line workers did not feel they had permission to do what they knew was right; but we backed them, and they proved the obvious, which is that, if you make people feel welcome and show them they are safe and that you care, they will come back, and you can ask the questions later. I am pleased that, some years ago, the regulator followed our lead and changed its requirements, so more people now get help and more people are alive because of that regulatory change.
In this Session, we will debate in Bills on modernising how citizens interact with public services and how we use technology to do so. I hope the examples I have given today give a sense of what I want to bring to this House in discussions with all noble Lords: a curiosity and a focus on what actually matters in people’s lives; the importance of emotion and dignity in our decision-making, as my noble friend Lady Leaman said in her speech; the opportunities technology provides if we start with people and put them before machines; and the need for public services to serve people as they are, not as we may assume them to be. As I start my work in this House, I look forward to many conversations on these issues, and to working with—and, in particular, learning from—as many people across the Chamber as I can.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, what a pleasure and what a privilege it is to speak after four brilliant maiden speeches. It is a special personal honour for me to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon. In 2016, I became the chair of a large voluntary organisation, a drug and addiction charity. The day after I accepted that demanding and unremunerated role, I was told that the chief executive was leaving and was going to be the chief executive of Children in Need—which he did. So I held on to the railings, as it were, and realised that I had to find a new chief executive. We had a formidable shortlist that included two internal candidates and a young fellow called Mike Dixon, a rising star in the voluntary world in social enterprise and benefit. He was irresistible, and we appointed him—and here he is today. He proved to be clever, strategic, eloquent and wise. He knew how to tell truth to what he perceived—possibly falsely—to be power in the organisation, and he led essential changes.
Shortly after he joined us, I was at a meeting with Hilary Benn MP. Mike Dixon had been in the past one of Hilary Benn’s special advisers, when Mr Benn was in one of his many roles over the years as a Cabinet Minister. I told Mr Benn at the end of the meeting that I had just appointed Mike Dixon as our chief executive. Without blinking, he replied, “In that case, Alex, you are a very lucky man”. Indeed I was, and I say to your Lordships that we are now a very lucky House to have the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, here. I look forward with your Lordships to his many contributions in the future, perhaps over the next 30 or 40 years or more, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, who made such a magnificent speech.
In the context of this debate, I will make some comments on technology and education in relation to children and the threat that gambling brings to their lives. I am not a spoilsport about gambling, by the way. Last weekend, I actually won £2.90 on the National Lottery. However, as a parent, grandparent, lawyer and citizen, and a Member of this House, I am very concerned about the potentially addictive exposure of children in their everyday digital environments to online temptation that could ruin their lives. I am going to speak, briefly and specifically, about loot boxes. If noble Lords do not know what loot boxes are, do as I did and ask your grandchildren—or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, who may already know.
Loot boxes are items within computer games which are accessed either through gameplay or are purchased within a game and offer virtual currencies, but sometimes ask for real money. It is the temptation to pay that real money they do not possess that is the real danger and may lead them to a life of addiction and a life that is shortened as a result. Actually, as your Lordships know, under-18s are not permitted to gamble, yet they remain exposed to temptation and all too often circumvent prohibitions. In short, I would urge His Majesty’s Government to classify and regulate all loot boxes as gambling. This would bring them under Gambling Commission oversight, ensuring a ban on access and targeted promotion that is aimed quite specifically at the under-18s as a vulnerable group.
Some loot boxes are completely unregulated and represent a threat to children and young people. There is an excellent organisation now called Peers for Gambling Reform, to which I belong, and it has shown, through evidence it has collected, a consistent link between loot-box spending and later problem gambling and potential lifelong addiction. This risk was acknowledged by the previous Government in 2022 in a consultation which fully recognised that link. This has been addressed, in part only, by the Pan-European Game Information body and applies to new games from next month. However, it is not retrospective, and young people for a very long time will remain subject to this egregious temptation which could ruin their lives. I ask His Majesty’s Government to apply the new rule to the huge number of pre-June 2026 games for the protection of future generations. As I said earlier, I am not against gambling, but I am against uncontrolled gambling and the effect it has on future generations.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I start with compliments and thanks to all those who have given their maiden speeches today; I look forward to hearing much more from them. I put on record my registered interest that I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
I want to discuss electricity. Electricity accounts for 20% of the overall energy use in this country. The other 80% is oil, gas, kerosene and coal, or a bit of home wood-burning—and thank heavens we do that, because there are countless times when winter storms regularly bring down power lines for extended periods. One can lend a neighbour a bucket of logs but you cannot lend them a bucket of electricity.
On a particularly good day, when there is perfect wind and perfect sunshine, the renewables system that we have, and that is planned, will overproduce the 40 to 45 gigawatts that the country uses. But if it produces more, we have to pay for constraint payments. Unfortunately, most days are nothing like that. More payments are needed to encourage gas stations to turn up, and we pray that France has some nuclear power to spare or that other countries, via their interconnectors, have some spare capacity to export to us. Although we seem desperately concerned about where our domestic electricity comes from, we do not seem too concerned about where the interconnector electricity comes from, because when it comes from Germany and Belgium, it is broadly coal-produced.
The perversity we have seen is that the more renewables we have in the system, the higher the price we seem to pay for our electricity—and we are already paying one of the highest prices in the world. That is because we have two systems: the irregular renewables and the backup that has to be paid for as well. There is an absolute correlation: more renewables, more cost.
If the ambition is to have virtually all electricity produced by non-fossil fuel means by 2030 then I have a bridge to sell the Minister. We have the problem of night and the problem of the Dunkelflaute—a fantastic German word for the high-pressure system which often sits across the entirety of northern Europe, often for a week or more in the depths of winter, when it is both cold and very dark. We would therefore need to overproduce a lot of our renewables, so that we may store it.
How might we store it? We might look to Chinese-produced batteries and to cobalt produced by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We could look at some untried systems, such as hydrogen or reservoirs that do not exist so that we can use hydro storage. All suffer from huge thermodynamic losses. That is just for electricity—that 20%; we have not even started to have an alternative to the 80% of energy from other sources. Hydrocarbons will be with us for a very long time yet, because there is no at-scale alternative to power jets to heat our homes and fuel our vehicles.
The recent Iran problem has proven some things. It has proven that there is an international price for LNG and it is pretty high, but there is not an international price for locally piped gas. Gas priced in the USA is infinitely cheaper than the LNG market and gas from Norway that we rely on is cheaper than LNG. It has certainly proven that energy security is valuable. It is absolute madness that we are considering cancelling or banning any future use of the North Sea while Norway goes gangbusters for it and we then buy from Norway.
There is a serious constitutional point that Parliaments cannot bind their successors, and that is for any legislation. I find it amazing that a Government who secured 18% of the support of this country can be allowed to consider such long-term legislation. I welcome any legislation, because it will allow me to highlight the problems of the UK’s energy security.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses on their excellent maiden speeches. In particular, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hobby, who, when I was general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, was general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. When the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that he said things very gently about which other noble Lords and Baronesses on the Benches were more robust, I think she was looking at me, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. But there is room for everyone in the House, is there not, and for different styles of address?
I welcome the Government’s ambition that the UK should be a country fair for all and a place where every child is included in the nation’s highest aspirations. Central to this ambition, in this legislative cycle, is the Bill being brought forward to raise standards in schools and to introduce generational reforms of the special educational needs system in the education for all Bill. The Government have already signalled the seriousness of their intent to mend the utterly broken SEND system they inherited. The £5 billion they are giving councils to pay off 90% of the debts built up supporting children and young people with SEND is clear evidence of that intent, staving off what would, in 2028, have been widespread council bankruptcies.
A long time ago now, in the 1990s, I worked in a school where children with physical and mental disabilities were included in the mainstream life of school, with a special unit which supported their inclusion. It was a wonderful place to work and to learn. Many of the children who had the support of the inclusion unit went on to achieve marvellous things academically, socially and professionally, which they would not have been able to do if they had been confined to a more narrow, restrictive curriculum, which at that time was usual in special schools. That school was Whitmore High School in Harrow, and its head teacher was a future Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert.
I applaud the Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson, for whom SEND inclusion is clearly a passion, for grappling with the Treasury to release £1.6 billion over the next three years to support SEND inclusion and to equip staff with the knowledge and skills needed to deliver excellence.
I should declare an interest: I am chair of the Teaching Commission. Our second report, to be launched this July, focuses on the implications for teachers and leaders of the 2028 dual introduction of the revised national curriculum and the SEND reforms, which I have already said I wholly support. However, I have to express a key concern, which was one expressed to the commission by a series of expert witnesses: namely, that the insufficient reduction of only 10% in exam time for GCSE students and the lack of consideration in the curriculum and assessment review, led by Professor Becky Francis, of adaptive, modular and authentic assessment methods which could better support learners with SEND, mental health needs or anxiety, might limit and constrain inclusion.
The delay until post-16 in providing a pathway for students who cannot access the mainstream curriculum has also been questioned. Why, witnesses asked, did students with low prior attainment and SEND have to fail at GCSE before they were offered level 1 and 2 qualifications post 16? The witnesses were clear that this delay will drive a deficit in inclusion.
A coherent alignment of curriculum, assessment and accountability is essential. Without this, the Government’s ambitions for inclusion, improved belonging and reduced attainment gaps may remain out of reach, and policy incoherence will continue to frustrate and demoralise the profession. I ask the Government to look again at this issue. The curriculum will not become more inclusive if its assessment remains exclusive. This is not what I want and I know it is not what the Government want. I hope that this issue can be resolved prior to 2028. There is still time and the will to get this right.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the quartet of Peers who have spoken their maiden speeches: my noble friend Lord Hobby, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, and finally the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, who had to live up to quite a billing before he managed to say a word but achieved it with distinction. While I am on the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that we should speak to our grandparents about loot boxes, but I think he meant grandchildren. If Hansard corrects the record, I am sure he will appreciate that too.
I want to speak about energy security and energy independence, which the Government committed to in the gracious Speech. There should be no doubt, since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the war in Iran leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, that there is an urgency to get policy right and to get on with delivering UK energy independence. Indeed, to oppose doing so would be an act of self-harm, leading to significantly higher prices for businesses and consumers, and to energy insecurity when it comes to keeping the lights on. Renewables and nuclear are clearly the front-runners for our future sources of supply, and both exist outside the international markets price regulation, which will enable the UK to be independent of the high price-fixing of international markets.
However, as a point of reassurance to those opposite who made this point, the change to renewables will not happen overnight or at the expense of gas and oil from the North Sea. The North Sea will continue, at least until the next century, to produce vital energy for the UK. Those who argue that this Labour Government are putting jobs at risk are scaremongering. I live in the north-east of England, where companies are pleading with us to go faster and further on renewables so that they can retain the skills of those employed in the construction of pylons, wind turbines and the control mechanisms they operate under.
By creating this certainty, the UK will retain these skills, and that is what the Government are committed to doing. The Government are introducing the energy independence Bill to ensure energy security, and the nuclear regulation Bill to pave the way for greater nuclear energy investment. Building on the Fingleton review of the nuclear sector, this will see an acceleration of the UK’s commitment to wind, wave, solar and a nuclear future, with improved light-touch regulation to overcome price gouging by unscrupulous companies.
From the starting point of 3% in the year 2000 to just under half of all our energy now, renewable sources are on the up. It is predicated that, together with nuclear, renewables will dominate the market for the foreseeable future. On 1 April 2026, we saw the first 24-hour period in which renewables met all our energy demands. Third-party intermediates, which operate in the business sector, are currently controlled only by voluntary measures and general consumer protection laws. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s proposal for them to be properly regulated by Ofgem, and Labour’s proposal to make sure that the country’s energy is independent and secure.
Can the Minister say whether the following statements are true? First, the Government will protect customers from international market volatility. Secondly, they will boost employment in the future industries for green power. Thirdly, they will remove delays in planning, especially grid access, and cut costs. Fourthly, they will increase UK resilience to energy threats. Finally, through GB Energy, they will quicken the transition and ensure that considerable benefits are felt by everyone.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in the debate on the humble Address, and I congratulate all noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches.
I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to tackling violence against women and girls and to ensuring that women can participate fully and equally in our society. I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image-based sexual abuse, and as a member of the advisory board for Arãya Ventures, a venture capital company.
Noble Lords will know that I have long raised concerns about the rise of tech-facilitated abuse, which continues to disproportionately target women and girls. Against that backdrop, I was disappointed by the lack of online safety provisions in the humble Address. I fear that, once again, your Lordships House may find itself compelled to strengthen protections through ad hoc amendments to other legislation.
I was also saddened by the recent resignations from the Government of Jess Phillips MP and Alex Davies-Jones MP, with whom I worked on my previous amendments during their time as Ministers. It is troubling to read in Jess Phillips’s letter of the intransigence in government to delivering meaningful change in tackling VAWG. The Minister, in his opening remarks, stated that the Government stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate deepfakes on the platform. Noble Lords will remember that in the last Parliament, this House had to push the Government to include these essential provisions in the data Act to criminalise the creation and requesting of sexually explicit images without consent. These protections were then sat on by the Government for over seven months, and were enacted only in the face of the large-scale abuse of women who would have had criminal recourse had the Government enacted the available law sooner. This is not good enough. The Government must heed Jess Phillips’s warning and use this new parliamentary Session to act at pace if we are to tackle violence against women and girls.
On the issue of tech-facilitated abuse, I believe there is unity across this House in recognising the seriousness and urgency of the challenge before us. The pace of technological change is accelerating rapidly—from chatbots being weaponised to harm and abuse children, to AI-enabled glasses covertly filming women without their consent, to the continuing and deeply concerning rise in intimate image abuse. The revenge porn helpline has reported that image-based sexual abuse has increased by one-third compared to this time last year. These threats are evolving at speed, and we cannot afford complacency. I hope that the Government will adopt a more proactive and forward-looking approach to addressing these harms so that women and girls may live and engage online free from abuse and intimidation.
As the Government advance their growth agenda, it is vital that women are central to that vision for the future. We must ensure that young girls are encouraged and supported into STEM education and careers, so that the AI future we are building reflects the diversity of the society it is intended to serve. Women in Tech reports that, as of 2026, women comprise only 29% of the UK technology workforce, 19% of core engineering roles and just 13% of cyber security positions. If women are absent from the development and deployment of these technologies, we risk embedding inequality in the foundations of our digital future.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate all the Peers who have given their maiden speeches today. I would also like to endorse the speech of my noble friend Lady Bousted in all its particulars. There is a widespread agreement that the current SEND system is, as the NEU describes it, “adversarial, fragmented and under-resourced”. The current parlous state of provision has been worsening for more than a decade, with teachers and schools stretched to beyond capacity and families forced into exhausting battles to get support for their children. The daily challenges facing teachers is one of the reasons they leave the profession, and I know this from talking to them, including my own former primary teacher daughter.
Against that background, the ambition of this Government to change the system to meet the needs of all children is indeed laudable. The cap on independent special school fees to address the flow of public money to private providers is exactly the right thing to do. Experts at Hand is also very welcome. As for Targeted and Targeted Plus, many of us who were teaching when we had School Action and School Action Plus will be delighted to see the return of this. The NEU has campaigned for it, as have I.
As the CEO of Mencap has said:
“Families must have their children’s needs identified early and for them to be given the right help straight away, backed by services fully funded to do the job”.
I earnestly hope that all the resources will be found to meet the very big challenge of doing the right thing by all children and young people with SEND. As Nick Harrison, chief executive of The Sutton Trust, says:
“Schools are in a financial crisis that’s more than a decade and a half in the making”.
Little wonder, then, that not just the NEU but the NASUWT, the NAHT, ASCL, the Local Government Association and the Save Our Children’s Rights campaign all agree that if mainstream schools are to do much more on inclusion for every child, the right level of funding must be available.
In conclusion, I will just say a few words about further and higher education. The deepening crisis in post-16 education and the consequences of treating education as a market rather than a public good are clearly out of step with the Government’s ambitions. When your Lordships’ House debated the value of modern foreign languages teaching and learning, we were as one in agreeing that the value of learning modern foreign languages is very high. Yet such courses are being cut and sometimes, even whole departments in universities are. The logic of competition between institutions has not improved student experience. What reassurances can my noble friend the Minister give to students worried about the financial stability of their universities, when four in 10 of them are facing budget deficits? We all want the best for all our children and young people, so we must will the means.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate all the maiden speakers on excellent contributions and particularly welcome my two new colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, who are both taking a well-earned break. We are delighted to have them join us and we look forward to working with them.
I know the convention is not to repeat a point made earlier in the debate, but as number 48 it is quite difficult to find totally new things to say. However, I will concentrate on education within the many subjects of today’s debate. I thought I was going to say something new in talking about modern languages—and blow me, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has just talked about modern languages.
I am a former modern linguist, and how pleased I am to see that we seem to be rejoining Erasmus, a brilliant programme for encouraging young people to learn languages and experience life in other countries. Leaving it was one of the very many losses from Brexit, but Erasmus+ gives hope that the Government will be able to support this valuable scheme. Will they also introduce group passports and find other ways of enabling disadvantaged youngsters to afford life-affirming experiences? If we wish to be an internationally minded country, we need to be able to speak other languages. It is no good just speaking English loudly. It honestly does not get you anywhere.
It is a matter of shame that numbers of GCSE and A-level entries are dropping, leading to some universities having to close language departments through lack of applicants. A knock-on effect of this, of course, is fewer language teachers. Starting languages in primary schools enables children to learn so much more enthusiastically. What support are the Government giving to ensure that there are language teachers to enthuse and inspire the young?
Just as languages need a boost in our education system, so do life skills and practical skills. We should be ashamed that a million young people are not in education, employment or training; many of them will have been turned off learning by the largely academic curriculum so beloved by the previous Government. Yet the country is short of skilled people in engineering, construction, hospitality and crafts. Schools need to offer music, as we have heard already, and art, drama, sport and dance, if we are to maintain this country’s reputation for creativity. The creative industries are major assets for the country in their earning power and their power to make people feel good about themselves. We need to encourage the next generation to follow Tom Stoppard, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Lucian Freud. Well, perhaps not Lucian Freud; perhaps Tracey Emin instead.
This Government have made some good decisions in addressing the curriculum to give a focus on skills for life, moving away from the facts leading to university which are so highly prized, but not relevant for many learners. Can the Minister say when we will see a curriculum to cater for all young people which will prepare them for life, enthuse them about learning and help them get jobs the country needs, and which will give them self-respect and the satisfaction of work?
Please will the Government also review their draconian treatment of independent schools? Some of the smaller, more specialist schools dealing with special needs, music and dance are struggling with the imposition of VAT and taxes, which cannot be passed on to embattled parents. Not all parents at private schools are wealthy; some are just struggling with their children, who need a particular environment. We need to encourage talented and disadvantaged youngsters. Can the Minister say if the Government will review the very broad brush they used to extract money from independent schools? I look forward to the other speakers and to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, my arthritis is not very good today, so I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for speaking while seated. I will focus on energy, and I warmly welcome the speeches of my noble friends Lord Whitehead and Lady Curran, and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I add my congratulations to all our wonderful maiden speakers.
After the second fossil fuel crisis in five years, it is clear that clean power is the only route to energy security. Energy independence is a vital goal of national security, as shown by recent events in the Middle East. This requires increased production of homegrown, clean and affordable British energy. Faster action on the energy transition and climate change will help address many of the country’s most pressing challenges, including long-term cost of living, energy security and local job opportunities, and will have many co-benefits, such as cleaner air and warmer homes.
The energy independence Bill must strengthen us against energy price shocks for the long term and create thousands of clean, green apprenticeships and jobs. As my noble friends said, we need to get off the oil price rollercoaster. Energy independence must mean affordable energy for consumers, including private renters, not just more generation. We must secure a just transition for workers from old industries to new, and place tackling energy poverty at the heart of all relevant legislation. I wrote the energy poverty manifesto, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the European Commission. Now as then, no one should have to choose between eating and heating or cooling their homes.
To touch on culture very briefly, I congratulate Coventry City FC on their promotion and say, “Play up, Sky Blues”.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too congratulate the four noble Lords who made excellent maiden speeches today. I also congratulate Aston Villa, who are playing in the Europa League final tomorrow.
The Stone Age did not end because mankind ran out of stone; we just found more effective ways of doing things. Science, innovation and technology have historically brought solutions to everyday problems. Britain can be proud that it started the Industrial Revolution. We are now in the fast-moving artificial intelligence revolution, but the issue is whether we are leaders or followers, giants or clients.
One of the lessons from history is that we should learn lessons from history. It was my Bill that, in 1997, established Britain’s first ever comprehensive DNA database. As a result, we became the first nation in the world to embrace this ground-breaking technology. Nearly 30 years later, the DNA database has positively transformed the effectiveness of medicine, and forensic and research science. Of 195 nations in the world, 175 now utilise DNA profiles. I declare a further interest as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. I am also a former chancellor of Bournemouth University, which has its own specialist data science and AI department.
The King’s Speech included key Bills of direct relevance to the technology sector, including the cyber security and resilience Bill and the regulation for growth Bill, but there was no mention of an AI regulation Bill. Meanwhile, AI is being monitored in pieces, through the Online Safety Act and a patchwork of policies in various sectors. This is not the same as a coherent framework for the development, deployment and use of AI.
The cost of this delay is showing up most visibly in copyright. The dispute between rights holders and AI developers has been running for years, with no resolution in sight. Ironically, in the music industry, wealthy musicians such as the UK’s Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney have been speaking out on behalf of lesser-known creative artists, who cannot afford expensive legal fees to protect their copyright. Clear regulation is not the enemy of innovation, so will the Minister indicate when we are likely to see an AI regulation Bill?
The cyber security and resilience Bill is long overdue, in an increasingly pressurised, cyber-threatened ecosystem. In recent months, we have seen major airports such as Heathrow, retail chains such as Marks & Spencer and large manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover all immobilised by cyber hacking, so can the Minister say whether this Bill will properly account for AI stewardship?
The regulation for growth Bill claims to give organisations controlled environments to build and test AI tools, but I query whether this will be enough to support the innovation landscape and retain AI companies in the UK. There are numerous examples of UK AI start-ups that were created here but bought out by the Americans. For example, DeepMind in London was sold to Google; SwiftKey in Cambridge was acquired by Microsoft; and VocalIQ, another start-up company in the east of England, was taken over by Apple.
Earlier this month, I was invited to speak at an awards ceremony in America; it was the biggest AI event, presumably, in the world. It was backed by the federal Government and Wall Street. We need that here now.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I have no doubt that all noble Lords have seen “KPop Demon Hunters”. It is the most-watched original film in Netflix’s history and is of course centred around K-pop—Korean popular music—which is now a $10-billion industry for Korea. On the back of it, Korean dramas, food, cosmetics and fashion are all thriving.
Korea is not alone. It is just one of several emerging cultural superpowers. When we get home tonight, a billion people will have watched a Turkish drama this evening; every night, a billion people watch a Turkish drama. Turkey is now the world’s largest producer of television episodes. In a town called Mardin, more than a million hotel nights were booked last year just because it featured in one Turkish drama. Nigeria’s Nollywood produces more films than Hollywood and employs 1.5 million Nigerians. Finally, China is now leading in micro-dramas. These episodes, which are two minutes long, can be watched on a bus or on the Tube, and an entire 60-episode series is shot in 10 days for $300,000. It is a $7-billion industry.
None of this is happening by accident. These are results of a deliberate state strategy. The Turkish Government subsidise these productions, which promote their culture, by $100,000 an episode. The Korean Government are opening cultural centres all around the world. Meanwhile, we are retreating. For centuries, we have been the world’s leading exporter of ideas, stories, music, art, film and education, but today we are dismantling that influence. The British Council is shutting offices all over the world. The British Council’s library in Chennai has sold all its books and is shutting down. Our programme to teach English in Italy, which has been running for 80 years, is shutting down. We have stopped thinking of culture as a strategic export.
There is no reference to culture and the creative industries in His Majesty’s most gracious Speech. But this year, 2026, is a great year because, after 20 years, the next James Bond will be cast. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this year projecting British cultural influence will once again be at the heart of our soft-power strategy.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate all four of our maiden speakers, whose speeches were very moving and inspirational.
I have been reflecting that, if this were the King’s own speech, rather than the Government’s plan relayed by His Majesty, there would be far more on nature and biodiversity in it, as my noble friend Lord Russell said. That really is an immense lack in this legislative programme. Given that nature underpins our food production and what we drink, it is essential that we take better care of it. The only mention of it in the Government’s plans—it was not even in the King’s Speech; it is just out for consultation—is the trail-hunting Bill. I do not think that banning trail hunting will contribute anything to biodiversity; it is just a political choice.
What is far more important for preserving our British mammals and would command cross-party support—the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, introduced it as a Private Member’s Bill last Session—is introducing a closed season for hares. In England, they can be shot while pregnant, lactating or caring for young. However, Scotland and Northern Ireland have recognised how important a closed season is, and they have passed such legislation. I really wonder why the Government cannot just introduce such a simple Bill and do it.
The sad decline of hare numbers is obviously due to other factors as well, such as hare coursing and lack of habitat, but it does make recovery impossible where the closed season means that, as soon as the females are pregnant, they can be shot. The book Raising Hare by Chloe Dalton joins other remarkable books, such as The Leaping Hare, to show why we must protect these wonderful, iconic creatures, which are a really central part of our natural heritage.
I join my noble friend Lady Grender in welcoming the water Bill, but there is a lot of work to be done on it. I think it should be called the water and sewage Bill. It needs to be much bolder than what is currently envisaged. The fact is that, as the remarkable programme “Dirty Business” showed, we are poisoning our very rivers. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, chose to take the title of a river, because rivers need friends.
We are choosing to poison our rivers with sewage, but it is not only that; a lot of other things need to be addressed, such as the fact that the sludge that comes from industrial waste is now mixed with sewage sludge and spread on farmland. The run-off from that contains the forever chemicals that the industrial process is using. That is really toxic—it is entering into people’s bodies, including the bodies of our children—and is the sort of thing that absolutely must be addressed in the water Bill.
Finally, I ask the Minister what plans the Government have for educating children about nature. Obviously, there are forest schools and field trips, but we need our children to become nature champions. David Attenborough has inspired many, of course, but we need the next generations; we need the citizen scientists, who showed what was happening to rivers; and we need the activists.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, while there is a lot to be welcomed in the Government’s proposed new legislation, I will focus on further and higher education, especially skills and apprenticeships.
The Government have done a lot to encourage SMEs to take on apprentices, but the latest figures are disappointing, and we know how necessary these skills, whether in construction, energy, or the crafts needed to repair churches and cathedrals such as stonemasonry, are to so many of our industries. So many of our villages have thatched roofs, and we need the next generation of thatchers to preserve that heritage. Too many schools advise young people that university is the only choice and fail to tell them that apprenticeships provide a good career path, good pay and a guaranteed job.
There is another major challenge we face: thousands of young people not in employment, education or training. The cost to our economy is enormous, and it encourages young people to believe that living on benefits is an option—something we cannot afford and certainly should not be encouraging them to do.
Giving 16 to 17 year-olds the right to vote is important, but I hope we will realise that we need to educate them about the importance of their choice, and I believe that that should be from the age of 14. If we leave it until they are 16 years old, we will have missed a golden opportunity.
I welcome lots of the reforms relating to schools and education, but I still think we have a long way to go on skills and apprenticeships.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome all new Members of your Lordships’ House and congratulate them on their impressive maiden speeches.
On university campuses, real freedom of speech is vanishing. Please watch, if you have a moment, the brilliant speech Maeve Halligan recently gave at the Cambridge Union on how LGBTQ+ ideologies are failing gay people. Her student union originally blocked her from starting a group for women to meet with other women. Why? Because the group was not inclusive of trans women. Elsewhere, Jewish students in our country face appalling ordeals. The StandWithUs report documents bomb threats, physical attacks and doxing. A Jewish student at King’s was reportedly required to write a 1,000 word essay explaining why displaying an Israeli flag had been wrong.
Two-thirds of academics believe that their university would prioritise feeling safe over freedom of speech. This focus on safetyism is completely wrong. It is antithetical to developing robust adults who are able to thrive in the world outside their ivory towers. The Government have faffed about with the Conservatives’ 2023 free speech Act, stripping out duties on students’ unions, and I am very disappointed that there is nothing in the gracious Speech on freedom of speech, which is foundational to a successful society.
Secondly, I will touch briefly on SEND. The Government recognise that there is a problem, but nobody has the appetite to ask the very honest question: why are there so many more SEND children? If up to one in five children is now deemed to have special needs, surely that is an absurd stretching of the concept of “special”. The Government are promising more money. My noble friend Lady Spielman notes:
“Spending more money on a child will not necessarily improve their experience or outcomes. But parents desperately want to believe that something can be done, and it is easier for the state to be kind than to be honest. This may explain why we already spend £15bn a year—more than £500 from every household—on high needs SEND and children’s disability living allowance, with no real idea of what difference this spending makes”.
The recent explosion in SEND is not caused by profound physical disability or severe cognitive impairment. The numbers are driven up by autism, ADHD and behavioural disorders. The idea of neuro- diversity, which covers all these conditions, started life as a campaigning movement, and now the terms “neurodiverse” and “neurodivergent” can be found all over social media. Of course, teenagers seeking to find their tribe are drawn to these identities.
I have two psychology degrees and I learned in those degrees that every human brain is genetically unique. It is genetically diverse, so neurodiversity is a simple biological descriptor of every human brain. More dangerously and more worryingly, I believe, the converse concept is that there are some people who are perhaps unfortunate enough to be neurotypical, and that means that they are undeserving of any special help. I think that is damaging when there is no objective test to distinguish who is neurodiverse and who is neurotypical.
To be crystal clear, I do not doubt for a second that these children are being failed by the current school system, as we heard in an excellent maiden speech, but we lack evidence that the current approach is helping them. The next generation deserves better from this Government.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, in opening our debate on the gracious Speech, my noble friend Lady Anderson described our Government’s ambition as having one central mission: to build a more resilient country that spreads opportunity for all. The country in which we live is one in which talent is everywhere but opportunity is not. It is through our creative sector that we extend opportunity to those with talent, so I welcome two measures that will support that sector. The draft ticket tout ban Bill is a long-awaited measure. My friend Sharon Hodgson MP has campaigned since 2010 for government to act to stamp out ticket touting. I was proud to put forward this measure for the Labour manifesto of 2024 when I was the shadow Minister for Music, and it will be welcome to see it scrutinised as soon as possible, so that we can legislate to stamp out ticket touts for good. I know that music fans and others who buy tickets for live events will be delighted when that happens.
Secondly, I support the measure to grant new revenue-raising powers to local leaders in the overnight economy. When we travel to European cities, we often pay a city tax or tourism levy. Italy raises over €1 billion per year through city taxes. My noble friend Lady Hodge of Barking argued in her review that a modest tourism levy in England would ensure that visitors contribute fairly to the cultural assets they come here to enjoy. I agree with the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions that such funds must be fully ring-fenced and reinvested locally in culture, tourism infrastructure and heritage. I also totally support all that my noble friend Lord Smith said in his excellent contribution on keeping free entry to museums.
I welcome the Bill to strengthen ties with the European Union. Looking back to 2019, the EU was the largest live music market. Theatre is also part of our fast-growing creative industries. In fact, the UK’s performing arts sector supports some 244,000 jobs and generates £2.3 billion per year in gross value added. However, our exit from the EU has introduced significant barriers around visas, work permits and cabotage limits, and it has made tax arrangements more complex.
In a 2023 UK music survey, 82% of musicians surveyed said that their earnings had decreased because of Brexit, and 43% said it was no longer viable for them to tour to the EU. Our strengthening of ties with the EU must lead to solutions to these problems, which prevent UK artists touring and hamper growth in our performing arts sector.
Finally, I turn to two other measures announced in the King’s Speech: the competition reform Bill and the regulating for growth Bill. There are some key questions around these two Bills. The competition reform Bill seeks to streamline the work of the Competition and Markets Authority, but concerns have been raised, particularly by the News Media Association, about removing the role of the independent panel. I ask my noble friend the Minister: can the Government reaffirm their support for independent regulation by the CMA and say what safeguards are proposed to maintain expert decision-making that is independent of government?
Among measures in the regulating for growth Bill is one that will allow for the creation of AI sandboxes, allowing the testing and adoption of AI products. In the consultation on these AI sandboxes, or AI growth labs, the Government considered specific protections for IP and copyright law. Can my noble friend the Minister make a clear commitment that the UK’s gold-standard IP and copyright law will not be disapplied as part of AI sandboxes?
I end quickly by echoing the congratulations on the four excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today, from my noble friend Lord Hobby, the noble Lords, Lord Blackwater and Lord Dixon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. We look forward to their future contributions. It would be welcome to continue the debate on music education started by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness who has just sat down in thanking the maiden speakers in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, and my noble friends Lord Dixon and Lady Leaman. I think we are going to hear a wee bit more about them. I am very glad to have my two colleagues with me today, because I am looking forward to offloading on them a great deal of the work I am currently having to do. “Sorry, this is what you’re here for”.
What attracted me to speak to speak in this debate will come as no surprise to anybody. It is the proposed Bill on special educational needs. It was over 39 years ago that I made my maiden speech on the subject. It was then something of a novelty: dyslexia in my case. We all have our little part of this fence to jump over. It was, “Oh, haven’t you done jolly well to have got to university?”
It is not quite that now, but there is still a slightly patronising attitude in certain quarters, and there is always somebody saying, “Oh, just try harder”. It does not work that way. Anybody who has a special educational need and is identified as part of the neurodiverse community has a brain that works slightly differently. You process information differently. That is why you need special education—that is, different education—to get through.
When the Bill comes forward, the opening statement from the Government Front Bench saying they would make sure this was a part of how a school is assessed and how you do it is probably the first step that should be taken. After that, you will need a trained workforce that accepts that you have to get in and teach differently. Then you have to define what you are doing, and this is where I start disagreeing with the Government.
As I have said, I am a dyslexic, I am president of the British Dyslexia Association and I am chairman of a company, Microlink PC, that deals in technology supporting people, usually with disabilities but anybody who has got a problem—we put the package together.
You have to work differently; “special” here does not mean anything other than “different”. You have a different pathway through. In the case of dyslexics— I will stick to nurse, if the House will permit me to at this point—I am not going to handle huge amounts of written work or having to take notes; I did not in my education process and I have not in this House, but I will be able to do it if I use technology and listen, so this is quite a friendly place for me. If we bring that into the classroom and make sure people implement that, dyslexics—10% of the population—stand a chance of achieving their full potential. If the Government make sure people are trained and people are assessed, they will stand a chance.
We have a very short time to get this in place by the end of the Parliament. We need real energy here, and we need to make sure that people are checking that it happens. If that does not occur, we will not achieve and there will be another list of things which are not happening. It will be difficult to maintain this with the rest of this Bill as it goes through Parliament, but please remember that learning differently will give people the chance of getting out there so they can function independently for the rest of their lives. That is what it should be about.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Over the many years I have seen him performing, he has been a brilliant contributor and we need to recognise that, because of his educational needs, he brings a particularly important thing to the attention of the House. He has done it again tonight, and I hope that the Education Minister is listening because what everybody with any form of special needs requires is recognition that they are just a bit different from the rest of us and that all of us are different. I hope that message is taken up.
This is probably about the 30th gracious Speech debate I have attended, and I always try, meticulously, to follow the recommendations suggested for the particular day. My problem is that my main obsessions these days are climate change and employment and neither of them actually appears in the titles for the day, so I have decided to use the energy security hook to mention some things which, broadly speaking, relate to climate change.
In that context, I congratulate the Minister, my noble friend Lord Whitehead, not only for sitting through 90% of this debate, which I know from experience is a terrible drag, but also for making clear that, despite all the shots that we are getting from all sides, including from some within the Labour movement, our commitment to our net-zero strategy remains. I was disappointed in the Opposition for effectively repeating and underlining that what was a good cross-party consensus for about 10 years has now entirely disappeared. I am really glad that the Minister made it clear that our commitment is to energy security through the use of renewable and nuclear energy. That is the investment we need to make, and we need to recommit ourselves to that.
Perhaps I can pick up a couple of other environmental issues. The water Bill is absolutely necessary but, as two or three noble Lords have already said, it is not enough. I have always advocated renationalisation of the water sector. I recognise that is not approved by any party in this House, but the second-best solution is actually the rationalisation of the regulator. However, that has to be for real. The fact that we have two or three regulators regulating the same sector, while the Environment Agency—the main regulator, in a sense—was starved of resources for 10 years during past Governments has meant that, effectively, the regulation of the water sector has not operated. We need stronger measures than are apparently going to appear in the Bill to deliver the water sector that we need.
My only other comment is to congratulate the maiden speakers in this House, while recognising that this debate has been primarily about the education sector. The Government have to think again about aspects of the interface between education and the development of technology. I say that energy security depends on having a just transition for the workforce, but so too for parts of the wider workforce the whole AI revolution is going to transform the white-collar sector in the way that the energy one has transformed its blue-collar sector. We need proper and effective manpower planning for that transition which is going to take place. I hope that the Government, in focusing on not just the FE end but the whole question of training and retraining, recognise that the technology challenge means a much more effective, and much more interventionist, programme of training, retraining and planning for the future workforce.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, my noble friend Lord Blackwater, the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, on their superb maiden speeches. May I now introduce them and the House to the next frontier? The next 18 months will, I believe, define Britain’s place in the future of digital finance. The question is whether we lead it or follow others who moved faster.
I welcome the ambition set out in the gracious Speech, in particular the three Bills that speak directly to this challenge. The regulating for growth Bill, with its statutory growth duty and regulatory pilot framework, is a genuinely important step, but may I put one challenge to the Government directly? Industry’s frustration is not with the concepts of sandboxes and pilots; it is with what happens next. Too often, successful pilots demonstrate viability but fail to translate into scalable market change. The framework must include a clear pathway from pilot to authorisation, with timescales, accountability and presumptions in favour of scaling that works. Without that, we risk creating a more elaborate holding pattern, rather than genuine acceleration.
The enhancing financial services Bill is equally welcome. Consolidating the Payment Systems Regulator within the FCA should mean fewer regulators, less duplication and a more coherent experience for scaling firms. The proposed reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service also address a long-standing concern. Both changes send the right signal, but they must be followed through in practice.
These reforms matter because they are about AI, yes, but also digital assets, and these are no longer separate policy questions. We are entering the era of agentic finance: AI systems that will not merely analyse markets but act within them, initiating payments, allocating capital and managing liquidity in real time. The rules governing digital finance are therefore also the rules governing the next generation of AI. Why does this matter? It is because of AI credit cards, personal agents, programmable money and fractional payments for social media content, and many more use cases.
The world of money is changing, so it was good to see the Bank of England’s willingness last week, as reported in the Financial Times, to revisit its stablecoin approach following industry pressure. This is welcome, but it also reveals a structural weakness. Too often, good outcomes arrive through ad hoc pressure rather than by institutional design. To address this issue, I therefore ask the Government to commit to one specific measure: a standing cross-regulator and industry advisory group, bringing together His Majesty’s Treasury, the FCA and the Bank of England, alongside scaling digital asset issuers and exchanges and AI finance firms, both domestic and international, that are seeking to build here.
The decisions taken in the next 18 months will shape where capital flows, where firms scale and where the next generation of financial technology is built. Agentic financial services can become part of the engine of Britain’s economic growth for the next generation, but only if we are prepared to move with the urgency this moment demands. Regulators can move only as boldly as the political environment permits. It falls to the Government to provide clear direction, to industry to innovate and to Parliament to provide active engagement so that our regulators have the confidence to build systems worthy of Britain’s ability and ambition.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply distressed and depressed that I have to speak, as I do this evening, on education—though my account could just as well have been on one of the other days of debate on the gracious Speech. I chose education because that is where the current crisis of Jew hatred starts. There is a cancer at the heart of our education system: the antisemitism which the gracious Speech promised to tackle. Even today, after I wrote my draft, a report came from Parents Against Antisemitism describing how little children are reverting to the old antisemitic tropes and giving Hitler salutes to their Jewish classmates. Their teachers do not dissuade them, and the teaching unions indulge in Israel hatred.
Because antisemitism is now disguised as anti-Zionism, this paves the way for Jewish students to be subjected to systemic humiliation and violence. It is set out in the Union of Jewish Students and StandWithUs testimonies, which is horrifying reading. Jewish students have been accused of using the blood of non-Jews to make matzah, and there have been Arabic chants calling for the killing of the Jews on our reputable university campuses. The targeting of Muslim or Chinese students on allegedly political grounds would not be tolerated for a moment. University authorities have ignored the abuse or belittled it.
Will the Government ensure that vice-chancellors, head teachers and their unions are summoned to appear before relevant parliamentary Select Committees to provide an account of their institutional responses and use of their disciplinary procedures? Public appearance worked in the United States, where university presidents had to own up. Will the Government call on universities to regulate and ban encampments, occupations, face coverings and megaphones near classes and meetings, and for the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti- semitism? This is all compatible with freedom of speech.
The Government must acknowledge that Holocaust education and memorials have achieved nothing for students, except to teach them that Nazi symbols and parallels are useful tools for harming Jews. It has failed to teach them about Jewish history, life and Israel. The Government have gone along with the Jew hatred by recognising a State of Palestine, contrary to international law, when the hostages were not even free. They have cast Israel as inimical, and though Zionism and Judaism are distinct, we all understand that the obsessive focus on Israel, displayed by this Government and by the BBC, is not helping. They ignore worse tragedies in, for example, Sudan and Nigeria, and Pakistan’s expulsion of Afghans. Our right reverend Prelates should be going into churches and schools to tell them that antisemitism is wrong, and they should be leading the marches against it.
Well-meaning actors in the Government have got it all wrong. This Government have specifically and shamefully refused to allow the planned learning centre in Westminster to focus on the Jewish genocide and on antisemitism. They have universalised the Holocaust and removed its Jewishness. It is likely to be co-opted into antisemitic narratives and, frankly, the current plan is an insult to our intelligence. The Government should condemn the Islamists and the extreme left in this area. Will they overhaul Holocaust education and turn it into lessons about the living, not the dead? Will they promote a Jewish museum to explore the amazing 1,000-year story of Jews in Britain, their contributions and their survival?
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, my speech today is on education, and to ask His Majesty’s Government a variety of questions surrounding this important subject, which I am passionate about. This morning, in my capacity as chair of the Race Equality Engagement Group, I attended a round-table discussion with DfE teams that covered behaviour management, exclusion and alternative provision for SEND, including the disparity between those groups. As education is the foundation of all our futures, and for it to have the greatest impact on our lives, what steps are being taken to ensure that our education system properly reflects the diversity, history and lived experience of all those who have helped shape modern Britain as it is today?
First, can the Government continue to outline the measures in place to ensure that teachers receive adequate training and continued professional development in promoting racial equality and addressing racism within educational settings? Teachers are often at the forefront of fostering understanding, respect and inclusion, yet many still report feeling insufficiently equipped to manage difficult conversations around race and discrimination in the classroom.
Secondly, within initial teacher training curricula, are teacher training providers required to include meaningful teaching on Black history, the experience of minoritised communities and the impact of racism, both historically and in contemporary society? If we expect teachers to deliver an inclusive and informed education, it is essential that they are given the confidence, knowledge and tools to do so from the outset of their careers.
Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to encourage schools to deliver a more inclusive history curriculum—one that properly reflects Black history, migration histories and the immense contribution that diverse communities have made and continue to make to British society? Young people benefit enormously from seeing their roots and the richness and complexity of our shared national story represented in what they learn. This should not be done only in a month at the end of the year but be integrated into all parts of school life.
In considering these matters, it is important that we do not overlook the experience of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Too often, children from racialised backgrounds within the SEND system are misunderstood, insufficiently supported and misidentified within our education sector. There is a clear need to strengthen early intervention, to ensure equitable provision across both mainstream and specialist settings, and to embed lived experience and community expertise into developing policy and practices. Any approach to inclusion must recognise and address these disparities to ensure that all children receive the support they need to thrive.
It is equally important to consider the experience of pupils educated within a pupil referral unit and other forms of alternative provision. These settings disproportionately affect children from marginalised backgrounds, many of whom have already faced exclusion, unmet needs or disadvantage within mainstream education. There must be a clear and sustained focus on ensuring that these children are not further marginalised but instead are provided with a high-quality, inclusive education, a clear pathway to reintegrate into mainstream school where appropriate, and the support necessary to achieve positive outcomes.
I congratulate all the maiden speakers today.
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, explained the Government’s priorities yesterday: to “right past wrongs”, to “rebuild … trust”, to
“make sure that systems work as they should and to restore fairness and predictability”.—[Official Report, 18/5/26; col. 163.]
So I am bringing this week a new case of injustice—not new, but new for government to act on. I have met with a group of the victims of this injustice: Sean Davis, Brian Deane, Rod Wallace, Craig Short, Tommy Johnson, Paul Williams, Michael Thomas, Danny Murphy and Andrew Cole. They are part of the V11, some of the top footballers this country has ever produced.
They did what was right. They followed the government advice on the film schemes to promote the British industry, established by Chancellor Gordon Brown 20 years ago. Rather than squander their money, they invested it as government advised, with a company called Kingsbridge Asset Management. What is unique about them, as opposed to large numbers of other footballers, famous and non-famous, is that they were mis-sold. It is not just them; most footballers were mis-sold. Tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions, has disappeared. That money is gone, but, with those in this group, HMRC decided that it would pursue them in addition for tax on money that they have never had and never seen.
I have met with this group. They were persuaded in the dressing room by major football organisations and football authorities—people they trusted to invest their money in the way that government advise people to invest their money. They lost that money—huge amounts. But what really gets to their soul is that they are constantly pursued and have battled for 14 years with the financial advisers who mis-sold. The City of London Police describe it as “financial fraud”—those not my words but the police’s. It is not just that they cannot get the money back from there but that government, through the HMRC, then pursues them and continues to pursue them for taxation.
That is not fair or reasonable when you have done your best for your family. When working-class people suddenly get into money, be it footballers, sports stars or musicians, HMRC should have a direct hotline for tax, like they do for MPs, to help them pay their tax and not have the secondary scammers advising them, ripping them off even more and leaving them in the state they are in. The Government have a responsibility to get in and solve the problem. Working-class people making good, wanting to do the right thing, should be allowed to do the right thing. This should be part of, and will be part of, the Government’s agenda.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I must start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, on his powerful speech, rooted in his substantial career in education, and the other noble Lords and Baronesses who made maiden speeches today.
The education programme laid out in the Speech is strikingly thin. On one hand, I take this as a positive: it is widely recognised internationally that education in England has in the main been a major success story over the last 15 years, and I spend much of my time now, including this evening, talking to educators from overseas who want to learn from the success of our reforms in England. But of course it is right to address the issues of special educational needs. We have the worst of all worlds at the moment: a hugely expensive system that leaves many parents, and many schools and teachers, unsatisfied. We are labelling a startlingly high proportion of children, including a much wider range of children with lesser needs, and the incentives in the system can be perverse, and in some cases may even be contributing to reducing children’s aspirations and achievement. Also, over the last 30 years, the schools budget itself has increased enormously in real terms, and the share spent on special educational needs has risen inextricably.
The high needs block and children’s disability living allowance together cost every single household in England £500 a year. But this is still not achieving the desired outcomes, and those statutory priorities for SEND and for social care mean that local authorities have less and less money for all their other responsibilities, which is leading to the depressing downgrading of the public realm around us. The White Paper offers little comfort that this Bill will make the right kind of difference. I will pick out just three important points, though there are many others. First, practically, the plan introduces a huge administrative burden on schools, which will have to prepare and maintain an individual plan for every child with SEND—perhaps five or six times as many children as now. Even if these plans cannot be enforced by tribunals, they may contribute to pushing parent expectations beyond the realistic capacity of mainstream schools, and so actually worsen the quality of provision and fray relationships.
Secondly, the references to evidence conceal the fact that there is remarkably little firm evidence of what makes a real difference to outcomes for children with special needs, or what is unjustifiably expensive relative to its cost. It is easier for the state to be kind than to be honest. The sad truth is that much of the current budget could probably be spent much better. In the health sector, this is why NICE was set up to gatekeep health treatments, and I believe that a SEND equivalent is urgently needed. I hope that when the Bill is published, it will make explicit provision for building such a function.
Thirdly, I must point out that the most difficult questions seem to have been ducked, perhaps to avoid taking on either the powerful SEND lobby or Labour Back-Benchers. The proposals are not really going to focus sufficiently clearly on the children who have the most to gain from extra help, and costs will continue to escalate, with guarantees baked in, so a ready-made SEND crisis will be dumped into the lap of the next Government.
Finally, I must point out that the Minister made erroneous remarks about Ofsted inspection of inclusion and of provision for children with SEND, which he said Ofsted would be assessing for the first time. In fact, both were substantial elements of inspection throughout my seven years at Ofsted, including in the 2019 framework, which was unequivocally focused on quality of education for all children. Both inclusion and SEND provision contributed significantly to judgments of quality of education and of overall school effectiveness. This would be a good opportunity for him to correct the record, as this misstatement appeared in the Government’s consultation document as well as in his speech.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate our maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Hobby—it is fantastic to see someone with his experiences joining your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, and my noble friends and colleagues Lady Leaman and Lord Dixon, who I have known for many years. While I was listening to their speeches, I learned a lot more about them than I thought I knew. They are all fantastic additions to your Lordships’ House, and I am sure they will make many more fantastic speeches.
The areas covered today are very broad. I would love to speak about NEETs—I have worked on that for many years—but I will leave it for another day. I will do the same with Erasmus. I am very excited that the Government will, in 2027-28, at least go back to where we were before—I say this as someone who served in the European Parliament. I was on the CULT committee and, in 2019-20 we were very keen, as a Parliament, to triple the Erasmus budget, to make sure that more young people from across different sections of society benefited from it. I really hope that training is also a priority, rather than just the academic route.
For the remainder of my time, I will talk about the education for all Bill. For too long, our special educational needs and disabilities system has been failing the very children and families it was designed to support. Parents and carers across the country are forced into exhausting battles simply to secure the help their children need and are entitled to. At the same time, local authorities— I say this as someone who has just finished serving as a local councillor—are buckling under immense financial pressures, with SEND costs driving many councils to the brink of effective bankruptcy. This is neither sustainable nor acceptable.
The previous Conservative Government left behind a system in deep crisis, and reform is not only necessary but urgent. In that context, we on these Benches recognise that the Government have inherited an unenviable challenge and that difficult decisions must be made. The proposals for a more coherent national SEND framework, including a universal SEND offer and greater access to specialist expertise, represent a step in the right direction, but reform without children and families at its heart is reform destined to fail.
The Liberal Democrats have serious concerns about the proposals to remove and weaken parental rights to challenge decisions through tribunals. Parents already navigate a system that is too often opaque, combative and draining. To strip away the route of appeal would not reduce conflict; it would merely silence families, while leaving poor decisions unchecked. We will fight to ensure that legal rights are preserved, settled placements are protected and meaningful mechanisms of challenge remain available.
We are equally concerned that funding and workforce capacity are not yet in place to deliver these much-needed changes. A universal offer is meaningful only if schools have the staff, training and resources to identify and support need early.
Curriculum reform must proceed in lockstep, ensuring that, alongside high standards in literacy and numeracy, children receive a genuinely broad and balanced education. Creative subjects, sport and physical activity are not luxuries to be squeezed out but essential elements of healthy child development and emotional well-being.
Finally, I will address the spiralling cost of specialist provision. It cannot be right that private providers, often backed by private equity, extract excessive profits from the system supporting vulnerable children while councils struggle to stay afloat. We on these Benches believe that profits in this sector should be capped and steps should be taken to reduce profiteering from SEND provision. We must also expand capacity. Not every child will thrive in mainstream education. Councils should not be pressured into unsuitable placements through restrictive funding conditions or halted specialist expansion.
We support the need for reform, but we will judge this Bill by one simple test: does it make life better for children and their families? If it does, we will support it. If it does not, we will work tirelessly to improve it.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
My Lords, I too add my congratulations and welcome to all the maiden speeches today.
I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, NeuroBio Ltd, where we are developing a first-in-class effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Consequently, I welcome the relief mentioned in the gracious Speech under the regulating for growth Bill. However, I was disappointed by the lack of any further mention of government support for small, highly disruptive companies such as mine, since there are some clear opportunities being missed.
The first is R&D tax credits. It is estimated that for every £1 of tax credit, companies will spend an additional £2.30 of R&D in the UK. This creates jobs and value immediately, followed by an incredible dividend if resulting in a globally competitive technology. However, the rates of relief for R&D companies have shrunk, from 33% before April 2023 to 15% now. This change may provide a negligible uplift in the tax revenue, but it comes at a great cost to the company itself. Moreover, if we factor in the significant amount of time and effort required to make a claim, new administrative requirements and the risk of HMRC inquiry, smaller companies may give up making a tax credit claim altogether.
A second issue—this was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter—is that relating to women and, in my case, women in STEM. This is not just about fairness; it is about progress. Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive innovation and that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their competitors. However, one oft-cited statistic is that less than 2% of VC funding goes to female founders. We need a formal sponsorship program where senior figures in industry actively champion the careers of promising women scientists and perhaps a women in STEM talent bank—a centralised platform where women scientists in the private sector could access mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training.
My third point touches on education. Leaving aside, or perhaps in the light of, the time-consuming bureaucratic hurdles now required post-Brexit to recruit scientists worldwide, there is an even greater need to increase the potential pool of those who are already here. Although much has been said over the decades to encourage the take-up of STEM subjects, there is still room to do even more. One possibility would be to offer wider industrial sponsorship of university places, as already offered by the Armed Forces, in return for an agreed period working as a postgraduate in that company, reverting to a loan if the individual left early.
A fourth point is that there is little help currently available for a university academic who then takes the bold decision to transit way out of their comfort zone into business. I can say from my own personal experience, where I just had to learn as I went along, that entrepreneurial training and mentoring in the thrills and spills of the commercial world would be invaluable. It would give confidence, save time and ensure maximum productivity. Currently, there is no training on the basics of business or commercialisation for a scientist until after they have had their light-bulb moment—and even then it is rare.
The fifth and most basic problem is not a lack of innovation; it is the baked-in, oftentimes biased decision-making that stifles otherwise great economic impact. It is safer to fund small, transitional technologies at the cost of truly disruptive innovation because there is very little in the way of incentives or protections if an investment does not work out. Yes, we have schemes such as EIS, where the incredible returns are well acknowledged, but they should be expanded and strengthened.
The current state of affairs creates an incentive to back only very small-step innovations, to the detriment of truly transformative companies. This risk-averse mindset often forces disruptive scientists into looking further afield for funding. Too often, the UK is seen as a feeder ecosystem into the US.
Let us return to my own area of Alzheimer’s as an example of why this trend needs to be reversed. In the UK, current costs for dementia will be £42 billion this year, rising to £90 billion in 2014. It is clear that finding an effective treatment could have a significant impact on individual well-being, society and our economy. We need an improved national strategy across the areas on which I have briefly touched. A wider and deeper consideration of UK biotech in the gracious Speech would have been more welcome and more timely.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Lab)
My Lords, I have very much enjoyed the range and quality of the speeches that have been made this afternoon and into this evening. In particular, I congratulate those members of the class of 2026 who made their maiden speeches today. I am biased, but I think this is going to go down as a vintage intake and a very special one for the future—I would say that, would I not?
Before I make my comments, I declare my interest as a director of the Government-backed terrorism reinsurer.
I welcome the Government’s continued focus, set out in the gracious Speech, on strengthening the resilience of the United Kingdom in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. In that context, the cyber security and resilience Bill represents an important and timely step in modernising the framework that protects our digital economy. However, if we are to build a true national resilience to cyber threats, we need to think not only about how we prevent incidents but about how we respond to them and recover quickly when they occur. In that spirit, I will briefly highlight the importance of the cyber insurance market in keeping us safe.
Insurance is a vital but often underrecognised component of our economic resilience. It helps businesses absorb shocks, supports recovery, and enables those who have been impacted to get back on their feet fast. In every survey of leading businesspeople, cyber risk tops the poll of what they are concerned about, with a recognition that the capabilities of those who wish to harm us are evolving at pace and that we just cannot keep up. In this context, specialist insurers are well placed to help businesses, especially small businesses, understand the risks that they face and the mitigation activities they can take to protect themselves.
Underinsurance, however, is a real problem. There remain significant protection gaps across the full gamut of the risk spectrum. At one end, among small businesses, the take-up is worryingly low. A recent report by the Association of British Insurers, Small Business, Big Risk, shows that fewer than 20% of SMEs have any cyber insurance at all, and that percentage goes down as the business gets smaller. Many SMEs either underestimate the risks they face, particularly supply chain risks, or they find the market far too complex or, frankly, too expensive to engage with it. Statistics show that 20% of SMEs that experience a cyber attack will be out of business six months later. So it is an important element of keeping them safe.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the spectre of systemic cyber attack, which, while reassuringly remote, is still imaginable. A single event, or co-ordinated attacks, could generate widespread outages and result in correlated losses across the economy. This could be a direct action by a state or non-state actor, or even as the consequence of yet unknown vulnerabilities in our complex supply chains and systems.
The incident at Jaguar Land Rover last year only too graphically demonstrated the impact that these events could have on our economy. It is worth noting that Jaguar Land Rover was in the throes of getting its insurance in place and did not have any, whereas Marks & Spencer had insurance in place and made a claim in excess of £100 million. In one incident, the Government had to step in and make financial support and help available to Jaguar Land Rover, but they did not have to do that for Marks & Spencer.
We have to do this in a better way. Pooling arrangements have long been an important and established way for businesses and Governments to risk-share. In other areas of systemic risk, notably terrorism, which I have some experience of, we have recognised the benefits of public and private partnerships, so that the taxpayer does not always have to step in when a significant event happens. The creation of Pool Re back in 1993 as a response to a sustained campaign of terrorist attacks has proved to be an effective partnership for government and industry, enabling, over the 30 years that it has been operating, a fund of £13 billion to be built to pay claims in the event of a catastrophic terrorism event. This is money collected as insurance premiums that is then invested and will be spent before any Government have to step in—before we as taxpayers are called on to support organisations. There is now a growing discussion in the insurance industry, here and across the Five Eyes community, about whether, in time, a similar approach might be required for systemic cyber. I hope that this is a discussion that our Government will consider being part of.
As this important legislation makes its way through this House, I hope we will consider how the insurance sector could be better utilised and its expertise leveraged in helping to meet the ambitions of the cyber security and resilience Bill.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, again, I rise to say that I understand how important this debate is to everyone, but the speeches since I came into the Chamber have all been creeping over the four-minute recommended time. I ask everyone to be very focused in the last few speeches, to give our winders the opportunity to give a proper round-up to the debate.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate the four noble Lords on their maiden speeches, which were so inspiring.
I welcome the importance with which the Government rightly take the well-being of children. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, passed in the Session that has just ended, delivered the statutory backing for mobile phone-free schools that begins at the end of June and the consultation on social media that closes on 26 May. I thank my noble friend Lord Nash and others for their tireless efforts. These are not small things. They reflect a country waking up to the harms that have been done to a generation of children by an industry that profits from their attention.
In the limited time that I have, I will turn to faith schools. They exist because parents in this country have, for centuries, claimed the right to raise their children within a moral and spiritual inheritance. Faith schools are not a footnote in the British education system but a foundational part of it. Long before the state took an interest in educating poor children, the churches, the synagogues and later the mosques were doing the work. Today, faith schools—Anglian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu—consistently outperform the national average. They are popular with parents of every background, and with parents of no faith at all. Yet they live under a permanent suspicion in parts of Whitehall, as if private conviction was a public danger.
I will focus on the Haredi community, because its case is the hardest and the hard cases test the principles. It is with a sense of irony that Haredi children already live in a world that we are trying to legislate into being. They do not own smartphones. They do not scroll. They are not groomed in the small hours by strangers in foreign jurisdictions. They are not driven into eating disorders by algorithms. They do not need a Bill, because they have a tradition.
The Haredim are not trying to be different for difference’s sake. To them, the precise content of what is taught—the topics permitted and the topics deferred, the relationship between religious and secular learning—are not preferences but obligations. They cannot, in conscience, accept a curriculum that requires them to teach what their faith forbids. They are not asking the state to fund their dissent. They are asking the state not to extinguish it.
When they ask that certain topics, including aspects of sex education, be taught in ways consistent with their faith, they are not asking to opt out of being British. They are not being difficult. They are simply asking to remain who they are. The transmission of a 3,000 year-old inheritance from one generation to the next is not a lifestyle preference. It is, for them, a sacred obligation.
Walk into any Haredi classroom and you will not find a child scrolling on a smartphone. You will not find a child filming a fight in the corridor. You will not find a child who has been up half the night in the company of strangers on the internet. The corridors are not toxic. Truancy is almost unknown. The addictions that the Government rightly worry about—to screens, to vaping, to pornography—find no foothold there.
Let me say plainly what is too often left unsaid. There are Haredi schools in this country that have been threatened with closure by Ofsted: not because their pupils are failing, not because they are unsafe, not because they are unhappy but because their curriculum does not include precise content in the precise terms that the Department for Education had decided that every child must hear. That is not safeguarding. That is conformity dressed up as safeguarding. These parents will not hand the moral formation of their children to the state, and the state has no business demanding it.
My plea to the Minister is a simple one. In the pursuit of high standards, let us not confuse difference with deficiency. In seeking better SEND provision, let us not assume that one model fits all. In dealing with faith communities, let us proceed not with suspicion but with understanding and compassion, with the full consultation that this community are still waiting for and which is long overdue.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker in this debate, I want to speak about something that seems to be missing from His Majesty’s gracious Speech: a sense of the bigger picture and why it feels to so many as though the country “just isn’t working”.
Our public services and the services from companies that we rely on are just not delivering what we expect and need. We want water companies to take away the dirty water, treat it and deliver it back to us as clean drinking water. We are happy to pay a fair rate for that to be done as efficiently as possible. We do not want to be paying money directly into the large profits of a few individuals while our dirty water is being dumped into our streams and seas.
Likewise, we want to be able to use digital services to do things quickly and effectively, without worrying about whether all the information we put in is being used or sold by the company providing the service, without our consent. We do not want companies to use our children’s social and psychological vulnerabilities to hook them in to doing and sharing more and more online, so that they can be profiled and marketed to.
Unfortunately, the proposals in the gracious Speech to address issues such as these and many others, if they exist at all, seem to be sticking plasters of regulation or legislation, with nothing about tackling the root causes of why people feel that things are not working. We all know that it is very hard and very expensive to get a company or institution to do something that goes against its incentives or fiduciary duties. The Government appear to be making the profit or growth duties stronger and stronger with their proposed agenda. Instead of adding a new priority of growth to regulators or any public service in order to try to increase tax income that can then be spent on the expensive business of trying to remediate the problems, we need companies and public services to be focused on delivering what people want in the first place: the job they were founded to do.
People care about the environment, child online safety, data security and about every job actually being done well. We need the Government to design the basic incentives and the duties of institutions and companies to deliver these outcomes in the first place; to help ensure that all sectors of the economy contribute to the common good; to create incentive structures that allow companies and organisations to develop naturally in the right direction, with minimal need for regulation. Obviously, we can shape what public companies are aiming to achieve through their statutory duties. We can also help shape what private companies do, through changing their fiduciary duties. We need to be able to assign value to what people value, so that we can help companies maximise what people want them to maximise: for example, looking at longer-term outcomes, and mainstreaming natural capital accounting alongside financial accounts.
Even on a utilitarian basis, the services we currently get for free from ecosystems need to be valued before we destroy them and have to invent an expensive way to replace them. Peatlands have a certain value if considered as bags of horticultural compost or drainable agricultural land, but they have a greater value when considered on a bigger scale. Financially, it could be natural flood prevention, saving costs somewhere else. In terms of climate stability, our peatlands could be carbon sinks, but ONS figures show that we are still degrading them and they are releasing carbon dioxide instead of capturing it. The Government have still not announced a Bill to deal with this.
The same is true of how we treat digital tech companies. These companies provide a service to people that to start with is efficient and easy to use. But then companies start to try to maximise their short-term financial return to investors, almost regardless of the impact on all their users and on the environment. Again, it takes government to stand up for and measure what people care about—the service they receive and the protections for them, their children and the environments they care about—and then enshrine these measures into the incentives of the companies wherever possible, and, where it is not, to regulate on behalf of the people it represents.
Prevention is better than cure. Let us get the incentives right so that corporate behaviour follows. Then we might see the jobs we want done finally done well, because the profit motive will no longer be the sole driver.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—I think I am going to be the last Back-Bench speaker in the debate tonight—to congratulate the noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches, and to have the privilege to speak to the humble Address in the gap.
The introduction of the energy independence Bill aims to increase home-grown renewable energy to hopefully protect living standards for future years. While the direction of travel has been broadly welcomed across the sector, questions remain around delivery and infrastructure readiness. Unfortunately, grid connection delays continue to be a long-standing challenge for the UK energy sector, with renewable projects, battery storage and major developments often facing lengthy wait times to connect to the electricity network. Urgent support from government is required to build out as pressure mounts, and urgent expansion on grid infrastructure has to be developed at a really fast pace.
All this is set against the backdrop of unreliable imports. The possible opening of Jackdaw and Rosebank could be part of the UK’s energy security and reliability and would help complete the jigsaw as we work towards net zero. Skills are particularly needed where infrastructure is built, not concentrated elsewhere, and we must adapt similar occupations to new technologies, as engineers move from oil and gas into offshore wind. As the clean energy workforce is set to grow rapidly, demand will inevitably concentrate in sectors that already face recruitment pressures. I question what further proactive support is being given to those retraining—particularly, as I said, to workers moving from other industries with a relatively weak base—to ensure that jobs in the clean economy are of a high quality and standard, so that people will want to train and retrain into them.
In ensuring that the UK has a stable and competitive business environment, the UK steel sector is essential, as it is to the UK’s security. It has been severely impacted as a result of unfair trading practices, including market-distorting subsidies. The UK currently has some of the highest electricity costs in Europe, in part due to the social and environmental levies placed on electricity bills. The emphasis must be on reducing our electricity prices. Competitive electricity prices are an important enabler of the steel sector, especially as producers and supply chains transition towards electrified green steel production. High electricity prices hurt, and cut deeply into business competitiveness and reduce business confidence for future investment.
I turn finally to the issue of large solar farms and communities that are increasingly on the front line. As an aside, it is important to note that 58% of grade 1 agricultural land—the most productive and versatile land—is situated in the flood plain and 9% is at the highest risk of coastal flooding. Our food and farming sectors’ contributions to the economy must not be overlooked. The question is just how many acres of good-grade land are still determined at the planning stage, while the alternative sits waiting. Urgent action should first be taken to target large industrial warehousing, car parks and brownfield sites, which would therefore support food security as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very rich and wide-ranging debate, which presents some challenges on winding up. I am very tempted to take a leaf out of the book of the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, and just give a big tick to a number of the speeches that we heard. Perhaps one of my biggest ticks would be for the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman; she expressed pretty much how I feel on Monday mornings and I thought she made some very refreshing points.
I warmly congratulate my noble friends Lady Leaman and Lord Dixon, and the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, on their excellent maiden speeches and the thoughtful points they made. It is difficult to shine with 70 or so other speeches in the same debate but, in my view, they all sparkled. I look forward to many future speeches from them.
The noble Lords, Lord Hobby, Lord Isaac and Lord Touhig, the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lord Mohammed mentioned SEND provision and the Government’s proposals to fix what is, in essence, a broken system. This will involve earlier, more local support but autism charities—I am president of Ambitious about Autism—are clear that this must not come at the expense of families’ hard-won legal rights. Parents’ rights to assessment, EHCPs and redress must not be traded away for administrative efficiency, and every provider, including private SEND schools, must be properly regulated.
A number of noble Lords have referred to what might be considered very high demands on our teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, was extremely eloquent in that respect. I absolutely share in the support of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Willetts, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and my noble friend Lady Garden for higher education, but, of course, that comes with considerable responsibility in terms of how those institutions are run.
I also believe that our education system must prepare young people for the age of AI; that is one of its particular responsibilities. I declare my advisory interest on the register as regards AI. A dangerous skills divide is already opening up. State schoolteachers are less than half as likely as those in independent schools to have received formal AI training. The National Foundation for Educational Research projects that up to 3 million UK jobs could disappear by 2035. That compounds the issues raised by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Elliott, my noble friend Lady Garden and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—regarding young people who are not in education, employment or training, which is why we on these Benches have committed to a lifelong training grant of £10,000 as not a “nice to have” but a crucial lifeline.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to a broader computing GCSE and the exploration of new data science and AI qualifications, but, with the final curriculum not due until September 2028 and the AI qualification still being only explored rather than confirmed, the pace is simply too slow. We on these Benches are calling for AI literacy to be embedded across the curriculum from primary school age now, not in two years’ time, and to be woven into how we teach critical thinking, civic understanding and creative writing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, talked about the new proposals from the Government on ticketing. I must pay tribute to the FanFair Alliance, UK Music, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse, Sharon Hodgson MP and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—that is quite a roll-call. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for his fan-led review. I welcome the Government’s move to tackle industrial-scale ticket touting. The new Sporting Events Bill is welcome, but relegating the broader ticket tout ban Bill, which will cover the face-value cap for which music fans have waited for so long, to draft Bill status, despite the efforts of so many, risks years of further delay. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire —and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—we are rather disappointed at it being only a draft Bill.
My noble friends Lord Strasburger and Lady Bonham- Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, have powerfully set out the damage done to the creative industries by Brexit. The AI copyright battle is where that damage risks being compounded. The creative industries contribute more than £145 billion to our economy. The music sector alone contributes £8 billion, while publishing contributes £11 billion. We welcome the Government’s decision to drop the text and data mining exception. A functioning licensing market already exists. A report published by the BPI in May this year documents 274 commercial agreements between content providers and AI developers that are already in place.
As chair of the ALCS—I declare an interest—I can confirm that the narrative that AI developers cannot access content legally has always been a myth. These three things are now needed: mandatory transparency, requiring AI developers to keep clear records of training inputs; labelling of AI-generated content; and, crucially, that any AI model deployed in the UK must comply with UK copyright law, regardless of where it was trained. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, raised the same concern from the Conservative Benches last week. I directly ask the Minister the same question that the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, asked today: will the Government give a clear commitment that the UK’s gold standard IP and copyright law will never be disapplied as part of the AI growth lab sandboxes or under the regulating for growth Bill powers more generally?
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, on the success of the National Year of Reading already, as we are now half way through it. Emerging research suggests that AI’s very ease of use may undermine the critical thinking we are trying to develop. Unfettered AI access without challenge does not develop judgment but kills it. Media literacy, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, is extremely important. The same AI models that scrape creative content without consent are producing the synthetic media—the deepfakes, fabricated quotes and algorithmically generated news—that is steadily corroding public trust. The Government’s media literacy action plan is welcome in parts, but we need a statutory media literacy duty that extends to platforms, requiring them to actively support media literacy, rather than leaving it entirely to Ofcom and the public sector.
Of course, the single greatest instrument of media literacy in this country is the BBC. It received not a mention in this King’s Speech. My noble friend Lady Benjamin mentioned its key role in children’s programming. Reuters Institute data from last November shows that the BBC remains the most trusted news source, not just in the UK but globally. In an era where outrage travels faster than facts, that matters enormously. We wish the new DG, Matt Brittin, who started this week, well. As my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter emphasised, the BBC is far more than news; it is an ever-more vital instrument of British soft power. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, as well.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the technology and digital sovereignty aspect. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke of the impact of technology. Rishi Sunak has admitted recently that he wishes he had spoken to the country more about the change that AI is going to bring. This Government have been equally reticent. As I mentioned, there is a rising lack of trust in AI and concern about its implications. This makes the absence of an AI Bill all the more inexplicable. My noble friend Lord Fox asked the question directly last week, and a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked the same question today. I will repeat it. Given that AI is set to affect every aspect of our economy, how can that be sensible? Ahead of artificial general intelligence, fragmented rules will not be adequate. We need binding comprehensive regulation—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, pointed out, in the world of money.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, says, we look forward to the results of the children’s online safety consultation, but there is disappointment that the Government have not brought forward any Bill on online safety. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, her imagined future, if you like, which was enshrined in so many amendments that we failed to pass or the Government failed to accept into legislation. We are confined now to amendments bolted on to other Bills in response to specific crises rather than any coherent strategic architecture.
There are many other aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, expertly discussed the question of AI sovereignty. We are threatened by President Trump with tariffs unless we abolish our digital service tax, and Washington is using the tech prosperity deal to pressure us into diluting the Online Safety Act and failing to regulate AI. I hope the Minister will give us sufficient assurances that we have the ability, as a sovereign power, to regulate AI, protect data and levy appropriate taxes, and that that will not be traded away. We must not become an AI taker, wholly dependent on foreign hyperscalers. I commend the Lords Science and Technology Committee’s report, Bleeding to Death, published last November, which clearly sets out the scale of the crisis, which was reinforced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, had to say.
We could say more on the digital access to services Bill. The voluntary character of this scheme must be guaranteed in primary legislation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hunter and Lady Paul, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, talked about cyber security and resilience. There are gaps. Anthropic’s Claude Mythos has demonstrated how important it is that we fill those gaps. There is the update of the Computer Misuse Act, and I hope that the Government will work with the industry to ensure that these reforms support the UK cyber security sector and will meet the CyberUp Campaign to discuss the proposals. I hope the Minister will assure us that that will be the case.
I urge the Government to introduce Herbie’s Law without delay. It would enable a phase-out of animal experiments over the next decade, supporting scientists with the transition and positioning Britain as a global leader in cutting-edge, human-specific medical research.
I will not repeat the wise words of my noble friends Lord Russell, Lady Grender and Lady Miller on energy, the environment and climate change, but energy strategy cannot be decoupled from our technology ambitions. The exponential growth of AI has created 30 gigawatts of data centre demand, currently stuck awaiting grid connection. Grid connection reform is urgent.
Across all these four areas, the question is the same one that I return to repeatedly: will this technology be our servant, augmenting human potential and distributing opportunity more widely, or will it become our master, concentrating power in the hands of those least accountable for its consequences? The answer depends on whether this Government can focus on growth and opportunity and, at the same time, give citizens trust and confidence when they access new technology. We on these Benches will be holding them to that objective throughout the Session ahead.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a founder of a health tech company, HealthTech Fund, which is likely to have many investments in the AI space. It is late, so I will not try to summarise all the excellent speeches we have heard tonight, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did such a good job of summarising. I will avoid that repetition. I enjoyed the maiden speeches. I look forward to learning from my noble friend Lord Blackwater’s history lessons, laughing at his humour and sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing when he makes those controversial points. The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, made a speech of such intelligence that I know that listening to him will be a learning experience for me and the rest of the House. I was touched, like many others, by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, especially as a father of a neurodivergent child, and I look forward to working with her in that area. I think the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, takes the prize of all noble Lords in terms of Jericho. It has to be the coolest place of which to be a Lord. I look forward to hearing from him on what matters to people and how public services can be designed to meet their needs.
This being a King’s Speech debate on education, culture, technology and energy security, I must admit that, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, I expected more of a strategic King’s Speech—a bigger picture, if you like, that sets out some of the challenges and the Government’s vision and values on how to address them. For instance, I expected a major AI plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and my noble friend Lord Taylor said. I expected to hear how AI represents a generational opportunity to transform productivity and output, increase our human knowledge and free us from mundane tasks to enjoy our leisure time, improve our lives and create unprecedented wealth and prosperity.
I expected to hear about the generational threat that AI brings to certain types of jobs, to potentially many of our freedoms, to cyber security, and to the whole nature of modern warfare and the defence of this nation. Most of all, I expected to hear how we are going to ensure that the UK is in the AI fast lane, and about the dire consequences of being stuck in the AI slow lane—yet, as many have said, we do not even have an AI Bill.
On education, as my noble friends Lady Maclean and Lady Spielman, and many others, said, I expected to hear how we would use education to equip our kids to thrive in the AI future, to train and attract the best AI talent in the world, and, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to avoid a dangerous skills divide. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who, as ever, spoke so passionately, and my noble friend Lady Owen, I expected to hear concrete plans and action on how we are to protect our children from the threats of AI, social media and the technical world.
Instead, on education, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, we heard how we have been making degrees harder and less attractive. We have introduced new funding systems, especially around plan 2 students, with loans with much higher interest rates, where debt grows faster than their ability to repay. This is not only grossly unfair but a deterrent to skills and education. I ask the Government to look at a Conservative proposal to link student debt and interest to inflation as a fair and just approach.
I expected the Government to set out an energy policy that would achieve competitive prices, so that we can attract AI data centres and keep our industrial base. I perhaps expected them to have learned some of the lessons that we have seen in Norway, where it has been shown that you do not have to make a binary choice between renewables and oil and gas production; you can combine the two, and focus on renewables and grant new oil and gas licences, as my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lord Mackinlay said. If you look at Norway versus the UK, you can see what I call the rule of double. Norway has double the UK’s oil and gas production and double the percentage of renewables, while UK business and consumers face double Norway’s costs. This means that data centres can afford to be in Norway, as can manufacturing companies, to the benefit of Norway’s economy, its people and the strategic security of that country in a dangerous world. I understand the Government’s ambition for renewable energy—it is the ambition of many on this side as well. However, it does not have to be at the cost of our own North Sea oil production; it does not have to be either/or.
Finally, in this uncertain world, I expected a serious sovereign technology agenda. What, for instance, is our approach to ensure semiconductor resilience? How can technology and AI be at the forefront of our defence, drone capability and cyber security? How can we develop critical AI and tech infrastructure that can protect us all?
These are the things I would have expected and hoped for in a King’s speech. These are things of vision—a set of values and ambitious goals. These are the things that the country needs. What do we get instead? In the words of Wes Streeting, dare I say it,
“where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift”.
As I said, those are not my words but the words of the former Health Secretary.
I say to the Government and Ministers here today—who are vastly talented, and I highly respect—please do not settle for the mediocrity set out in many parts of this King’s Speech when we can do so much better and our country needs so much more. I am going to conclude using the words from another Minister’s resignation letter, that of Jess Phillips. I think many of us, probably all of us, have enormous respect for her campaigning. It might surprise you to hear me say this. She said:
“Labour governments come around rarely … they are precious … Have a row, push back, make arguments”.
Stand up and be counted and bring back a King’s Speech with vision, boldness and energy equal to the task at hand.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a tremendous honour and pleasure to be closing today’s debate—a debate, as we have heard, with very many interesting and important contributions, not all of which, I am afraid, I will be able to do justice to in this response. But I certainly want to draw attention to the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today. My noble friend Lord Hobby, notwithstanding his confession of not having actually taught, nevertheless, through his representation of head teachers and his important work to bring new people into the teaching profession through Teach First, brings an enormous amount of experience in the field of education that I know he will use to good effect in this House.
My good friend, the Conservative broadcaster, blogger and podcaster Iain Dale, told me to be nice to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater. I can see it will be worthwhile if I am, recognising, of course, that what Iain and the noble Lord have in common is that they are both Essex boys. I do not think it is a bad thing to have more political staffers around the place. I think that was demonstrated by both the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon. The noble Baroness will undoubtedly, as we heard from her experience, bring an emphasis on cohesion, children and care to our debates in this House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that it is always a winner to bring your mum into it, speaking as a mother myself, and I am sure she is very proud of his great achievements, bringing not only that political background but that leadership in the voluntary sector to our debates in this House.
As we begin a new parliamentary Session, we know that this country continues to face long-standing challenges that cannot be solved quickly but require long-term strategic solutions that make a positive difference to people’s everyday lives. Rather than promising quick fixes, this Government have set out a series of Bills and measures that face down these challenges and deliver the change the British public voted for. The hard work of change is already under way. I will not list the full legislative programme of the last Session, but for my part I am proud of our reforms to education and children’s social care through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. Through the IfATE Act we laid the foundations for Skills England and the post-16 skills White Paper to help us understand and meet the country’s skills needs; and, of course, our non-legislative reforms and implementation continue to drive change outside this Chamber.
We had a volley of criticism of education policy at the beginning of this debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, although I note that we do not yet have an opposition education spokesperson. The Opposition chose not to have a debate on education in the other place. Perhaps today we have been watching an audition for that Opposition spokesperson. The shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are enormous ones to fill, but I look forward to somebody making an effort, at least, at that.
Since coming into government, we have got children back to school for 5 million more days and turned the tide on teachers leaving the classroom. Parents are benefiting by as much as £8,000 from government-funded childcare, and young people are benefiting from new training opportunities in technical excellence colleges across our country. New foundation apprenticeships and hiring incentives for small businesses are turning around the 40% fall in apprenticeships for young people and the tragedy of nearly 1 million young people not earning or learning. We, unlike the previous Government, will not abandon a generation to this. We are cutting the cost of living and boosting standards at every stage of our children’s education.
To return to this Session, as noble Lords have heard, we are going further, because we cannot deliver opportunity and economic growth in every part of the country without a programme of legislation to match our ambitions. This includes our once-in-a-generation reforms to special needs education, which we have designed in partnership with families and teachers to give every child the opportunity to do well at school.
We are accelerating the UK’s drive to energy security through the nuclear regulation and energy independence Bills. The cyber security and resilience Bill will strengthen a different kind of infrastructure, supporting businesses of all sizes to improve defence against cyberattacks across the economy. We will introduce digital ID to parliamentary scrutiny during this Session; built to the highest security standards, it will provide an optional choice for efficient access to public services. Finally, our secondary ticket Bill and Sporting Events Bill will strengthen the UK’s capacity to host world-class sporting fixtures and ensure fans of live events can no longer be exploited by ticket touts. All this legislation supports the Government’s primary mission: to build the economic growth this country needs and the opportunities our people deserve.
To respond to some of the particular points raised during this debate, I thought we had very good contributions on special educational needs from many noble Lords with both personal and professional experience in this area. We are clear that every child deserves a chance to achieve and thrive—not some children, not children in the right postcode but every child, whatever their background and whatever their need. Raising standards means raising expectations for all.
The education for all Bill will transform support for children and young people by providing access to high-quality education, health and care services in every community. It will ensure every setting delivers the stretching, rewarding education that all children and young people deserve. This is how we build a truly inclusive education system, because when settings get it right for children and young people with SEND, every child and young person benefits. We will carefully consider responses to the ongoing SEND consultation. Subject to this and ongoing engagement with the sector and experts, we will meet our reform principles by providing support that is early, local, fair, effective and shared.
The Bill will bring forward measures to enable effective delivery from 2029. We will provide early support to children with SEND through embedding inclusive practice and requiring settings to publish an inclusion strategy. We will equip early years providers, schools and colleges to intervene early and effectively by creating national inclusion standards to support settings to identify and implement best practice. We will enable local support by making mainstream settings more inclusive. Of course, we recognise the significance of teachers in this, which is why we will deliver more training on SEND and inclusion than ever before, backed by over £200 million of investment. The Bill will require settings to produce an individual support plan for every child and young person with SEND, but we will streamline and standardise both the content of EHCPs and the process for obtaining them, while ensuring that the transition from the current to the new system is as smooth as possible.
Once the new system is in place, a triple lock of transitional protections will mean that no child loses the effective support they already receive. Every child with a special school place in September 2029 will be able to stay in a special school until they finish education. No child with a current EHCP will transition until the end of their phase of education and not before September 2030. Children who transition out of their EHCP will have an individual support plan in place, ahead of their plan’s ceasing and when the new inclusive mainstream has been built, to ensure no break in support.
We will reform the role of the SEND tribunal, encouraging greater use of mediation before appeals, including placement appeals. There will be a continued right of appeal to the SEND tribunal for key decisions about education, health and care needs, assessment plans and placements. We will ensure that children with the most complex needs receive high-quality, consistent support through new specialist provision packages. This legislation will utilise partnerships and ensure that support is shared across settings. We will make these changes because every child and young person deserves to belong, achieve and thrive.
In order to facilitate them, we will put in place the necessary investment. We are already supporting local authorities with the deficits that they built up through the failed system we inherited. We will invest £1.6 billion over three years in our inclusive mainstream fund to support high-quality inclusive teaching. Over the next three years, £1.8 billion will be invested to create a new national offer called Experts at Hand, wrapping professionals such as educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists around mainstream settings. We will put in place £3.7 billion-worth of investment to create 60,000 specialist and inclusive education places.
I turn to some other aspects of education. Several noble Lords raised higher education. These are challenging times for higher education. The freezing of tuition fee income by the previous Government has caused considerable financial stress. We took the decision to reverse this and we will legislate to ensure that that tuition fee income for universities is index-linked. We have already ensured that that will happen for three years. We are putting research funding on a more sustainable basis.
On the subject of student finance, I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that plan 2 loans were introduced by his Government. We have inherited the problems; their design was the previous Government’s. We will review the student finance system to make sure that we protect those who have taken part in higher education. To encourage more to take up the opportunity of higher education, we will also reintroduce the maintenance grants that were done away with by the previous Government.
When it comes to young people who are neither earning nor learning, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all our young people. That is why we are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, to create up to 500,000 opportunities for young people to earn and learn. We will strengthen the role of schools, so that every young person leaves with a planned post-16 destination. We are piloting the automatic allocation of places in further education for those who do not already have one. We are improving how the system works together with local authorities, strategic authorities, schools and FE providers. We are investing in new data tools to identify earlier those at risk of becoming NEET. We are expanding the number of youth hubs across the country and through the jobs guarantee scheme, the youth jobs grant and new apprenticeship incentive for small and medium-sized businesses. By doing that, we will work with employers to get more young people into work.
I turn to the important issue of energy, mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Curran and Lord Lennie. My noble friend Lord Whitehead tells me that my noble friend Lord Lennie gets five “yeses” for the questions he asked in his speech. The lessons for the UK, as we face a second fossil fuel shock, is clear: we need to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster with clean, home-grown power that we control and the electrification of our wider economy.
The energy independence Bill will underpin action on three core objectives: tackling the affordability crisis and protecting consumers; accelerating the UK’s drive for energy security; and delivering a fair, managed and prosperous transition and good jobs in clean energy. Important points, particularly around the transition, were made by my noble friend Lady Griffin. The Bill supports the Government’s efforts to bring down energy bills and support vulnerable households. It gives the energy regulator the powers it needs to act as a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system. It supports the biggest investment in home upgrades in British history through the warm homes plan.
The energy independence Bill accelerates the delivery of clean power 2030 and the electrification of the economy so that we can deliver a fair, affordable, secure and efficient electricity system that will bring down bills for good. The Bill will enable vital grid upgrades after decades of underinvestment and help to create a global blueprint for a fair, managed and prosperous transition in the North Sea that acts in line with the science of fossil fuel. The Bill will expand workers’ rights and protections and pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy. The energy independence Bill legislates for the powers the Government need to fight peoples’ corner and go further and faster on our clean energy mission.
The nuclear regulation Bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to strengthening the UK as a nuclear nation. We have been clear that nuclear power will play a key role in achieving clean power 2030 and beyond. The Government have committed almost £17 billion across the spending review period to the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation, funding Sizewell C in Suffolk and the small modular reactor programme at Wylfa in north Wales. We have progressed Hinkley Point C in Somerset, and we are welcoming a new era of advanced modular reactors as part of our clean energy mission.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, we recognise, as the 2025 nuclear regulatory review found, that an overly complex and bureaucratic regulatory system that favours process over safe outcomes is holding back the industry and making the UK the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear. We accept this diagnosis, and the measures in the nuclear regulation Bill will support quicker delivery of nuclear projects in a way that produces a win-win for building critical infrastructure while protecting nature, the environment and high standards of nuclear safety.
I now turn to the issues around technology and AI. First, in response to the contributions by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Owen, my noble friend Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, this Government have been clear that we will be putting some form of age or functionality restrictions for online services in place for under-16s. Our consultation will determine the best route to do this. To ensure the safety and well-being of our children, we will act by the end of the year.
When this Government published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we set out our ambition to ensure that Britain leads in shaping the AI revolution. AI has the potential to grow the economy, create good jobs and deliver huge societal benefits. We are making sure that we shape a future that works for all, not just a few at the top. We are building on Britain’s technological strengths and expanding our domestic capabilities through the £500-million sovereign AI fund to back British start-ups. At the same time, our AI growth zones are accelerating the delivery of data centres and bringing in billions in private investment, and we are working towards a copyright solution that both protects the UK’s creative industries and unlocks the potential of AI driven innovation. However, if we are to realise any of AI’s benefits, we need to make sure that it is safe. That is why we have taken important steps to ensure that most AI systems are already regulated at the point of use by our existing expert regulators.
The Government continue to act decisively to address harms where the evidence suggests it is necessary to do so. That is why we have taken powers in the Crime and Policing Act to bring unregulated chatbots into scope of the Act to mitigate illegal content risks like non-consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material. We have also taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act to ensure that we can act on the findings of the consultation, including, as I say, whether restrictions should be placed on children’s use of chatbots.
We recognise that AI capabilities are accelerating rapidly and bring the potential for serious risks. This is why we are strengthening cyber resilience through the cyber security and resilience Bill and a new national cyber action plan, while ensuring that AI is regulated at the point of use. We are also supporting our world-leading security institute, which is working with frontier developers to identify and mitigate model vulnerabilities to ensure that we understand and prepare for AI’s potential impacts.
In the area of culture, in introducing the draft secondary ticketing Bill, we will have the opportunity to build on the important work of my noble friends Lady Debbonaire and Lady Keeley and to reflect the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, preventing fans being ripped off by touts, bringing support to those who want to attend events and ensuring that money is going into those events rather than into the pockets of touts.
Arts and culture are at the heart of community life. They bring people together across divides, which is why we are taking decisive action to ensure that the arts are accessible to everyone, everywhere. In March, we published our response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s independent review of Arts Council England, accepting all the recommendations. We are backing that vision with significant investment. Last year, we announced £1.5 billion to help protect more than 1,000 treasured arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings across England. In April this year, we announced the first set of organisations to benefit from this support, which included £96 million through the creative foundations fund, £25.5 million for museum repairs and development and £6.3 million to modernise libraries so that they can continue serving communities for generations to come.
In recent decades, we have lived through a revolution in media. That is why we are improving the curriculum to ensure better standards of media literacy, and it is why we launched the local media action plan as well as committing up to £12 million in funding. This includes a campaign to inspire young people about future media careers and help them understand the importance of journalism to our society. Similarly, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State believe that public service broadcasting, and the BBC in particular, are vital British assets that support our democracy, bring our communities together, and help to shape and define our nation through telling stories about the lives of people in all parts of the UK, enabling the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to have influenced very many of our childhoods through her “Playschool” period—and of course, perhaps enabling us to all get to know “KPop Demon Hunters”, if that is something we want to do. We are acting to future-proof this vital institution and our review of the BBC’s charter aims to protect the BBC for decades to come.
We are at the beginning of this new legislative agenda, which does not shy away from tackling problems that are complex, long-standing and multifaceted. We will build on the foundations we have laid in our first two years in government, reforming where carefully designed change is needed and strengthening and empowering what works well. I look forward to working with noble Lords as we take this important legislative agenda through this House.