House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
May I start by condemning the reckless Russian drone strike on Romania early on Friday morning? We stand with Romania and all our NATO allies. I have commissioned UK options for contributing to any NATO-led actions to strengthen Romania, should that be required.
The previous Government left forces recruitment and retention in crisis. They set and missed targets every year for 14 years. We are renewing the nation’s commitment to those who serve through the biggest pay rise for over 20 years, free childcare for forces families across the UK, and the biggest upgrade to forces housing in a generation. Armed forces numbers are now growing; that is part of the transformation of defence through the defence investment plan, which, I can tell the House, the Prime Minister is determined to publish before the NATO summit.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for his answer—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Francois, you will have two questions in a moment. I am sure you can hold on for just a minute.
Ian Sollom
Joining the armed forces demands a huge personal commitment from young people, but those who put their hand up to serve can wait the best part of a year or more, with little communication, no sense of progress, and real frustration that their commitment to our country is not being matched. That frustration often leads them to seek different opportunities. Does the Secretary of State agree that solving the recruitment problem is not just about improving an online portal, but about building a genuine relationship with potential recruits from day one? What is he doing to deliver that now, ahead of the new portal roll-out next year?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. Recruitment to our forces has for too long been beset by delays. There is no shortage of young people who want to join the forces, but those delays have led to a large majority of them going off and doing other things. He will have seen that we have changed the regulations, which often restricted recruitment and were barriers to young people joining. He will have seen that we have introduced direct entry for cyber recruitment, and that we are set to put in place a new contract next year for the first ever tri-nation recruitment. That will speed up recruitment and make it more efficient.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
In all the years that I served as a regular in the military, the continuous attitude survey showed that morale was dropping year on year. Since Labour has come into government, that has reversed; the continuous attitude survey is at last going in the right direction under this leadership. Can the Secretary of State explain why that is?
John Healey
There is a serious point behind my hon. Friend’s question. Armed forces numbers are growing. We have turned the corner on recruitment and on morale, as he says, and satisfaction, in particular with military homes, has risen 12% in the last year. This Government are on the side of our forces and their families. This is a Government delivering for defence, and delivering for our armed forces.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I begin by saying that we Conservative Members stand four-square with the Government on their response to Romania? It is a NATO ally, and it deserves our support.
While overall trends in recruitment and retention may have stabilised, there is still a serious problem of personnel leaving the special forces. We know from the personal accounts of former Special Air Service commanders that this is due in no small part to the Government’s facilitation of lawfare against their comrades who served in Northern Ireland. To aid retention, what is the Secretary of State’s personal response to the three special forces regimental associations that publicly warned him in late April that
“The egregious mistreatment of veterans and the ongoing infringement of their rights has to end”?
John Healey
I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description. The discussions that I, the Minister for the Armed Forces and military leaders have had with the regimental associations have dealt with their concerns, in particular with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. We are set to make significant amendments that reflect their concerns. On the position that he describes regarding recruitment and retention, there is no shortage of volunteers for training, and the proportion of those applying to the Paras rose by a quarter in the last year.
Mr Francois
The Secretary of State said he did not recognise “my” description. It is not mine. It is in a statement of 22 April from the three special forces regimental associations. Those are not my words; they are theirs. I will ask him again. If we are to persuade people to continue serving their King and country in uniform in very high-threat situations, we need to address these legitimate concerns. For months now, the Government have been promising to table amendments to their benighted troubles Bill to provide additional protections for veterans, but as with the defence investment plan, we are still waiting for Godot. When exactly will those long-promised amendments be published, and by which Minister?
John Healey
It will be before the Bill is due for its next stage in Parliament, which is Committee stage in this House.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Lead, like other critical minerals and the broader range of chemicals that go into producing energetics and ammunition, has seen constrained supply over the past five years. That is why we are taking a strategic approach to our munitions management, including rebuilding depleted stockpiles, investment in always-on facilities and munitions, and building new energetics factories in the UK.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the ammunitions industry, the upcoming ban on lead in commercial bullets is going to cause significant problems for the police and armed forces, in terms of cost and supply. Viking Arms, in my constituency, which supplies the military and the police, is deeply worried about this issue. Will he meet it and any other suppliers to hear their concerns about the problem?
Luke Pollard
I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. We inherited stockpiles that were much lower than we would have liked, and this Government are determined to refill those stockpiles; anything that goes into rebuilding those is important to me. I am happy to meet and discuss this further.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Before I respond to the question, I want to recognise my hon. Friend’s incredible work on widening access to bereavement leave for new parents. Having spoken to a constituent of mine, I know how much of a godsend that leave is for those parents who very tragically find themselves in that position.
The armed forces occupational paternity leave scheme provides equivalent arrangements to statutory provision, including full pay, and 1,684 service personnel took paternity leave in 2025. The Ministry of Defence also makes provision for shared parental leave, to ensure that parents have greater flexibility to share responsibility for the care of their child.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for her kind words, which really mean a lot, and for her answer. The sacrifice that a person in the armed forces makes is felt by their entire family; when a new baby arrives, it is felt even more deeply. Two weeks’ paternity leave is just not enough. Many, including The Dad Shift, want an increase in parental leave. Our Women and Equalities Committee recommended changing that to at least six weeks’ parental leave for dads. Does the Minister agree that all dads need quality time to support the other parent and bond with newborns, and that armed forces families are owed that vital time together?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very important point. Other mechanisms for giving leave are available, but I would welcome a meeting with her to discuss the issue further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her question. On this issue, she is a champion—a word often used in this Chamber, but true today. I thank the Minister for her response. When it comes to how the Government promote this issue, it is important when recruiting people to let them know that life in the Army is as normal as civvy life—the same opportunities are there. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is promoted in recruitment, so that everyone knows the opportunities and benefits of joining the forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the quite good provision in the armed forces. I think particularly of the maternity pay, which is not always the first thing on people’s minds when they join the armed forces. We offer a range of benefits, beyond pay, to our armed forces recruits when they begin a career. He is absolutely right that we should highlight the package in the round. As someone who benefited from it, I know that there are some excellent things in there.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Russia poses a significant and persistent threat to UK and Atlantic security. Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine is now in its fifth year, and Russia conducts hostile cyber-activity, spreads disinformation and carries out sabotage against the UK and many other NATO allies almost daily. European security starts in Ukraine. In response to the recent brutal Russian attacks on Ukraine, I directed UK deliveries of air defence systems to Ukraine to be accelerated. This month, I will chair the next meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters, at which we will look to further step up the military aid we can provide together.
Mr Rand
This Government have rightly increased military support to Ukraine to its highest ever level. That is vital not just for Ukraine’s security, but for ours. Our leadership on this issue places us in the firing line of an increasingly desperate Putin. With the stark warning from GCHQ last week that our nation is being relentlessly targeted by Russian aggression, does the Secretary of State agree that as well as rightly increasing defence spending, we must unite against Russia by seeking a closer relationship with our most important and reliable allies in the European Union?
John Healey
I agree with my hon. Friend that we are right to seek a closer relationship with the European Union, which has an important contribution to make, from within a “NATO first” framework. That is why, last year, we signed the security and defence partnership with the European Union. The Prime Minister has said that we are looking to join the European Union’s Ukraine loan scheme, so that we can provide more aid to Ukraine, backed by the very best British companies, producing the best British kit for Ukrainian warfighters.
Gordon McKee
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) mentioned the annual lecture delivered by the GCHQ director last week, which is important, and we should all reflect on the comments about Russia’s hybrid warfare. It is well established among security experts that Russia is conducting this kind of hybrid warfare, but that is not well understood by the general public. That is a problem, because deterring the attacks requires significant investment and inevitably, at some point, trade-offs. Will the Secretary of State produce a strategy internally—or increase its urgency, if it exists—for communicating the scale of Russian hybrid warfare against the United Kingdom?
John Healey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing more to expose the threats, and will do more still. The Russian threat against the UK is real and rising, and it is important for the public and Parliament to understand that. That is why I revealed last year that the Russian spy ship Yantar was monitoring our critical national undersea infrastructure, and that is why I exposed the month-long covert Russian submarine programme in and near UK waters. I say to Putin: we see you; we will expose you; and we will not stand for you targeting the UK.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
This morning, France once again demonstrated that seizing sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels in international waters is both legal and achievable. In contrast, although the Prime Minister confirmed on 25 March that we have the legal basis to act in our own territorial waters, since that pledge, hundreds of vessels have passed through our waters unchallenged. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is deterrence in reverse? It is tough rhetoric, but no action. In Moscow, that gap between what Britain says and what Britain does will be read as exactly one thing: weakness.
John Healey
On the contrary, this is deterrence in action. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we supported the French operation and were proud to do so. Defence stands ready to lead on our own interdiction, but the impact of what we are ready to do, and what we have signalled to Putin, is that he is having to escort shadow shipping through the English channel with Russian warships, and the rest of his shadow fleet is often detouring right round the UK. We are disrupting his shadow fleet shipping, and are contributing to the fact that Russian oil revenues have fallen by a quarter in the last year.
David Reed
There is a chasm between supporting and leading. Is it not the case that the Attorney General—the same Attorney General who has no hesitation in hounding British veterans through the courts—has now decided that intercepting Russian shadow fleet tankers would breach maritime law? Our allies in Finland, Sweden and Estonia have no such hesitation. France and the United States have no such hesitation. Can the Secretary of State explain why the only person who seems determined to tie Britain’s hands is his Government’s chief legal officer?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion and his facts. With the Attorney General, I led a meeting of the 10 joint expeditionary force nations’ legal military experts, in which we set out, discussed and shared the legal basis on which, individually and together, we can interdict and seize Russian shadow ships. We are ready to do so in support of our allies, as we have just supported France. Together, we are deterring Putin, and we are disrupting his shadow fleet operations.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Last night, I returned from a week in Ukraine. I visited villages in Kherson, just tens of kilometres from the frontline, and saw the total devastation wrought by Russian forces. Every morning, we woke to reports that hundreds of drones had been destroyed overnight by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine is innovating under Russian fire. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate defence co-operation with Ukraine, so that our armed forces can rapidly learn from, develop and deploy the counter-drone capabilities needed for the wars of today and tomorrow, not yesterday?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important argument. It was captured in the strategic defence review, and has been put into practice since. Within the last two weeks, I was with our troops in Estonia, close to the Russian frontline, and I saw exactly how our UK forces, alongside the Estonians, are learning the lessons, and implementing some of the same tactics and technologies that we have been involved in supplying to Ukraine, and which the Ukrainians have demonstrated are combat fit.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Yes, we have accepted the strategic defence review recommendation that we introduce a defence readiness Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, readiness measures are already included in the Armed Forces Bill, which will be before the House again tomorrow. Engagement across Government and with industry is under way on the defence readiness Bill. I am proud that a Labour Government are planning to introduce such a Bill; when his party was in power, the Conservatives neither introduced such a Bill nor thought of it. That shows that in these changing times, Labour is on the side of our armed forces and a stronger Britain.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Government’s constant refrain is that they are “working at pace”, but the reality is that our adversaries are doing exactly that. In an increasingly unstable world, the lack of a defence readiness Bill is a significant disadvantage. Will the Minister set out when the Bill will be published, and the specific date on which it will come before the House?
Luke Pollard
It is so disappointing that all the hon. Gentleman wants is a timetable; he does not say what measures he wants to see in the defence readiness Bill. He does not care what is in it. [Interruption.] We care about the content of the defence readiness Bill: we will get it right, and we will bring it before this House. When it comes before the House, I hope he will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the chair of the parliamentary Labour party for letting me get in. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a defence readiness Bill, as well as the record funding for the defence of this country, and the 1,200 defence procurement deals that have already been signed. As I have not yet mentioned Harlow in the House this week, will the Minister assure me that he will work with defence manufacturers such as Raytheon in Harlow to ensure that we are prepared for the terrible things going on in the world? Will he have conversations with them, as part of his preparations for the defence readiness Bill?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for Harlow. As we are increasing defence spending, we are directing more of the increased defence budget at British companies, including British small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as larger companies. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can support the SMEs in his constituency, so that they receive a greater share of this Government’s increased defence budget.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a broken procurement system of red tape, delays and high costs. Some 47 of 49 major defence programmes were delayed or not on budget when we came to office. We are speeding up procurement, buying British and aiming to increase direct SME spend by 50%, which represents an extra £2.5 billion that we will spend with UK SMEs.
Edward Morello
In the south-west, the defence sector and associated supply chains provide more than 40,000 jobs and contribute more than £3 billion to the economy. In West Dorset, firms provide skilled employment and apprenticeships, but they are frustrated by repeated delays to the defence investment plan and a slow and uncertain procurement process. Companies in my constituency tell me that, at this rate, they will be headquartered in Europe or the US by this time next year. We risk losing jobs, sovereign capability and billions of pounds of investment. I welcome the Secretary of State announcing that the DIP will be released before the NATO summit, although I am sure the House will note that with a degree of scepticism, but how will the release of the DIP and the procurement process benefit businesses in the south-west, especially small and medium-sized enterprises?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow south-west MP, I know how important defence is for businesses large and small in our part of the world. That is why we have signed 1,200 major defence deals since the general election, and analysis of just 500 of them shows that they are delivering benefit for 8,000 SMEs and micro-SMEs. We will continue to increase the amount of direct spend with small businesses, just as we are speeding up procurement. We inherited a system that was broken and did not work, and we are speeding it up to ensure that we can get more contracts to those brilliant innovators in our economy as soon as we can.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Those of us interested in subsea cables will have been delighted to hear the news announced over the weekend about the AUKUS arrangement, which the Government spoke about, and the development of new technologies with unmanned drone vehicles for subsea capability. Beyond that, will the Minister look at drone capability in this country, specifically at companies such as Skycutter and our other sovereign capabilities, to ensure that we get the right investment with the investment plans into those companies and ensure that they stay here in the United Kingdom?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After many years of much talk under the last Government about AUKUS pillar II, this Government have delivered a project and a capability that, in the hands of our British, Australian and American warfighters, will make a real difference.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about autonomy and drones, for which the Government are committed to increasing funding. We have invested in more capabilities in the United Kingdom, and we are actively exporting those capabilities to our friends and allies abroad. He should expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan, which will be published soon.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
FalconWorks, which is part of the BAE Systems family and the enterprise zone at Warton, has been at the cutting edge of learning the lessons from rapid deployment and redesign of unmanned aircraft in Ukraine. A key part of that is including the pre-investment in research and development as part of the procurement of defence systems. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with companies such as FalconWorks that support huge numbers of jobs in Fylde and across Lancashire?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in commending FalconWorks and BAE Systems for their innovation. The Government have established UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million annual budget to support innovation. That is making a difference in bringing more innovation to the market as well as dual-use potential. We will continue to invest in that, just as we set out that 10% of our equipment budget will be spent on novel technologies, helping to drive the latest kit and equipment for our troops.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I note with interest that the Minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is gaining more and more ground, but are we anywhere near understanding in the Ministry of Defence the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter-drones that will need to be produced now and in the future, and on a mass scale, should any conflict break out? Can he assure the House that that is understood in the MOD?
Luke Pollard
Yes, I can. One of the key pillars of the strategic defence review is learning the lessons from Ukraine. When it comes to autonomous systems and drones, that is not just about the continuing investment that we are making in high-end drone capabilities—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, one-way strike and others—but about how we can deliver mass effect. Due to the rapid iteration of drone technology, it does not necessarily always make sense to have a warehouse full of millions of drones. However, having the ability to produce millions of drones while recognising the shortages in the supply chain, especially around motors, magnets and cameras, is the way that we can enhance our capabilities and our deterrents. We are actively working on that.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I regularly meet defence SMEs, and they all tell me the same thing: without a defence investment plan, investment decisions are being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire, and strengthen our national resilience, but continued Government delays are creating damaging uncertainty across the sector. Can the Minister tell me whether the MOD, or indeed any other Department, has conducted an economic assessment of the impact that the delayed publication of the defence investment plan is having on British businesses? If not, will he commit to publishing one?
Luke Pollard
I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the 1,200 contracts we have signed since the general election, because we are not waiting for a defence investment plan to sign contracts with companies large and small. Those companies are producing new jobs and apprenticeships, more demand for skills, and new technologies that are being used by our frontline forces and exported to our allies. All the work that the hon. Gentleman refers to is part of our bigger picture for the defence investment plan. We know that increased defence spending will produce more UK jobs. We are spending more with British companies, and will continue to do so. I will stand up for our armed forces and our defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to talk our defence industry up, rather than talk it down as he has today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This Government are making the biggest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we have more than £11 billion more in the defence budget than in the last year of the previous Government. As the Prime Minister said in February,
“we are going to have to spend more faster”,
and we will.
Wendy Chamberlain
Building our military capability is vital in this world of increasing instability, where Putin continues to wage war in Europe—as we have heard—and Trump rips up the alliances that once kept us safe. Investment in deterrence is far better than fighting a war unprepared. Getting UK businesses access to the Security Action for Europe programme is vital, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether talks have restarted with the EU in that regard, and if so, what progress has been made?
John Healey
As I mentioned in a previous answer, we are indeed looking to participate in, and be able to take advantage of, the European Union’s loan scheme for Ukraine. That is a way in which we could accelerate getting good kit into the hands of the Ukrainians and ensure that British-made kit and British firms can make a big contribution to that.
Victoria Collins
My constituent Fraser puts it best when he says,
“At a time when the world is increasingly dark and uncertain, and when the UK’s defence capability is well below the level required”,
defence bonds
“are surely one which would gain support across the political spectrum. I know that I would happily invest.”
With all of us in the United Kingdom paying the price every time we check out or pay a bill, the Liberal Democrat calls to issue £20 billion of defence bonds would mean an injection of funding in our security, but also in our economy, so what are the Government waiting for?
John Healey
I remember that for at least six months after the election, the hon. Lady and her party were urging us to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. We have done better than that—we are hitting 2.6% next year, three years before anyone expected, including her party. We will go further, and I will look for her support when we do.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Some hon. Members have advocated for defence bonds. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Defence Committee has examined in detail various defence financing options, including a defence, security and resilience bank—the Canadians have stolen a march on us, even though the idea was developed by a former British Army officer. There are multilateral defence mechanisms, and other nations have opted for a loosening of the fiscal rules just for defence. Obviously, these are not either/or options, but given the increased threats and the level of volatility, we must accelerate investment in defence to 3% GDP spend in this Parliament. Given that context, what options and course of action are the Government pursuing? We cannot keep plodding along at the current pace; we must meet the moment.
John Healey
With all due respect—and I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend—the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war is hardly the plodding path he describes. I welcome his Committee’s inquiry into defence investment and its report. I know that Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister who has been commissioned by the Prime Minister to look at multinational financing of security, will use that report as an important part of his work, which I welcome. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech in February that
“We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age.”
We know that we must spend more faster, and we will.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
This year we have provided £480,000 to part-fund 130 Armed Forces Day community events, up from 85 last year. The national event, on 27 June, will be in Aldershot and Farnborough, celebrating and thanking our armed forces, who are doing a brilliant job keeping the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Armed Forces Day has an important purpose: to reconnect society with our armed forces and to communicate why strong defence matters.
Paul Waugh
To celebrate Armed Forces Day this year in Rochdale, there will be not only the usual flag-raising ceremony at Rochdale town hall, but on Saturday 27 June we will have a free community picnic in Denehurst Park, with live music from local bands and military vehicle displays. Will the Minister join me in thanking Adam Trennery of Get Together After Serving, known as GTAS, not only for putting on this marvellous event, but for all the work he does all year round?
Louise Sandher-Jones
This Government are proud to support veterans in Rochdale. I am so pleased that we have been able to provide funding for what sounds like a fantastic Armed Forces Day event. I give a huge thank you to Adam Trennery and GTAS for the amazing work they do to support our service people and veterans. Whether it is the Armed Forces Day flag-raising ceremony at Rochdale town hall, to which my hon. Friend refers, or Rochdale’s military breakfast club, we are proud to support our service people, veterans and communities for the contribution they make to our society.
Euan Stainbank
This year’s Armed Forces Day is as important as ever, and I look forward to attending Falkirk’s event on 4 July in Callander Park. It is important that Falkirk’s veterans are heard there and every day. I met Veterans Together Forth Valley last week, and I heard from many brave men and women who served our country who feel that politicians have not been listening for a long time. We must take that perception seriously and seek to reverse it. What will Ministers do to support veterans’ voices being heard before, during and after Armed Forces Day?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The new Valour programme will make it easier for veterans to access the care and support they deserve. Crucially, it will also improve how their voices are heard. We opened the first 14 Valour centres in March this year, and round 2 is open for applications for further centres. In addition to Valour, we also have wider services support, such as Op Courage for mental health, Op Restore for physical health, Op Fortitude for those at risk of homelessness and Op Ascend for employment support. Veterans can access all those programmes, and I welcome any feedback.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of how strongly I believe it is important that those who have been victims have a right to have investigations, including into the murders of British service personnel. I take his point, and I am sure that people are well aware of the point that he makes.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
This Armed Forces Day will mark the first that Eastbourne commemorates without Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, a local veteran who died last year. Pauline received military compensation for injuries she received during her service, but she had her pension credit cut because her compensation was considered as income. To mark this Armed Forces Day, will the Minister review that arrangement, so that we can make sure that our veterans are not punished for their service to our country?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue, and I am very sorry to hear about Pauline. As I am sure he knows, the interplay between benefits that are available to the general public and military benefits can be complex, but I should add that there are mechanisms to ensure that no veteran is left out in that interplay. If he will write to me with the specifics, I should be able to clarify whether the correct processes were followed.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On 21 May I visited the London Oratory School to meet cadets and to announce the first ever National Cadets Week, which will take place in October and will celebrate the cadet forces, one of the country’s most effective youth organisations. A new cadets action plan will set out the Government’s long-term vision to deliver on the strategic defence review recommendation that we expand our cadet forces.
Lee Pitcher
I welcome the announcement of the first National Cadets Week, and I look forward to the new cadets action plan and the long-term vision for cadet forces. The figures released last week showing that more than 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training are deeply worrying, both for young people themselves and for wider society. Cadet forces can help to meet that challenge by giving young people confidence, discipline, skills, structure and a sense of purpose, helping them to succeed and thrive. How will the Minister ensure that cadet opportunities are not only maintained but expanded, so that young people in communities such as mine in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme can continue to benefit?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise how fundamental the cadet forces can be, especially for those who are at risk of not proceeding to further education, employment or training. They provide a fantastic opportunity for young people to have a go at something that is not school, and to gain confidence and find out what it is that they want to do. The cadet action plan will have three key aims. The first is to establish how we can recruit and support the adult volunteers without whose amazing work we would not have the cadets at all, the second is to ensure that we have the correct support for our cadets, including support for infrastructure, and the third is to ensure that every young person in the country is aware of the amazing things that they can gain from the cadets.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The establishment of a combined cadet force at the Newark academy was an incredible step forward for the town, bringing discipline, respect, training opportunities and a sense of pride. It was very unfortunate that the Department for Education chose to cut the funding, making it more difficult for other schools—particularly schools like this, in working-class communities—to establish new combined cadet forces in the future. What can the Minister do to ensure that funding is in place so that this is not just the preserve of communities with grammar schools or public schools, and that all communities, like the one that I represent, will be given the opportunity to have combined cadet forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that we have committed an additional £70 million to funding the expansion of the cadets, which the Government he was a member of never did.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
SMEs are crucial to our success. Through the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, we are cutting red tape and proceeding towards our ambitious SME spend target of an additional £2.5 billon by summer 2028. Last week we announced, with Sweden, the Gripen contract for £500 million of benefits to be shared not just by large companies but by small businesses across the United Kingdom, reinforcing the fact that defence is an engine for growth.
Alex McIntyre
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Romania? Last week I visited Romania through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and met armed forces personnel who are part of the NATO air policing mission. The Russian drone incident showed how important that mission is, and demonstrated the good work that our armed forces personnel are doing in Romania as we speak.
I recently visited Permali and Cherry & White in my constituency, two local SMEs that are working in the defence industry and doing an excellent job. Both are important local employers, and are keen to expand their businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to support such British SMEs through defence procurement, and will he agree to visit Gloucester and meet representatives of those brilliant businesses?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his words about our armed forces and the Typhoons that we have in Romania, which are doing essential air policing roles. With a NATO-first approach, we will continue to do that. I would be very happy to meet him to talk about Cherry & White and Permali, two outstanding companies that provide communication systems and composite materials to defence. Other SMEs wanting to supply to defence should look at the success of such companies, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss their interest.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Defence SMEs are key supporters and indeed organisers of Somerset Armed Forces Day, but the day will not be a success if the glitches in the application software are not resolved, and volunteer veterans have to shoulder tens of thousands of pounds of debt, given the way the funding works. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the organisers to resolve those challenges so that Somerset Armed Forces Day can go ahead?
Luke Pollard
I am not the Minister responsible, but that Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman’s pleas and would be very happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The Royal Navy, in collaboration with the Joint Maritime Security Centre, maintains constant surveillance of UK waters to uphold maritime security and deter threats, with a combination of surface and sub-surface vessels, maritime patrol aircraft and autonomous assets ready to support. As we make the important transition to a hybrid Navy, we will see that surveillance increasingly augmented by autonomous systems. Let me be clear: we are ready and willing to respond robustly to threats and to defeat them if required.
Peter Prinsley
Off the tranquil coast of Suffolk lie critical pieces of infrastructure, communications cables and electrical installations. There are alarming reports of munitions that are capable of creating giant tidal waves, threatening our coastal communities and indeed our nuclear facilities. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to protect our coastal waters from hostile foreign activity and truly safeguard our national security?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Russian surface and sub-surface activity has increased by 30%, and the first duty of any Government is to protect our people. We are absolutely committed to advancing our work against hostile states and ensuring national security. While our coasts may be tranquil, I am sure that underneath, 24/7, the British Royal Navy is protecting our territorial waters, our international waters and our national interests.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I know that, like me, those on the Government Front Bench welcome the regulating for growth Bill, which will enable the modernisation of regulations for maritime autonomy testing and the creation of regulatory sandbox powers. That is vital for the unmanned vessels that we need to protect our coastal waters, but defence firms such as those in my constituency cannot afford unnecessary delay due to the parliamentary timetable, or we will risk losing ground to international competitors. What conversations is the Department having with colleagues across Government to speed up the progress of the Bill through Parliament? I am planning to ask the Leader of the House about that in due course.
Al Carns
I could not agree more with the hon. Member; we need to do much more to deregulate the use of all types of autonomous systems—I always drone on about drones. Maritime capability is absolutely essential. We have seen a nation without a navy defeat a navy in the Black sea. We want to be at the very forefront of this, and I encourage the hon. Member to write to the Leader of the House to bring the legislation forward as quickly as possible.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With deep regret, I should inform the House that a training accident occurred in northern Iraq yesterday in which a member of service personnel from the British Army died. The family have been informed, and have asked for a period of grace before further details are released. I know that the thoughts of the House will be with the family and the unit at this desperately sad time.
In this era of growing threat, hard power and strong alliances help make Britain safer. At the weekend, I was at the Shangri-La summit in Singapore with United States Secretary of War Hegseth and Deputy Prime Minister Marles of Australia. Together, we announced the first ever AUKUS pillar II signature project; together, we are now producing the very highest technology sensors and weapon systems for our underwater drones. Together, we will get those capabilities into our warfighters’ hands before the end of next year.
Emma Foody
First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State?
The Veterans Minister recently joined me to meet several women veterans in my constituency, who spoke exceptionally powerfully about the specific challenges and barriers that they experienced in accessing appropriate support after leaving the armed forces. The VALOUR programme is incredibly welcome, but can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the second round of funding, he will look at how women veterans can access gender-informed services that reflect their particular needs and experiences?
John Healey
I can indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the successful Northumbria bid in the first round of the VALOUR funding, which will help cover her constituency. [Interruption.] Given that one in eight of our ex-forces personnel are female veterans, we will ensure that the veterans strategy reflects those concerns, and that any round 2 funding as a result of the new application for bids is recognised.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members not to walk in front of a Member when the Minister is answering their question. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State on the sad news from Iraq and, on behalf of the Opposition, send condolences to the family concerned. It is very sad news indeed.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: has the Treasury signed off the defence investment plan?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me when I answered before, but I can say to him very clearly that the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
James Cartlidge
No wonder the defence investment plan is so late: the Labour Government still have not worked out how to pay for it. The good news is that others have. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary, has said:
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
and Tony Blair himself warned last week:
“By the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. No serious country can do that.”
Is not the truth that whoever becomes the next Labour Prime Minister must do one thing above all else to boost defence, and that is to cut welfare and spend the savings on the British armed forces?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck. There is no recognition of the fact that we are increasing defence spending by a record amount since the end of the cold war, no recognition that this year the defence budget will be £11 billion greater than in his last year in government, and no recognition that there are contracts in place, including the AUKUS pillar II contract, that we have signed and that he did not sign when he was the Minister responsible.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
This Government are proud to support Typhoons. We have announced a £500 million upgrade for Typhoons, including new radar, and we have helped secure the deal to export 20 Typhoon jets to Türkiye. We are continuing to support the brilliant jobs in Typhoon production at Warton and Samlesbury and across the United Kingdom, and we are expanding into more autonomous craft as well, supporting the Typhoon for many years to come.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Luke Pollard
As the hon. Member will know, we are increasing sanctions on Russian oil. [Interruption.] We are increasing sanctions. I entirely appreciate that the Opposition have decided to depart from the principle of cross-party support to play party political games, but that does not stop it being true. We are increasing sanctions on Russia.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
John Healey
First, we are directing defence investment first to British firms that increase British jobs and increase apprenticeships, skills and opportunities for young people. Secondly, we are opening up direct entry recruitment to the armed forces for those with cyber-skills, and the first cohort has already been recruited. They are deployed much more quickly than via the normal route, and the early reports from every one of their units is overwhelmingly positive, so we are now moving to recruit the second tranche.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Throughout my tenure, I have worked with many late entry officers in combat roles. I will take the issue away and look into it in detail, but I am pretty sure that that is a misrepresentation of the totality of late entry officers across our armed forces in the Navy, Army and Air Force.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?
Luke Pollard
Yes, we do agree. We know that climate change is driving a number of increasing threats. We also know that as a Department we are cutting our carbon emissions and supporting nature recovery. We do that not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it increases our warfighting readiness. We know from Ukraine that a diesel generator can be seen by an ISR drone many, many kilometres away. We know that if we continue with the use of fossil fuels, we are at a strategic disadvantage on the battlefield. That is why we continue to invest in new technology in that regard.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the fantastic work that cadet groups are doing in Basingstoke. They exemplify the confidence, independence and community spirit fostered by MOD cadets across the UK. In October, we are launching the first ever National Cadets Week. Crucially, we are developing a cadets action plan to expand cadet forces, by improving the offer to our wonderful adult volunteers to ensure that they have the right support and resources including infrastructure, and making sure we are selling the offer to our young people of the amazing things they can get from being in the cadets. I would be happy to visit when my diary allows.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
There were concerning reports at the weekend about the global combat air programme’s being delayed. We know the funding for Edgewing, agreed in April, is due to run out this month. Can the Minister guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place before the end of June?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The Government support GCAP and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the wonderful work done by the Thongsbridge Army cadets. As he rightly says, they exemplify the wonderful things that young people can gain in the MOD cadets across the UK, as well as in his constituency. I can confirm that we are launching the first ever National Cadets Week in October, and developing a cadets action plan to expand the cadet forces by improving the offer to our amazing adult volunteers, ensuring that they have the right resources, including infrastructure, and making sure that we communicate to our young people the amazing things they can gain from the cadets.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I associate myself with the words of the Chair of the Defence Committee on the need to get to 3%. Given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a nuclear programme, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we knock out the nuclear programme, we are actually spending more like 1.7% or 1.8% on our conventional defence, and that that compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries such as Poland or Estonia, which are spending more like 4% or 5%? Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately?
John Healey
We must spend more, we must spend faster—and we will, as the Prime Minister has said. On our nuclear deterrent, I am proud that this Government are putting £6 billion, in this Parliament, into increasing the productivity of our submarine building, to raise production levels and to increase the pace of submarine building in future.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Al Carns
Ukraine is doing a valiant job in holding back the illegal Russian invasion. Some £4.5 billion of UK military support has gone to Ukraine, with a total commitment of £21.8 billion. It is really important that it goes to the right place, which is why we have reviewed where the money is going, to ensure that the maximum impact can be derived from every pound that goes to Ukraine.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Following the recent challenges with deploying HMS Dragon to the middle east at short notice, will the defence readiness Bill, which was mentioned in the strategic defence review, urgently review how our Type 45 destroyers can be made more readily available to defend against aerial attacks?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
We have set out our intention to increase the amount of sustainable aviation fuel that the RAF uses. Far from being a sign of weakness, that is a sign of increasing security and sovereignty over our fuel supply, recognising the changing world that we live in and ensuring that the RAF will continue to fly, whatever the constraints on fuel in the future.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Having recently visited Wiltshire cadets in Old Sarum, I very much welcome what the Minister said about National Cadet Week. Will she ensure that all schools, particularly those in Pride in Place areas, such as the one in Salisbury, are made aware of the transformational opportunities of attending the cadets? That will be a great way of expanding the uptake, which I am sure she is aiming for.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I am working with the Department for Education, as it is vital that we communicate the amazing things that cadets can do to complement the education delivered in schools.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement to select Blackpool and The Fylde College as a defence technical excellence college, which will build a skilled workforce and offer stable employment and opportunities in my constituency. But without a Typhoon jet order of our own, we risk losing the ability to build our own fast jets. This is about our national security. Germany, Italy and Spain—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say to the hon. Member that although I totally agree that we need this order—Lancashire MPs are fully committed to it—when we are on topicals, we need shorter questions. I am sure that the Minister will have got the drift of why we need the order.
Luke Pollard
We are proud to support Typhoon, and I was proud to be in my hon. Friend’s constituency to unveil the defence technical excellence college. In her constituency there are some brilliant students undertaking amazing training that will give them the skills to work in BAE Systems producing Typhoons for our allies, and potentially other craft in the future. We will continue to support Lancashire and its aerospace sector.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Thursday I was on the water with King’s Lynn Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets. As the Minister will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are wholly funded by the Ministry of Defence. What provision will the Royal Navy make to fund vital equipment, such as the new boats that those cadets need?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I appreciate that the hon. Member understands the unique funding arrangements for the sea cadets, and how they are rightly proud of their history and traditions. I take his point and understand that we must do what we can to support the sea cadets in getting the kit, training and volunteers needed to keep delivering their fantastic activities.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
As my ministerial Friends will know, MBDA, which makes the Storm Shadow missiles used in Ukraine, has doubled its workforce in my constituency since 2010 and is investing £4.8 million annually in training. What more can the Secretary of State do to support businesses in the training and resilience of their workforces?
Luke Pollard
In the defence industrial strategy, we set out a £182 million package to invest in skills not only to support people entering defence for the very first time, creating a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them, but to support people retraining their skills. The companies in Stevenage are great examples of how to use that training money well. I am very happy talking to my hon. Friend about how we can go further with that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
RAF Benson primary school in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction in its rolls as a result of the scrapping of the Puma fleet. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium helicopter coming online?
John Healey
One of our Ministers will meet the hon. Gentleman.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This Government’s plan for defence technical excellence colleges in the east and west of Scotland will give the young people of my constituency training opportunities. Have the Scottish Government responded or agreed to match our ambition with their share of funding for our colleges?
Luke Pollard
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I wrote to the Scottish Government a number of months ago now, but we have still had no reply to our offer of two DTECs in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish National party MPs present will be able to hurry on their Scottish Government to give young people in Scotland the DTECs they deserve.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work in the NHS and that, if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given that defence medical services and the NHS have to work together, will the Government set out what plans they are putting in place for this?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Our work to reinvigorate the strategic reserve is absolutely vital. It is an issue that has not previously been thought about in the necessary detail. This Government are utterly committed to ensuring that the strategic reserve is ready to meet the demands that may be placed on it, including, as the hon. Lady says, workforce implications.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituent David Hewitt was dismissed from the RAF simply for being gay, and that was just days before the armed forces lifted the ban on LGBT service personnel. Years later, he is still waiting for the restoration of his rank and financial redress. What can the Minister do to expedite this process, and does she agree with me, on the first day of Pride Month, on how unacceptable that legacy is?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I completely echo the sentiment of my hon. Friend over how unacceptably our LGBT service personnel were treated. As he will know, the LGBT financial recognition scheme has made significant progress, but it has not yet been completed. If he writes to me with details of his constituent, I will look into it as a matter of urgency.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who asks so many parliamentary questions, has not kept up with those two planes. I will be sure to write to him to give him the full details—or perhaps he will get another PQ in which he will be able to inform himself of the information.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Bovington camp in South Dorset has a long list of outstanding repairs—pothole-ridden streets, persistent fly-tipping and no working street lights on King George V Road, to name just a few. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation carries out much-needed repairs and fulfils its most basic maintenance responsibilities?
Luke Pollard
Bovington is an important base for me, and I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend mentions. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can resolve them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the date on which the very first documents relating to the Chinook air disaster were closed and why it is that Ministers seem to have absolutely no oversight, responsibility or accountability over when decisions are made to close documents to the public.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will write to the hon. Lady with the specific information. I know that she has also submitted questions to my office about this issue. I would gently say that there are very important provisions, including the protection of personal data, that govern those documents. I would just like to state for the record how seriously I am taking this issue. I have the deepest sympathies for the Chinook crash families. I understand that they have their search for justice. I cannot comment in too much detail, but I would like to state that I am very sympathetic.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s strategic defence review recommended an increase in the Army Reserve by 20%, but at the very same time the Government are closing Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks, which trains 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Will the Minister review that decision so that we have the capacity to train new Army reservist recruits?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure that decisions about which activity is conducted where are taken across the UK, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail about those barracks.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Investment in the UK’s defence sector, especially defence SMEs, is desperately needed. What will the Government do to drive forward investment for defence procurement SMEs?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing SMEs. At the start of the year we established the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is supporting dozens of SMEs already. We are also increasing direct spend with SMEs and reducing contracting time to enable SMEs to bid for more defence contracts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Chinook disaster, when we lost so many of our high-ranking anti-terror and security experts. Yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. We had a saga, with the Department claiming for years that it was pilot error, only to have then to reverse that decision, and we still do not have the truth. There are still documents locked away for 100 years, and families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour, but why are the Government continuing to cover up on this issue, particularly on the question of mechanical unfitness?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that tomorrow is a very sad anniversary. I am sure that he will be aware that members of my own corps sadly lost their lives in that crash. My ministerial colleagues and I have met with the families and heard the challenges they have faced, and I am very sympathetic to them. I would gently say that where documents are closed for reasons relating to personal information, that is something that we have to respect, as there are other people involved here. But I continue to meet with the families as required, and I am sympathetic to their situation.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Israel’s illegal invasion of Lebanon is continuing unabated. Millions have left their homes, and millions of refugees have fled to the north. It is happening all over again: people are suffering and civilians are dying. What is the Secretary of State doing to suspend all military co-operation with Israel so that it stops the Gazafication of Lebanon?
John Healey
We are urging both sides to scale down their activity and respect the ceasefire so that the current ceasefire agreement in the wider middle east can be translated into a permanent peace, including between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah.
Speaker’s Statement
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I would like to acknowledge that there has been significant public interest in the case involving the murder of Henry Nowak. The case is of legitimate interest to the House, and I note that sentencing will take place today. My understanding, and agreement, is that the Government will bring forward a statement on the matter tomorrow. If, for some reason, that statement is not forthcoming, I would look favourably on attempts to bring the issues raised by this case before the House by other means.
Business of the House
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
With permission, I will make a short business statement about the remainder of this week’s business.
Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House for the Armed Forces Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—General debate on the Government’s response to the Humble Address on the appointment of Lord Mandelson.
Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.
I will announce further business in the usual way on Thursday.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business update and for the news of the debate on Wednesday. That will be an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put matters on the record—but for scrutiny of the Government, actually, by far the best way is through the questions that will follow the next statement, although I am afraid that the Mandelson files were released publicly only at 2 pm and, at 1,500 pages, no Back-Bench Member can be expected to have mastered them.
The Leader of the House recognises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Since those files could have been put in the public domain at 9.30 this morning, could I register with him that we are all owed a slightly higher quality of scrutiny than this has received?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but that is precisely why I just announced Wednesday’s debate, which will be a general debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will respond to some of those points shortly.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I rise only to pass on the frustrations from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from my residents that the important legislation planned for Wednesday will now be delayed, and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services that our residents are calling out for will be further delayed. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the space available for its completion. May I suggest Mandelson’s law—that, when he is appointed to a Government, his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion? Does the Leader of the House agree that this scandal will be the defining legacy of the Starmer premiership, and that it shows clearly how the change and service agenda promised after the scandal and sleaze of the last Tory Government were as much empty words as the suggestion that proper process was followed in Mandelson’s appointment?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will not respond to those empty words. I expect to announce the rescheduling of the remaining stages of the Railways Bill in my statement on Thursday, and I anticipate that the House will be able to consider those stages of the Bill during next week’s business.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. Before I do, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes that he committed against countless women and girls; we hold them in our thoughts when discussing these issues again today.
The Government have today laid the second tranche of documents. These were laid before the House in advance of this statement and are now on gov.uk for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today comprise one of the largest Government publications ever laid before the House. This disclosure process has been wide-ranging, costing the Cabinet Office alone over £1 million. As the House knows, this was an official-led process, with judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work that they have undertaken right up until today’s publication.
While the first tranche dealt with Peter Mandelson’s appointment, withdrawal and severance, this second tranche responds to the parts of the motion that requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting, as well as messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in the months prior to, and throughout the duration of, his appointment.
I recognise that the House will need sufficient time to review today’s tranche in full, given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the Leader of the House, that is why I have secured Government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general debate: so that there is an opportunity for Members to ask further questions after today’s statement. To inform that debate and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House’s attention to the methodology set out in the publication today, which explains in detail how the Government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, but I will make reference to a number of areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously.
First, on redactions, in line with the motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the Committee’s approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labelled in the bundles today with three asterisks. Outside this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government. I once again express my thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names; contact details, like telephone numbers and email addresses; the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
I would also like to confirm that no redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a Global Counsel employee. Also, no redactions have been made to references to Palantir and Anduril outside the scope of the existing ISC redactions process, and no clear references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties.
I can also confirm to the House that no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by Cabinet Office officials and, where relevant, in agreement with the ISC. In addition, the Cabinet Office Humble Address team have taken advice from an independent King’s Counsel—this has included review of the methodological approach followed by officials—and acted on that advice to inform their work. This has helped to ensure that the Government are confident that their approach is compliant with the Humble Address and the Government’s legal obligations.
These additional targeted redactions, made outside the agreed ISC process, have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the ministerial code, and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. This is important because it goes to the question of whether the Government have complied fully with the Humble Address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to Humble Addresses. If these rules were not relevant, the Humble Address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the hon. Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.
As the House is aware, the Metropolitan police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses.
In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.
The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be “missing” messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.
However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the Humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.
I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the Humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work.
I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system.
This is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the Humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If the story in The Times is to be believed, he may be positioning himself to be the chief successor to the Prime Minister.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of the material that was published today, which I was fortunate enough to see this morning. However, it is important to put on record that only a very few Members of this House were able to see it this morning. It was available at 9.30 am, yet it was published only at 2 pm, so here we are today with hon. Members not having had a chance to read it and yet being expected to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. I know the response will be that we are going to have a general debate on Wednesday, but as Government Members will know, if the Minister chooses not to take interventions in a general debate, there is no scrutiny at all. At worst, this is obfuscation; it is an attempt to deny scrutiny in a way that is unnecessary. The documents should have been published at 9.30 this morning in advance of this statement.
Alex Burghart
It was on the news. The case of Peter Mandelson’s appointment remains of the utmost national importance simply because it touches on national security and on the Prime Minister’s honesty, integrity and competence. I want to make two basic points about the material before us today: the first is about disclosure, and the second about the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed.
On disclosure, although we have a huge number of documents, it is clear that very many are missing. Some have been withheld, some have been lost, and it is clear that some have probably been destroyed. Because of the approach the Government are taking, however, it is impossible for hon. Members to know which documents fall into which category. We are told that the Metropolitan police has requested that certain documents be retained, but the Government have refused to tell us which documents are being retained.
I respect the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has told us about three broad categories now—this is progress. We did ask for those categories some time ago and were told that we could not have them, but it turns out that we can have them. We know there is no good legal basis for the Government not to disclose to this House which documents are being withheld. The Government should tell us. Indeed, it would be possible for them to disclose those documents to the ISC or to certain Members of the House on Privy Council terms. Again, this is obfuscation. It is an unnecessary attempt to defer or deny scrutiny, and the Humble Address did not allow for the Government to redefine the request in this way. If the Government wish to retain documents because the Met police has asked them to do so, they should come back to the House and change the terms of the Humble Address. They have not done that and, consequently, they risk being in contempt.
Some Ministers have duly handed over their WhatsApp messages; it is clear that some have not. Are we to believe that there was no WhatsApp exchange at all between the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson? We know that there was, because it has been reported in the press, and yet those messages reported in the press do not appear in the release today. It is clear that some messages have gone missing.
It is also the case that, in all these documents, the Prime Minister’s presence is almost non-existent. Despite the fact that he was appointing a man to be head of our most senior mission, we have almost nothing in his name. It is as though somehow he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador without leaving any documentary trace of that decision at all. It really beggars belief.
Take, for example, the former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, well known to be a friend and ally of Mandelson. He appears to have submitted a nil return on his WhatsApp messages. I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will tell us why. Why was it that there were never any messages? That seems unlikely. Was it that those messages have been deleted? The House has a right to know. The House has a right to know in each case whether information has gone missing or it has not been handed over.
We know that Peter Mandelson has refused to hand over his phone—it is in the document. We know that he was asked to give over his phone on 31 March, some time after the Humble Address. He has declined to do so, and it is simply not acceptable that the Government should allow this to pass without some sort of pushback. The Government has within their power the opportunity to take legal action to recover the exit payment they gave to Peter Mandelson if he is not playing ball with the Humble Address.
There is then the matter of redactions. There are acres and acres of white space, a constellation of asterisks—perhaps all too appropriate for a Labour document. It is clear from the reports in the press that the ISC has had serious concerns about the redaction process. I listened to what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said, and I will listen with interest to what members of the Committee say in a moment. There are a huge number of redactions under the heading “Third Party”. On what grounds have those redactions been made? For example, on page 251 of part III, Mandelson refers to someone who is “currently staying” with him in Government property. This name is redacted. Why has it been redacted? Why cannot the House be told who was staying in Government property with the ambassador?
On the national security vetting material, it seems once again that the Government are happier to provide The Guardian with more information than they are prepared to provide to Parliament. Preparation of the security vetting document for publication appeared in recess, leaked by someone in Government who was familiar with it, and then we have seen that The Guardian has multiple sources saying that concerns were raised by the vetting agency about Peter Mandelson’s foreign contacts with the Chinese Minister, with Oleg Deripaska, with Tamir Hayman and so on. There were multiple sources, and yet we are being asked to believe that this information was only seen by a tiny handful of people within Government. Someone somewhere is not being frank with us.
If we had time, and we will have time on Wednesday, we could talk about the concerning information about Chagos. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson, after he had been appointed, asked whether he could do paid work in Shanghai on a private basis. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Foreign Secretary saying,
“if you were minded to appoint me I would make sure you never regret it.”
The truth is that we must return once again to the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed. Everything in the documents released today shows that the Prime Minister did not follow the instructions he was given by the then Cabinet Secretary on 11 August 2024. He was told to get security vetting done before the appointment was confirmed, which he did not do. He was asked to do that because the Prime Minister had been provided with a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office that said that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Epstein after he had been sent to prison, that he had been a director of a Russian defence company that had supplied arms to Putin during his invasion of Crimea, and that he had maintained unhealthy business relations in China.
Despite this, the Prime Minister did not get the security vetting done before he made the appointment: he went ahead and made it anyway. The rest of the system was then scrabbling around afterwards to try to make up for the error, but it was the Prime Minister’s error. It was clear that due diligence was not followed. It is a failure that is visible from space, it is a failure that will define this Prime Minister’s premiership and it is a failure that will be written as his political epitaph.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There were three broad questions: first, on access to the documents; secondly, on what documents are available or not; and thirdly, on the redactions process.
On access to the documents, as I said in my response to the urgent question before the recess, I have been mindful of the fact that given the significant number of documents published today, we wanted to create as much time as possible for the House to scrutinise them and to be able to ask the Government questions. I agree that had I published these documents 45 minutes before standing up to give a statement for 45 minutes, that would have been insufficient in the circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the lengths that I and the Government have gone to, not only to provide the documents in advance to him, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees and other stakeholders, but to publish them much earlier than is normal, and to secure a general debate on Wednesday.
In respect of the documents that are available, as I said in my statement, this tranche plus the first tranche of documents represent the entirety of the documents that the Government have available for disclosure, except for those that have been made available to the Metropolitan police. The hon. Gentleman invited me to list the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I am acting on the advice of the Metropolitan police in not being able to do that, but I am pleased that he welcomes the commitment that we have secured from them to give a little more shape by setting out the categories of the documents that are being held. I remind him and the House that we have also shared the documents directly with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so that there is an additional check and balance within Parliament, without being able to share the documents more widely until the Met police tell us that we can do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about notification of the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador. I refer him to the first tranche and the document from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary in No. 10 communicating that decision to both the Foreign Office and the palace.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the redactions process. As I set out in detail in my statement, that process was predominately with the Intelligence and Security Committee, where the information relates to national security or international relations. Secondly, non-national security redactions were undertaken in line with established process and precedent, with the additional check provided this morning, again by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in relation to third parties. I understand that the Chair has confirmed that he is happy with the process that the Government have followed.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me access to the papers at 9.30 this morning. However, is it right that among the 1,500 pages of documents released, there is no written evidence of any mitigations being put in place either to minimise Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest or, more importantly, to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting had flagged, due to Peter Mandelson’s close connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spymasters and a debt of £1 million to buy shares in a secretive Israeli start-up? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us whether we will see such documents later because the police have got them, or whether they just do not exist?
Darren Jones
Without being able inadvertently to name specific documents, the best I can say to my right hon. Friend on the potential conflicts of interest, as I made clear in my statement, is that that nature of document has been made relevant from the perspective of the Metropolitan police criminal investigation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice.
When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly. Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to?
We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end?
Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying?
The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber?
Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady invites me in her first question to comment on the intent of conversations between people other than myself. I am sure the House will understand that all I can do at the Dispatch Box is refer to the documents disclosed in the bundle, given that I was not privy to those conversations.
The hon. Lady asks me a number of questions about the use of non-corporate communication channels. The guidance is very clear that non-corporate communication channels can be used, but, where government is being transacted, the decision needs to be recorded on official Government channels. None the less, WhatsApp has been used extensively, which has raised a number of questions for the Government to consider. We will do that as part of our review of the use of non-corporate communication channels, the terms of reference for which I will announce very shortly.
The hon. Lady asks me about the peerages Bill, which was confirmed in the King’s Speech recently and which we will bring forward in due course. We share the ambition to use it as a piece of legislation to modernise the House of Lords in respect of peers who have brought the House into disrepute.
The hon. Lady asks me again about putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing. We have had exchanges a number of times across the Dispatch Box, and I point to the fact that the changes this Government have already made have proven to be effective, given a number of Ministers who have had to resign.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning.
Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?
Darren Jones
The first part of my hon. Friend’s question goes to the point I made in my statement about the importance of allowing the developed vetting interviews to be fully confidential. We need to ensure that when people join the Government and undertake a DV interview, they are fully transparent with the Government about any relationships they have with individuals. Turning to the review of non-corporate communications channels, I hope to be able to announce its terms of reference very shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?
Sir Edward Leigh
I see that he is nodding; that is very helpful. In my experience, these scandals are always made much worse by any covering up, so I am sure that the Minister will want to be completely open. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and it is strange that the Prime Minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I am reminded of the wartime film, “The Man Who Never Was”. Does that sum up this premiership—the man who never was?
Darren Jones
I look forward to engaging with the right hon. Gentleman in the general debate on Wednesday, in which, of course, I commit to the House that I will do my best to answer questions that are put to me. On the Prime Minister’s communications, I point out to the House that Prime Ministers do not sit at computers, sending emails from Outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf, and that is what is represented in the disclosure.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems that Mr Mandelson’s business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon, we are to debate the Health Bill and the federated data platform. Palantir, a client of Peter Mandelson’s, will clearly have a specific interest hardwired into the Bill, and we are expected to vote on it without seeing the full documentation, or having time to digest it. What exactly was the relationship between Mr Mandelson and Mr Thiel, and was that disclosed in the interview process?
Darren Jones
I am afraid that I am not at the Dispatch Box to speak on behalf of Mr Mandelson, and I was not in the developed vetting interview process; nor have I seen that information, so I cannot answer the specific questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. What I can do, though, is point her to the relevant comments in my statement: the Government have gone to lengths to ensure that references to Palantir have not been redacted in the documents, other than in line with normal commercial processes, given the level of interest in that company in the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful.
Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here, and I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could say a word or two on both. The first is that as a matter of course, vetting should be conducted prior to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there seems to be confusion—the earlier pages of part I, published today, indicate this—about what being a member of the Privy Council, a Member of the House of Lords, or a former member of the Cabinet means for what type of vetting is required. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned, and that very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with this important and sensitive job, so that they know precisely how and when to do it, and so that there is a level playing field for applicants?
Darren Jones
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for providing oversight of the Government’s processes on behalf of Parliament. On his first question, about security clearance being concluded before an announcement is made, he is right. That is something that the Government have learned from this process, and that policy has already been changed.
The second issue he asked me about is represented in this bundle by the uncertainty about how the developed vetting policy applies to members of the Privy Council and/or Members of the House of Lords, given that Ministers are not put through the DV process, because it would be undemocratic interference with the electorate if a democratic process could be overturned by unelected civil servants. The documents show that the Government came to the right conclusion—that Peter Mandelson should go through DV clearance, even though he was a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor—but they also show that there was some uncertainty about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should strengthen the guidance to make that clear in the future.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge for all our constituents is that every time this subject comes up, they cannot shake the sense that Peter Mandelson’s business interests hang like a grubby layer over decision making in this Government. I know that the Minister will want to challenge that, and challenge the concern that Mandelson’s behaviour was a symptom, rather than the cause, of the problem that we face. When we were last in the Chamber discussing this matter on 27 April, I asked the Minister explicitly about the Adrian Fulford review, and he assured me that the investigation of the vetting process would be completed within three to four weeks. We are now past his deadline. He will understand the concern that our constituents might have that there may be more to come. Can he reassure me that that review will be published? What will be in it?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to pull me up. That review has not concluded in the time in which I had initially hoped it would. Adrian Fulford is conducting the review at the moment, and knows that we want to be able to report on it shortly. I cannot tell the House what is in it yet, because I have not seen it, but as soon as I have received it, I will return to the House.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The documents show that in July 2025, Peter Mandelson contacted No. 10 to suggest that the Prime Minister should make time to meet Peter Thiel while he was in London. Peter Mandelson described Mr Thiel as a “celebrated techie”, and this followed the meeting in February 2025 with Palantir in Washington. First, can the Minister confirm whether that meeting with the Prime Minister happened? Secondly, is it the view of the Government, as expressed—unchallenged—by their former ambassador to the US, that a man who described Nazi Carl Schmitt as a major influence on his thinking, and who also said that freedom and democracy are incompatible, is indeed just a “celebrated techie”? Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government will review all links and contracts between Palantir and the Government, the NHS and the police, following the revelations around Mandelson, Global Counsel and Palantir?
Darren Jones
On the question about whether there was a follow-up meeting further to that request, I do not know the answer, so I will not make an assumption one way or another. If the hon. Gentleman tables a parliamentary question, I am sure that we will be able to check and confirm for him. He asked me about Peter Thiel. I will not take the opportunity to give personal views about Mr Thiel, but the hon. Gentleman’s are on the record. Thirdly, he asks about a review of Palantir contracts. I think the Health Secretary has confirmed that there is a review under way on its contract with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He has talked before about the potential implications for vetting, due diligence and non-corporate communications. Can I ask about one further area in which Ministers are keen to improve: our lobbying transparency regime? When might the House expect some progress, or to hear thoughts about how we could make that more effective, given the learnings from this episode?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work in this area. The Government have learned a great deal from his expertise. The House knows that this area sits alongside other areas—non-corporate communications channels, peerage removal in the House of Lords, lobbying, transparency and the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission—as a portfolio of work that the Government are in the process of reviewing. Now that we have completed the publication of the second tranche of these documents, we will want to accelerate our work on those subsequent areas of review. I look forward to coming back to the House with an update in due course.
Paul Holmes
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is well known for being courteous and passionate at the Dispatch Box, and I am a fan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] This is where I get to the bad part: he is not necessarily known for answering everybody’s questions when they ask them. On the question asked by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to opening the debate on Wednesday and, with the leave of the House, closing it, so that every Member of this House can ask him questions?
Darren Jones
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would not want to displease a fan with an inadequate performance from the Dispatch Box. We have considered whether I should open and close the debate on Wednesday, which would be unusual, but we have decided instead that my colleague the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), will open the debate. I will be here for the entirety of the debate, and I will certainly do my best to answer all the questions in closing it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Given that Morgan McSweeney’s name has been copied into so many messages, these disclosures show the need for us to return to the role of Labour Together. Can the Minister tell us whether any third-party redactions relate to any figures associated with Labour Together and, now that its former director has left his seat in this place, will he also tell us when we can expect a full and independent investigation of its activities?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer at the Dispatch Box in relation to calls for an investigation of Labour Together, which is a privately owned organisation outside Government and public service. As for to her invitation to name individuals who have been protected in the disclosure by third-party redactions that do not have a direct relationship with what we are discussing today, I am not at liberty to do that, but as I said in my statement, we have put those redactions before the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for additional checks and balances.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Given that the key person in this scandal, Lord Mandelson, refused to hand over his personal WhatsApp messages, how can the Government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth? Was the Prime Minister misled, or are the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepting partial disclosure?
Darren Jones
Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that, and I am sure that the SNP has learned those lessons as much as everyone else. I made it very clear in my statement that the documents that we have available in front of us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answer? It is no use appealing to me. The Minister can answer by means of his own ability; he does not need my help.
Darren Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but any encouragement is welcome. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the documents relating to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle, and they speak for themselves.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador, and I know that we will all have Epstein’s victims in mind today.
It is right that the Prime Minister has called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. In view of the comments from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the removal of peerages Bill, which appeared in the King’s Speech, will actually have teeth, and will enable us to radically reform the upper Chamber?
Darren Jones
We are concluding internal drafting of the peerages Bill, and will look to secure time to introduce it in this Session. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to introduce legislation that is effective and meaningful; that is certainly our intention.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?
Darren Jones
Let me make two points. As I made clear in my statement, vetting documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan police, although some of the documents have gone through the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said previously. As has been clear, the Foreign Office did not flag this information with the Prime Minister; he was not aware of it until it had been leaked to The Guardian.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement, and I associate myself with his comments about Epstein’s victims, who must be at the forefront of our minds. However, a significant amount of material in this tranche was reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Is the Chief Secretary able to tell the House what steps officials took to ensure that any documents relating to national security and our international relations have been shared with the ISC?
Darren Jones
As I confirmed in my statement, more than 300 individual documents were put before the ISC for its consideration of proposals from the Government for redaction. There were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process, when agreement was sought between the Government and the Committee, and all redactions currently published in the documents have been made with the full agreement of the Committee.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?
Darren Jones
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. In relation to the time made available to read the documents, I refer her to the general debate on Wednesday, which she is perfectly able to attend.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and I look forward to the day that we can remove him as a peer. Even now, he makes a mockery of this process by not releasing his messages. Is there anything that the Government can do to compel Peter Mandelson to provide the information that this House seeks?
Darren Jones
I am afraid the Government have powers to compel disclosure from Government employees, Ministers and special advisers, but do not have powers to compel disclosure from third parties outside our employment. However, the Metropolitan police will be conducting a criminal investigation, and I am sure there will be disclosure through the court process, should a case be put forward by the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?
Darren Jones
The communication of the Prime Minister’s decision does exist in the first tranche, where his principal private secretary drafted a letter communicating the Prime Minister’s decision to the relevant stakeholders.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
All of us have a significant amount of reading to do to fully understand how the good friend of a convicted sex offender was rewarded with a top job, but it remains obvious that Epstein’s victims simply were not on the radar of the boys’ club in control at No. 10. The Minister can come to his place again and again and again, but how does he justify the culture that was in power at the time?
Darren Jones
I gently point out that No. 10 is not occupied solely by men; there are very senior women who work in the Labour party and the Labour Government. In relation to the sentiment of the right hon. Lady’s question, which I agree with, it is important that we have a diversity of views and a diversity of inputs into the decision-making process, regardless of whether decision makers are in Government, business or elsewhere.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?
Darren Jones
All of the Prime Minister’s messages have been disclosed in the bundle, in the same way as those of every other Minister.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
May I take the Minister back to the answer given to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) earlier? Palantir is a very big and very dangerous outfit. The Government are developing a close relationship with Palantir—platforming and so on. Could the Minister assure the House that everything to do with Palantir will now be paused until we can get to the heart of the matter of how it first became embroiled in Government contracts, how it gained them and what its influence over this Government is, particularly via Peter Mandelson?
Darren Jones
I slightly challenge the assumption that the Government are developing a “close relationship” with Palantir. As far as I am aware, that is not true. I think Palantir has been awarded two or so contracts for Government services, and it continues to bid for services. In line with our procurement policy, it is for Departments to decide whom they give contracts to, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: there are a whole range of issues that, in line with procurement policy, Ministers and officials will need to consider, including the protection of people’s personal data, the conduct of companies, and their ability to deliver public services in line with our values.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The media are going to have a frenzy over the tittle-tattle of all this stuff during the next three days, but to my mind the whole Mandelson affair represents a very serious breach of national security. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that the Foreign Office and the security services are turning over with a fine-toothed comb every minute of Lord Mandelson’s time as ambassador to make sure his actions in that office were in the national interest?
Darren Jones
I can confirm, as I think I have from the Dispatch Box before, that officials are conducting that review of documentation. We are also making sure, through the review conducted by Sir Adrian Fulford, that we avoid these situations happening in the future. In particular, Departments will have the right not to take the recommendation of UK Security Vetting when appointing people to developed vetting status.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I was staggered to find in the 1,500 pages published today that the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are not referred to in any of the documents dated before Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The only reference to Epstein’s victims is an email sent after Mandelson was sacked. Victims and survivors should never be an afterthought, and they clearly were in this case. How will the Government ensure that the trauma of Epstein’s victims and survivors is never betrayed again?
Darren Jones
I would first say to the hon. Member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and subsequently from the United States Department of Justice showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein that nobody was aware of—nobody was aware of that until that information became public—but that does not excuse the point he makes in his question. He is right that, as I have said at the start of every statement from the Dispatch Box on this issue, while we debate all these procedural issues about WhatsApp, security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this are the most atrocious crimes—unimaginable to all of us—by Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many young women and girls. We know that this is not just confined to Jeffrey Epstein; sadly, violence against women and girls is a more widespread issue. The Government are working hard in trying to tackle that issue, in line with our commitment to halve it over the course of this Parliament.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?
Darren Jones
I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor, talking about Labour MPs, states:
“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”
Is that the same experience the Minister is having in every meeting he has?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is obviously well liked by me and this House, and we appreciate his honesty in his answers, although they may not have all the information we are seeking. I very gently remind him that the general public view these continued delays as obstructive. The Government’s goal must be to show that no one is beyond scrutiny and accountability, and any further delays or redactions will not help to reach that goal. Will he undertake to ensure that these delays end, the material is released and the general public are assured that we are all accountable for our mistakes and hat these lessons have to be and must be learned?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On pages 115-116 in volume II, part I of the documents released today, there is an email from Olly Robbins dated 16 September 2025 in which he writes to another senior civil servant in Downing Street saying that he has still not yet seen “potentially crucial documents” in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That date is important: it is the same day that Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that all “appropriate processes” had been followed in appointing Peter Mandelson. Can those two things be true? Can appropriate processes have been followed if Mr Robbins himself had not seen these “potentially crucial documents”?
Darren Jones
That is an important question, Mr Speaker, but a question I am unable to answer given I was not privy to those discussions at the time. Maybe if other Select Committees are able to ask questions in the future, they might put that to the relevant people.
Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator, and it ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. On receipt of the draft code from the EHRC in September, we consulted the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, per the process set out in the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC sent the Government an updated draft code last month, following engagement and further legal analysis, ensuring it is robust and accessible with clear explanations. The Minister for Women and Equalities updated Parliament in April, with the Government committed to laying the code in May following restrictions during the pre-election period. My right hon. Friend honoured that commitment on 21 May.
The EHRC has worked hard to produce a code that works for everyone. Following the laying of the draft code, there is now a 40-day period, not including the recess, that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, as set out in the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft in this period, the Minister can then revoke the 2011 code by regulations and then bring the new code into force by a commencement order.
Today, I want to update the House on the contents of the code, in particular what has changed between this draft code and the 2011 version. The updates are primarily where there have been legislative changes, developments in case law, a change or clarification of terminology, or new guidance issued since the original code was published in 2011. The most substantial changes relate to the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers handed down on 16 April 2025. The judgment set out that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that trans people are still protected by the Act. In its judgment, the Supreme Court also warned against reading the judgment
“as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football.
The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision. Changes primarily relate to the provision of sex-based services, when it is lawful to limit access to services and associations based on sex and gender reassignment, implications for competitive sport, and asking about someone’s sex.
For duty bearers, the draft code provides further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. Although it cannot cover every single scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, meaning that there is something that every organisation can take from it and apply in their own context with common sense. If a service provider still is not sure, perhaps because of a quite specific circumstance, they should take legal advice.
For clarity, the draft code indicates that a single-sex service should be provided on the basis of biological sex, so a women-only service should be for biological women only.
Service providers should find that the code provides certainty and clarity on who can access single-sex services and how they can best ensure women’s privacy, dignity and safety.
The code encourages services to communicate their policy on single-sex provision clearly, empowering women to make informed choices when accessing services. This could be especially useful for those women who, for feelings of safety or cultural or religious reasons, are unable to share some spaces with men. The draft code is also clear that trans people should not be left without services to use. Providers could provide mixed-sex facilities or specific support for trans people. We believe service providers will be able to find the right balance for everyone.
Members have raised accessing toilet facilities. The code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. Trans people can use accessible toilets, individual lockable toilets or unisex toilets. The draft code reflects that there must be toilet services for all, and many businesses and service providers will already meet those requirements. For example, a small café might have only one or two individual locked toilets for use by all customers. The draft code provides practical guidance on different ways to comply with the law. Some organisations will not need to make any changes at all and for those that do, in the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so that they are fully enclosed.
What the code does not provide is the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces. People have been using single-sex spaces with a sensible and respectful attitude to other users for years and will continue to do so. Most people have the common sense to step in when necessary, when a person of the opposite biological sex enters a single-sex facility in error, for example, or to know when to alert a member of staff. The draft code provides clarity to service providers to ensure that people have access to services that are private and safe.
I am aware that some have also raised concerns over the code’s content regarding special category personal data. The code states that where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, that should be done sensitively and with respect for their privacy. The draft code explains that information about sex is likely to constitute special category personal data, where, for example, asking about sex may lead to the disclosure of someone’s medical history or the fact that they have a gender recognition certificate. The code advises providers to handle such conversations appropriately. We will work with the EHRC to ensure that service providers understand what is required of them when handling data.
There is also an interest in associations. If an association is for “women only”, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that an association that wants to be trans-inclusive can do so by basing its membership on both sex and gender reassignment.
There are also changes to disability, maternity and pregnancy protections. The draft code highlights protections for disabled people in the Equality Act that expand on what was included in the previous code, such as non-discrimination in relation to access to services. This will be the first time they are recognised and explained in the code. This is an important step for disabled people’s rights.
For pregnant and breastfeeding women, the updated code highlights that harassment relating to breastfeeding may also constitute unlawful harassment on the grounds of sex, confirming that women are protected. The code also highlights that while the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity is not covered directly under the harassment protections in the Act, it is indirectly covered, as such harassment amounts to harassment related to sex.
We note the wider interest in the implementation of the For Women Scotland judgment and the draft code across Government. We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code on policies and activities.
The Equality Act is one of the most significant achievements in modern British history which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is the quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives. This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it. We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code to ensure that duty bearers and service users have up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act. We will always uphold our British values of treating everyone with dignity and respect. I commend this statement to the House.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
It is understood that the Secretary of State first received the draft code of practice in September last year, nine months ago—nine months in which the law has been clear, the Supreme Court had ruled, and women, girls, public bodies and businesses across the country have been waiting for the Government to act. What did the Government do when they received it? Instead of action, we saw delay after delay from a Government reluctant to face their own Back Benchers and protect vulnerable women and girls.
First, the Secretary of State claimed that she needed impact assessments; then she said that consultation with devolved Governments was required, despite this being a reserved matter; after that it was purdah; and finally, having exhausted every excuse, she chose to lay the code of practice before the House on the very last day before the Whitsun parliamentary recess, seemingly actively minimising scrutiny. That is not acceptable. It is also telling that the Secretary of State has sadly not even come to the House herself to account for these decisions—it seems the lure of Makerfield is too great.
The Secretary of State previously told the House that she requested only minor changes to the EHRC’s draft. If that is the case, I ask the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, why it took eight months to request them. The statement talks about engagement—in the interests of transparency, who was that with? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and I have written to the chair of the EHRC asking for clarity on what changes were made. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Secretary of State must provide written reasons for rejecting the original draft. As changes plainly have been made, will the Minister commit to publishing the detail on what has changed and why?
The code of practice is right to emphasise the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services for women, but the law has been settled since the Supreme Court judgment over a year ago. Sex means biological sex, and yet the Secretary of State has failed to enforce that ruling and women have faced ongoing harassment and discrimination for stating that basic fact. We have seen cases such as the Darlington nurses, who were hounded out of their roles or drawn into lengthy tribunal processes for asserting their legal right not to share changing rooms with men. The Government have done nothing to protect them. What does the Secretary of State and the Minister say to those many women whose privacy, safety and dignity have been compromised during these nine months of inaction? Why did the Secretary of State fail to get a grip on her own Government when Department after Department claimed that they could not update their policies while awaiting the code?
The Minister said in her statement: “We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code to policies and activities.” Is that why, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling, the NHS still has not updated its policy on single-sex spaces for staff? Perhaps following the new Health Secretary’s recent remarks there may be greater clarity in the wider Labour Government about what a woman is, but this revisionist mindset about Labour’s supposed long-term support for single-sex spaces will frankly be fresh news to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Will the Minister set out the steps that all Departments will now take to comply with the code, and will they all do so without further delay?
In the meantime, some have sought actively to misrepresent this issue as an attack on trans people. It is not. It is simply about applying the law correctly while safeguarding women and girls. I think the Green party’s deputy leaders’ inflammatory rhetoric is reprehensible and unhelpful, especially at the start of Pride Month. Not to be outdone, we are witnessing peak Lib Dem-ery, with the party leader claiming to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment while opposing the guidance that flows from it. As has rightly been said, that position is unprincipled. Only the Liberal Democrats can claim to support the rule of law while rejecting the practical application of it.
This code of practice is welcome. As the Minister said, it covers a broad range of areas including age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race and so much more, but, disgracefully, it has landed nine months overdue—and helpfully after local elections in which we women voted. During that time, women have paid the price of inaction. Now that the code has finally been published, women and girls need proper action—not hiding away, not further delay and not more excuses. We need the immediate enforcement of the rights that women and girls are entitled to under the law of this land.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. Let me say up front that we take this issue incredibly seriously. Services and associations need to operate in compliance with the law, and we want to support them. The issue is not a political football for us; nor should it be for any Member of this House. We are focused on the practical—treating everyone with compassion, dignity and respect—and we should never fan the flames or seek to grab headlines. We will support services to operate and provide single-sex spaces where needed and ensure that trans people have access to all the services to support their needs, too.
The hon. Lady accused the Government of delay but, as a shadow Equalities Minister, she will know that there is a process that has to be followed. In line with that process, as outlined in the Equality Act 2006, we consulted the devolved Administrations; we worked across Government on the myriad services that we provide, or support others to provide; and we conducted an analysis of the code and its impact. The EHRC made some changes following its engagement and consultation. We were told by the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary that we could not lay the code during the pre-election period. We have now laid the draft.
The hon. Lady said that in laying the draft in May, before the parliamentary recess, as my right hon. Friend committed to do, we were somehow seeking to delay scrutiny. It may help to clarify that upon laying the draft there is a 40-day period that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, and that excludes the recess. There is sufficient time for adequate scrutiny, and I am sure that the House will give the matter its attention.
In relation to guidance for the NHS, it is helpful for the House to know that NHS England is currently reviewing its guidance and will ensure that it reflects the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers case. It will also take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice.
It is important to note that although the code does not directly apply to employers, its explanation of the Equality Act 2010—particularly around unlawful discrimination and harassment—will be relevant to and helpful for employers in considering how best to comply with their obligations under that legislation. The EHRC has a separate employment code of practice, which it also intends to update in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I really wish that there was a better beginning to Pride Month than what we are discussing. Although the code is marginally different from its draft, it is still a trans-exclusionary one at its core, and unfortunately not inclusive. Moves like this from the EHRC and the Government have seen the UK slip from third in 2019 to 22nd in the European rankings for LGBT+ people to live and feel safe. Does the Minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it? How will she act to stop the erosion of LGBT+ rights in this country?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will know that making sure that we can support women and their rights, alongside treating trans people with dignity, must be the priority for all of us. That is what we are aiming to achieve. That is why it is important that we have the draft code now available for scrutiny. We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.
Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?
For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and question. I again highlight how the draft code does provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice, and we can ensure that we both protect single-sex spaces and have services and support for trans people. It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.
I also want to mention the burden on business. The EHRC expects that for most aspects of the draft code, businesses will already be compliant, and for some businesses there will be no cost at all. For example, a small café might have one individual lockable toilet for use by all customers, and it would not need to change anything. It may be helpful for the House to know that the EHRC will be running a session to answer questions from Members of Parliament later this week, and there may be some matters that the hon. Lady wishes to raise directly.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The EHRC code of practice fails everyone. It effectively pushes trans people out of public life, it subjects all women to gender policing based on stereotypes, and it does not provide clarity to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. For example, a charity that wants to put on a women’s coffee morning that is open to the public cannot, according to the guidance, be trans inclusive without being open to the whole public. The Government’s equality impact assessment warns of the disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault towards trans women if they are forced to use men’s services, as well as the increased harassment of anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes. Why are the Government pushing ahead with this? Why not instead withdraw the guidance, and legislate to clarify that the Equality Act 2010 was always intended to be trans inclusive? For goodness’ sake, it was passed after the last Labour Government passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.
Seema Malhotra
The Government are proud of the Equality Act, and we will always protect and uphold it. I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s question about associations, because it is clear in the draft code that if an association is, and describes itself as, for women only, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. However, if an association wants to be trans-inclusive, it does not say that its services need to be open to absolutely everybody. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that they can do so by choosing their membership by both sex and gender reassignment. It is important that we continue to ensure that that is as clear as possible.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
This is definitely better late than never, and after listening to the Lib Dem spokesperson—I cannot believe I am going to say this—I am actually grateful that we have a Labour Government and not a Lib Dem Government, because what the Lib Dems have just said is absolutely shocking. They do not respect the rule of law at all. On that note, I am going to ask a technical question. Did the Secretary of State formally reject the draft code of practice, as submitted by the EHRC in September 2025? If so, please can the Minister provide us with a copy of the written reasons given, as per section 14 of the Equality Act 2006?
Seema Malhotra
I have shared the process that we have been through, which is in line with the process outlined in the Equality Act 2006. It is important to note that, in line with that process, we have seen the consultation with the devolved Administrations; that work has also been done by the EHRC; and the Secretary of State has now laid the draft code before the House, as she committed to do.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this specific point. If a single-sex organisation wanted to open its doors to trans people, would that be to all trans people, or could a women’s organisation, for example, open its doors or membership to trans women exclusively?
Seema Malhotra
I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on individual cases. It is important to note that there is guidance in the draft code, with worked examples, and if an organisation is unsure, it will be important for it to be able to consult that guidance and to take legal advice, should it so wish, but there is also experience and common sense involved in this, as well as the application of the draft code with its examples that I think will provide answers to all organisations as to how they should proceed with the services they provide.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am really appalled, frankly, with the response from the official Opposition. Just a few Prime Ministers ago, Theresa May said:
“Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go.”
Well, how far the Tory party has fallen from those words. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I attended the evidence session when we interviewed the new chair of the EHRC, and for the Minister to say that that was an independent process when the Government rammed it through despite cross-party consensus that the new chair was not fit for the role is, quite frankly, surprising. I also want to pick up on the fact that the Minister said that we should “treat these issues sensitively”. Today is the start of Pride Month. To do this today, of all days, is not just a kick in the teeth but a slap in the face for LGBT people across this country. I want to know what the Minister would say to my constituents who have told me how they have been challenged in toilets because they live their lives as trans people already, before this guidance was put forward. Why does she think this will make it any better? What basis does she have for that suggestion?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will be aware that people have operated in society with respect for each other in relation to single-sex spaces for a long time, and that will continue to be the case. It is important to note that access to a toilet should be very clear, and to recognise the Supreme Court ruling in relation to toilets: toilets that are designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. However, facilities can be provided in other ways, and a large number of organisations across the country already do so, whether by providing unisex toilets or individual lockable toilets. That means that those facilities are accessible by anybody.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened very carefully to my constituents who identify as trans. One thing that is very clear is from the EHRC guidance is that it will cost organisations a significant amount to put on additional services and facilities if they are to become inclusive organisations. What discussions have taken place with the Treasury to ensure that organisations are supported to build an inclusive society?
Seema Malhotra
I reiterate what the EHRC has said: it expects that businesses will already be compliant with most aspects of the draft code. My hon. Friend may also be referring to Government services. We are committed to making sure that the Government estate is 100% compliant with the requirements of the Equality Act and in line with the EHRC guidance.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am going to try to get some clarity, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) asked when there will be written explanations of the draft changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). In both answers, the Minister talked about process. Well, process dictates that there should be written answers, so when will we see them in this House?
Seema Malhotra
I am aware that the shadow Secretary of State has written to the EHRC, and I am sure that the EHRC will be engaging directly in relation to those specific questions.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
What this place does best is scrutiny. That is why it is so problematic that this legislation is coming forward in a draft form as a negative statutory instrument. This guidance falls apart on hard contact with the real world. I will quote back to the Minister something that she just said in her statement, because businesses in my local community, which just want to be cafés or restaurants, will be troubled by it. She said that the guidance
“does not provide…the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces”,
but she also said that
“where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, this should be done sensitively”.
Most businesses will be deeply confused as to whether somebody can be challenged, and frankly they do not want fights between their customers. Does the Minister accept that, to prevent being people’s gender being judged by their appearance—which we know will harm many more people than, I suspect, even those people who wish to see harm through this guidance would like—the safest option for most businesses will be getting rid of women’s toilets altogether? Will that not be an inevitable consequence of this guidance?
Seema Malhotra
It will be for organisations to make decisions about how they comply with the law, and different organisations will choose different ways of doing so. In the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so they may be fully enclosed. As I mentioned before, the code does not provide the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex or access to those spaces, but most people will have the common sense to step in where necessary or, if they are concerned, to alert a member of staff.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I would also like to refer the Minister to her own words. She described the Equality Act as
“one of the most significant achievements in modern British history”.
I think we would all agree with that, but she then went on to describe it as the
“quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives”
and said that
“This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it”.
She will look very hard before she finds a member of the LGBTQ community in this country who believes that. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) might think, I fully respect the Supreme Court’s judgment, but I believe the Supreme Court judged on the letter of the law, not on the spirit of that historic achievement that the Minister described. In order to reflect the spirit of that, do we not now need to look carefully at the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and ensure that all people in this country—including women and the LGBT community, because their rights are not mutually exclusive—get the protection that was envisaged in that law, in both its letter and spirit?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do want, however, to challenge her on some of what she said. It is important to recognise and reassure trans people that there are still protections in the Equality Act via the gender reassignment protected characteristic, and this includes direct and indirect discrimination. It is also important to note and not to take for granted the choices that we make in government; they are active choices to pursue and support people’s rights. The Government have also recently updated hate crime legislation to make hate crimes against LGBT people an aggravated offence. We will also shortly bring forward legislation for a trans-inclusive conversion practice ban to end that abusive practice. It is important not to say that we are not supportive of trans rights and LGBT+ rights. We must recognise the progress we are making where we can, the complexity of the debate we are having today, and the importance of ensuring that, in complying with the law, we are supporting women and single-sex spaces alongside treating trans people with respect and dignity.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her attempts to present it in quite an even and fair way, because this debate is already far too toxic. She will acknowledge, however, that the guidance will change the lives of many people, particularly those who have been living as trans for many years. She is right that we should protect the rights of women and trans people, but I am keen to understand what that means for those delivering single-sex services that only have very limited space—no space to create that third space. What do they do? If they are a charity, where do they find funding to make that happen?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will find that similar scenarios are shared in some of the guidance and the worked examples. For the vast majority of organisations, the changes may actually be very small. As organisations seek to comply with the guidance and the law, it is important to recognise that if there are changes to be made, as I said, in the vast majority of cases, they will be very small, and that they can take advice should they be unsure.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It has been over a year since the verdict, so what is the Minister doing to persuade non-compliant public sector bodies, like the NHS, to implement the Supreme Court ruling at the earliest possible opportunity?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me reference the work that the NHS is doing. It is important that it is able to continue that work and that we ensure that other Government Departments still working through the implications are able to do so and bring forward their policies.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I cannot be the only Member to have had dozens of emails from constituents who are dismayed that, under this guidance, the vague, ill-defined and highly subjective term “discomfort of service users” becomes the litmus test for excluding people from essential services. I heard what the Minister said about associations, but can we be clear whether public spaces will still be able to provide trans-inclusive services? If that is not the case, I feel that this guidance is simply unreasonable, unfair and unworkable.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is right; it is extremely important that as we take forward the draft code and its implications, and as we look to how we ensure compliance with the law, we do support women and their rights to single-sex services and spaces, but that we do so while ensuring that we are meeting the needs of trans people too. That is incumbent on all of us in this House.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
At the beginning of Pride Month, a number of trans people will be unsettled and anxious about the contents of the statement today; they will be wondering how on earth they will safely access public services. Not only have we fallen to No. 22 in the rainbow index, but we are now 45th out of 49 European nations for the service of transgender people across Europe. Can the Minister give us any explanation for why we have fallen so low? What impact does she expect this code of practice to have on those league table positions?
Seema Malhotra
I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. This draft code has more worked examples and it has seen consultation. He is able to speak directly with the EHRC about the way in which it has consulted and brought forward the draft code. As I have said, it is incredibly important that we have a balance, so that we are protecting single-sex spaces for women—and that should not be in conflict with ensuring that trans people continue to be protected from harassment and discrimination. I want to reiterate that the Supreme Court warned
“against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
It is important to get this right for everyone.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The proposed code of practice represents a major and worrying change in how equality law may operate in practice for trans people and service providers. A number of LGBTQ+ charities and equality organisations have warned that the guidance risks legitimising exclusion and increasing harassment of both trans people and gender non-conforming cis people. A number of my constituents across Stourbridge have contacted me because they are deeply concerned by the proposed changes. Will the Minister confirm whether this House will have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the final code of practice before anything comes into force?
Seema Malhotra
We are certainly having some of that debate today, and it will certainly be possible for hon. Members to bring forward questions and raise matters in the usual way. My hon. Friend may well wish to raise issues and discuss them directly with the EHRC when it has its meeting for Members of Parliament, and I am sure she will continue to raise these matters in the House in the usual ways.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Oxford is proud to have the highest proportion of trans and non-binary people of any area outside London, so it was with sadness that I received an email from a constituent, Jennie, who already accompanies their spouse, who is trans, to the toilet, because she is so worried for their safety. Last year, 3,800 hate crimes were reported against trans people, and the worry in the community is that things will only get worse, not better, as a result of this guidance. This weekend is Oxford Pride, and the Liberal Democrats and I will stand proudly with our trans and non-binary neighbours.
My question to the Minister is simple: what if she is wrong? What if her assurance that this decision will protect trans and non-binary rights does not come to pass and the situation gets worse? Is she open to working with others across this House to fix this issue, or is this a done deal?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady has great experience in this House, and she will know about the processes of engagement. She will also know about the consultation and the engagement that the EHRC has had in the development of the guidance and the fact that there were two periods of consultation last year. She may well wish to raise some matters with the EHRC directly, but it is important to recognise that we must respond to the ruling from the Supreme Court. It is also important to recognise that in upholding the law as it is in the Equality Act, we have a responsibility both to protect single-sex spaces and to ensure that the rights of trans people are respected and their services and needs are supported. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise those concerns.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have concerns that human rights that have long applied to trans people since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will no longer apply. I am afraid that that will be the case more broadly than in the areas that the Minister mentioned in her statement. When read together, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.92 of the code imply that a transgender person and a cisgender person who are in a relationship can no longer enjoy the rights that they have enjoyed since the introduction of the Act—for instance, in terms of their relationship being respected, registered and recognised by the law. Has there been a human rights analysis of the EHRC guidance? The right to family life appears to be under threat from it.
Seema Malhotra
I suggest that my hon. Friend raises that matter with the EHRC. I am not sure that I completely agree with his conclusions, but I am very happy to meet with him and discuss the matter further.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As we begin Pride Month, I reiterate my party’s solidarity with trans people, who are valued members of our communities in Wales and deserve continued protection from harassment and discrimination. We will uphold the rule of law through the Welsh Government, but as we have heard on numerous occasions today, in this guidance it appears that there is a lack of clear, workable guidance for services supporting transgender people, which is causing huge concerns. The Minister has mentioned consultation with devolved Governments, but what assurance can she give me that the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to support inclusive services?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Lady will agree with me when I say that transgender people are valued members of all our communities across the whole country. I am happy to assure her that we will continue to engage with our devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. Engagement is an important part of how we move forward on all issues.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am being contacted by so many transgender constituents, who say to me that the EHRC guidance is in conflict with the Equality Act. They feel that the guidance is absolutely making things worse for transgender people, who feel further stigmatised and isolated. What would the Minister say to my constituents regarding how they feel?
Seema Malhotra
I think we all want to ensure that trans people across the country feel supported. As we move forward on how the draft code provides guidance, with the worked examples and the extensive consultation that has gone on, I hope we will see progress in how we strike the balance we need between supporting women and their rights and treating trans people with dignity. It is important that we continue to deal with this topic sensitively and with respect, and to make sure we engage as we move forward.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I pay tribute to Bourne Out LGBT and Bourne This Way in Eastbourne, which do great work to advance the rights of LGBT folks locally. I also pay tribute to LGBT+ Lib Dems and Liberal Democrat Women, which do great work within my party to advance equality, unlike this code of practice, which is unworkable for all, immoral for all and undermines equality for all. The Government’s own equality impact assessment has said of the draft code that
“Women who are considered masculine may face greater scrutiny about their sex as a result of the changes. This will likely have a negative impact on this group”.
In what way does this enhance the privacy, dignity and safety of women?
Seema Malhotra
The draft code is there to provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. It cannot cover every scenario, but with the worked examples, there is something that every organisation can take and apply, in its own context and with common sense. It is also important that if a service provider is still unsure, it can take legal advice, but in addition, there will be an expectation that organisations are able to undertake training for their staff so that if there is any concern, there is a process to deal with any issue sensitively.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I have concerns about the code and its implementation, although these largely stem from the Supreme Court judgment and its seeming disregard for the Gender Recognition Act. While we are operating within the law as set by the Supreme Court, we should also recognise the anxiety and trauma that the judgment has caused many people in our communities, including mine in Exeter. Does the Minister agree that the onus is on duty bearers to be inclusive and transparent when it comes to services and organisations, given that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and can she provide a bit more clarity on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)? Does someone have the right to challenge someone in a service or an area such as a single-sex toilet, or do they not? If they do have that right, how might someone prove their biological sex, especially if they have a gender recognition certificate?
Seema Malhotra
It is important to clarify that we continue to have engagement, and my hon. Friend may want to raise some of those matters with the EHRC. What we have said about challenging is that, prior to this debate, people have been able to sensitively say when somebody is walking into the wrong toilet, and to raise that. If there is a concern that goes beyond that, they should alert a member of staff. We expect that there will be training within organisations, and that organisations will see themselves as having a responsibility to ensure they are providing an inclusive service to all. As we continue to move forward with this debate, it is important that that training takes place, so that issues are dealt with sensitively and that individuals and organisations do not feel that either they do not have a way of asking, or it is not being handled in a proportionate way.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
One of my constituents described this code of conduct as “trans apartheid”. Another said that it was “state-sponsored repression”. Let us flip it, because we always talk about trans women; let us talk about trans men. If the rules say that somebody cannot enter a toilet of the gender that they were not born, a trans man is no longer allowed to go into a men’s toilet, but they also may not be allowed to go into a ladies’ toilet—their sex at birth—because at that point, they might become a threatening prospect for some people. They often are exceptionally well built young people, and a woman can say that they feel uncomfortable about that person in their toilets. Where are the human rights and privacy of the trans person in all this? I am concerned that we have missed the very group of people who are most affected.
Seema Malhotra
The draft code says that if someone has concerns about users of the opposite sex, or those perceived to be of the opposite sex, and raises those concerns with a service provider, the service provider can ask those users to confirm their sex, but that this should be done sensitively and with their privacy protected. It also outlines that staff should be equipped to handle such sensitive situations. If someone still wants to engage someone whom they believe to be in the wrong space, we would expect them to do so in a way that does not compromise anyone’s safety. Women should not have to face intrusive questioning simply because they do not conform to feminine stereotypes, and the draft code is explicit that service providers must handle any such queries sensitively and proportionately. Everyone must have access to the services that they need.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have raised concerns about this draft code. One trans woman wrote to me to say that she and her partner are frightened for her safety and ability to take part in public life. She fears being forced to stay at home, rather than risk humiliation, confrontation or even being outed in public if she cannot use public facilities safely. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that as the code is considered, the Government will ensure that trans people are not effectively driven out of public life and remain able to participate safely, fully and with dignity?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no one should be driven out of public life or denied the ability to live their life as they wish. She raises an important point about why this must be done so sensitively, and why it is an important responsibility for service providers to be able to respond and adapt as needed to ensure that we have an inclusive society. It is not unreasonable to expect there to be safe and private toilets for people to use when they are out and about.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I suggest to the Minister that the very clear Supreme Court judgment and the resulting guidance render the Gender Recognition Act 2004 irrational. That Act persists with the fiction that by filling out a few forms, someone can change their sex on official documents. The Supreme Court was clear that gender recognition certificates are of no effect in changing one’s legal sex. Is it not time that we stop pretending under any guise that one can change one’s sex or change biological reality?
Seema Malhotra
I will say one thing in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is that it is extremely important that we treat trans people with respect. Secondly, the Equality Act will continue to protect trans people and their rights in law.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the clarity that the code brings for service providers, and I note, too, that Women’s Aid is just one of the organisations that has welcomed it. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Supreme Court judgment and the code have not revoked any rights for anyone, but have confirmed single-sex rights that protect women and girls?
Seema Malhotra
I was not quite clear about that question, but I will say that the draft guidance is about supporting women and their rights and the provision of single-sex spaces, alongside treating trans people with dignity, and that will continue to be our focus.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I too have been contacted by a great many trans people, and their families and friends, who have expressed genuine fear about the implications of this guidance. We have heard about the practicalities. I have heard from someone who has cancelled a hip operation because they are not sure that they will be treated with dignity when they go into hospital. I hear from people who are changing their patterns of work, travel and leisure because they cannot be certain that they can use toilets unchallenged, and therefore face an extra risk of violence. However, what comes through very strongly from all of them is the challenge that this presents to their identity. Many of them have lived for decades in their gender, and now they are thinking about potentially having to say to their colleagues at work—people who think of them as being of that gender, because it is all they have ever known them as— “Actually, I was born in a different gender, so can you tell me how I can use the toilets, how I can use the changing room?” This is just unacceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady really must get to a question—she has spoken for nearly as long as her party’s Front Bencher.
Charlotte Cane
Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?
Seema Malhotra
I believe that the Equality Act does live up to its name, and I am proud of the Equality Act. I think that what we are discussing here is compliance with the law, and I know that the whole House will want to send the message that no one should be concerned about going for operations or accessing services. It is important that any concerns are raised directly with those who are providing those services, and I am sure that reassurance will be given. I think that, in relation to the debate we are having, the hon. Lady will know that it is important that we get the balance right between supporting women and their rights, and ensuring that we uphold respect for all trans people.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I try to start from a position of empathy on this topic. I have no idea what it is to experience the pain of being born in a body that does not accord with one’s gender, and I do not know what it is to have the very real fear of assault that women live with, so I recognise the need for understanding and balance. However, I do not think that there is sufficient balance in this guidance. Given its focus on “proportionality”, businesses and organisations are forced to make judgment calls in a highly sensitive area. There is a real risk that the guidance will create a situation in which trans people, who already face high levels of discrimination, are subject to a urinary leash controlling where they can go. Will the Minister please tell me how the Government will ensure that they are not excluded from services and are welcomed into public spaces, as everyone should be?
Seema Malhotra
As I have said before, it is extremely important that everyone has access to the services and facilities that they need. It is also important to recognise that, while balance does matter, there are worked examples and explanations in the extensive draft code of practice which I hope will provide reassurance as we move forward, and as organisations feel that they have the clarity they need to make the changes to ensure that they comply with the law.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I think it is clear from these exchanges that this is an issue that divides the House, and it also divides the country. There are many different opinions. Will the Minister commit herself to putting the statutory instrument to a vote?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the process in the Equality Act 2006, which we are following. However, he may want to raise some of his concerns and have a discussion with the EHRC, which has undertaken extensive guidance and continues to engage with stakeholders.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The High Court judgment of February this year against the EHRC, when the initial guidance was challenged, stated:
“there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the ‘female’ lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.”
The clear implication is that providers may choose to offer trans-inclusive services. Can the Minister explain how the EHRC’s code of practice is at all consistent with that?
Seema Malhotra
Although the draft code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex, it is also the case that it will contain sufficient guidance for organisations to make their own decisions about changing the signs, making clear the use of accessible toilets in line with building regulations about smaller spaces, and providing individual, lockable toilets or unisex toilets. There are many ways in which we can ensure inclusivity, and it is important that we do so.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has rightly talked about the need to avoid using any particular group as a political football and the need to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I agree with her on that, but the Government’s own equality impact assessment says:
“The debate on single sex services and the treatment of trans people is particularly divisive at this time. The Code of Practice may exacerbate these tensions.”
Does she accept the Government’s own impact assessment on that point?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend highlights aspects of what has been written in the impact assessment, but it is also important to note that the Government want to reassure trans people that they have protections under the Equality Act, which is clearly the case via the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As we move forward, it is important that we do so together, that as organisations and businesses implement changes we also learn as we go, all organisations feel supported in ensuring compliance with the law, and that in providing single-sex spaces, we do so with respect and dignity for all trans people.
Health Bill
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to ask anyone in Britain what they think about the NHS, I bet they would give you an answer without hesitation. No one would be lost for words, because everyone has an opinion. Regardless of whether they tell you a story about how the NHS has helped them or their family in their moment of need, or whether they share a view on how they would change it for the better, everyone cares about the NHS. The NHS matters deeply to people right across our country because of how deeply it touches all our lives.
For my part, the NHS came to my rescue when I was diagnosed 18 years ago with a serious and rare neurological condition that threatened my ability to run, to write and to talk. After the best care I could have hoped for from my brilliant consultant and his team at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen Square, and from other teams across the NHS, I am now symptom free. It is only thanks to the support of those people working in our health service, and to the faith of the Prime Minister in appointing me to this role, that I am able to stand here today as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and set out what this critical Bill will mean for the future of our NHS.
Like me, everyone across Britain will have their own story of the NHS, or a view to share about its future. It is an achievement that we all share together, and one that is personal for us all. My predecessor as Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has spoken movingly about the importance of the NHS to him. He explained how it saved his life when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at the age of 38 and how, amidst all his worries, the one thing he never had to worry about was how much the treatment might cost. Let me pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he did in the role as a great champion of patients everywhere, and as someone with a huge passion for building a modern NHS—something we can see in this Bill, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) put so much energy into.
As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Exchequer Secretary, I have been incredibly proud to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in her determination to take the right decisions on the public finances to enable record investment in our national health service. Thanks to that investment, the changes that this Labour Government have begun to make, the leadership at the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England, and the incredible work of frontline staff across the NHS, in just under two years we have seen: over half a million fewer people on the waiting list; 2,000 more GPs; 8,500 more mental health workers; four in five patients being seen within four hours in A&E; over 100 community diagnostic centres now open in evenings and at weekends; and over 240,000 more people getting their cancer tests on time. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making: an NHS in which more patients get the treatment they need when they need it, and in which taxpayers get better value for money.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentions some achievements and the progress being made within the NHS. May I bring him back to the issue of cancer treatment? According to OECD figures, 53% of cancer patients should receive radiotherapy as their primary treatment. In the UK, the figure is only 35%. In Cumbria and Lancashire, it is only 29%. This is delaying treatment, delaying cures and preventing people from living long lives. Will he take a personal interest in correcting the commissioning so that every single part of this country has access to radiotherapy close to where people live, so that they can be cured with the most up-to-date technology?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of having the right approach to cancer, and our national cancer plan sets out what we as a Government are doing to achieve that. He is also right to point to the regional variation in different parts of the country, and to say how important it is not just to raise standards across the country but to ensure that the increase in standards is evenly distributed, so that all areas improve. One of my roles as Secretary of State is to ensure that we not only deliver our national cancer plan but support local areas so that they have the right services.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent speech, and I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for their work in developing the Bill. Healthwatch Haringey plays an enormously important role in being a champion for the ecosystem within a locality. The Local Government Association is very concerned about some of the discussions. Will he reassure me that as the Bill passes through the House, how we do the NHS, as well as what we do, will be an integral part, so that everybody can feel included in the NHS?
James Murray
I reassure my hon. Friend that what the Bill seeks to achieve, through local health watches across the country, is to bring the voice of patients closer to the people who plan and deliver services. Too often, we have not seen action following feedback. We need to ensure that such feedback is integrated into the planning and delivery of services, so that patient voices are heard.
I have set out some of this Labour Government’s achievements less than two years into office, which shows that decline is not inevitable. Our determination to deliver on what people voted for is making a real difference. We have started to make progress, and we are building an NHS that is fit for the future.
Labour’s choice in government has been, and will always be, to strengthen and improve the NHS as a service that is universal and publicly funded, with use based on need, not on ability to pay. That choice is backed by people across Britain, yet for the first time in a generation, some Members of this House are openly calling for the NHS’s founding principles to be abandoned. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who I note is not in his place—[Interruption.] He never is—good point. Time and again, he has made it clear that he would tear the principles of the NHS to shreds and bring in an insurance-based system that would benefit only his friends in finance. Be in no doubt: Reform would sell our health service to the highest bidder. That would be a devastating mistake, and we must not let it happen.
Instead of turning our backs on the principles on which the NHS was founded, as some Opposition Members would have us do, I will fight every day as Health and Social Care Secretary to build the modern health service that our country demands and that patients deserve.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. He has spoken about two themes: the scale of ambition of this Bill, and the need for the patient voice to be heard at the heart of it, given how much all our constituents care about the NHS. In the case of Healthwatch, can he reassure the House that bringing the scrutiny of local voices up to the level of the Secretary of State will not diminish the independence of the local healthwatch organisations that, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, do so much to promote the patient voice and to hold the NHS to account for its services?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about my taking on this post. I can reassure him that, as I will come to in my speech, the Bill sets out to integrate the national Healthwatch into the Department of Health and Social Care through a new patient experience directorate and to integrate local healthwatch organisations into integrated care boards and local authorities, which are responsible for delivering health and care at local level. This measure is about making sure that patient voices at national and local level are closer to those deciding on and delivering services, so that those voices are heard.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the heart of this Bill is about modernising the NHS and reducing inequalities across this country, and that since my constituency has the third lowest healthy life expectancy in the UK—it is shocking—my constituents will benefit from this Bill and all the action on inequality that it is intended to deliver?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill is about modernising the NHS. As a Labour Government, our priority is to boost investment and to modernise the NHS for the future. It is exactly that combination of investment and reform that will deliver the health service that her constituents need and deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and I wish him well in the role he now takes on. I am very pleased that he has experienced the NHS at its best, and I am glad to hear that.
The Government have called for a duty of candour, so they must ensure that that is still possible, but the decision to scrap independent bodies such as Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body risks silencing the patient voice, so there is a need to be careful. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the Government have taken that on board in this Bill?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman raises questions relating to Healthwatch and to HSSIB being integrated into the Care Quality Commission. I will set out more detail in a few moments about those decisions, but fundamentally they derive from conclusions arrived at by Dr Penny Dash, whose review of the patient safety landscape found that it was too full of different organisations, and that their impact on the services provided to patients was unclear. We are seeking through this Bill to simplify that landscape, make sure that patients’ voices are heard closer to decision makers and improve the NHS for everyone across the country.
For me, the way to build on the progress of the past two years is not just to maintain the improvement in performance that we have seen, but to accelerate our fundamental transformation and modernisation of the NHS. As Health Secretary, I am absolutely focused on delivery and putting the values that we in the Labour party all share into action. Crucially, I am determined to make sure that we benefit from the fullest possible use of technology, digitisation and artificial intelligence to renew the NHS for the future.
The changes in technology, digitisation and AI are not an add-on to the NHS’s core business. With a determined focus on driving innovation at every level and the confidence to reimagine our approach to the nation’s health for the modern world, they offer us the chance to transform the way the entire NHS works. They will improve the speed of diagnosis, helping people to get the right treatment much more quickly than they do today.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
James Murray
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
These changes will streamline tasks for NHS staff, freeing them from admin and bureaucracy to focus their energy on caring for patients. They will transform the experience we all have as patients, giving us control and reducing our anxiety over the care we receive. They will reduce the costs of delivering healthcare, so that more of the money we spend goes to the frontline, where it belongs. That is the future we must build, and the road to that future runs through this Bill.
For many years, patient groups have warned about the pitfalls and shortcomings of fragmented information systems in the NHS, and they are absolutely right. Right now, information in the NHS tends to follow the institution, not the individual. That is why we all know the familiar frustration of having to repeat the same story over and over, every time we see a new nurse, doctor or consultant. The reason for this is that too often no one, including the patient themselves, can see a full summary of a patient’s medical record in one place. Those patchy care records are not just an inconvenience or a source of anxiety and distress; they can also be a risk to patient safety.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Hinchingbrooke hospital in my constituency is one of the new hospitals to be built as part of the new hospital programme—it is in wave zero—but it currently does not have an electronic patient record system, so we have the fragmented patient history that he has just mentioned. It desperately needs to increase its rating on the HIMSS—Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society—scale as a new hospital, but it does not have the funding required to install a patient record system. Will he guarantee that the hospital will receive the funding required to deliver a new electronic patient record system?
James Murray
I am happy to look into the specific circumstances the hon. Gentleman refers to and get back to him. More widely, however, the investment is secured across the Government for implementing the single patient record system. That will mean that, rather than data being transferred from where it exists at the moment to a new system, it will remain where it is—in GP surgeries, hospitals and so on—but it will be linked up so that one person, including the patient, can see all that data from the middle of the network of information.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Specifically on the single patient record, the explanatory notes say that it will
“allow patient information to be shared with patients and their relevant health and social care providers (such as GPs, hospital doctors, social care workers and others involved in their direct care)”.
By my maths, that is probably a couple of million people, so could the Secretary of State please talk about how safeguards will be implemented, particularly for children’s care data?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the very important question of data privacy and security. I will address that in a moment, because I am going to set out some of the protections in our approach to the single patient record, and I think that will exactly answer the questions she raises.
I will make progress, because I am conscious of time. As I have said, the patchy records are not just an annoyance or a source of anxiety or distress; they can also be a risk to patient safety. In other areas of our lives, getting information wrong or not having it immediately available may be an inconvenience; in a health service, the consequences can be profound. What happens to the patient who is rushed to accident and emergency and has complex conditions that require multiple medications, if the emergency team have no way of knowing that? What happens to the dementia patient who cannot keep track of all the different documents from all the different specialists in all the different providers? In today’s NHS, the GP or practice nurse at the clinic, the paramedics stepping through the front door and the consultant at the bedside are doing everything they can to try to solve a puzzle, but without all the pieces. This Bill will change that. It will do so by introducing a new approach—the single patient record—and that is nothing short of a game changer.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position.
On Wednesday, my Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will publish our report on the Government’s digital ambitions. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that we will be raising serious concerns about data management, data hygiene and vendor lock-in. Many projects such as the single patient record have failed over the last 20 years. Will he confirm to me that he will ensure that patients can control when and how their data is seen, that he will be building on existing records such as the great north care record, and that this will be treated as critical national and sovereign infrastructure, not subject to capture by a single provider such as Palantir?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to underscore the importance of data security and data privacy. That is essential in building trust in what we are seeking to do.
To be clear, the single patient record, as I was just saying a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), does not move data from one system to another; it preserves the data where it is, and builds links between systems so that one person, whether a clinician or a patient, can see all the data at once. The data will still be governed by the same privacy policies on a GP system, in a hospital trust system and so on. When linked together through the single patient record, it will be governed by the highest levels of security: only authorised individuals will be able to access the data, there will be an audit trail of anyone who has accessed it, and the cyber-security protection will be the strongest available.
Kim Johnson
I really appreciate the Secretary of State giving way on that point. This morning on Radio 4, he failed to rule out Palantir being awarded the single patient record. We know that the £330 million offered to it for the current federated data has been highly criticised by unions and the British Medical Association. What assurances can he give us that patient safety will be free from abuse and misuse?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend will have heard, as she listened to the rest of my interview on Radio 4 this morning, the situation with the single patient record is very different from that of the federated data platform, because it is likely that we will let a series of contracts to de-risk the delivery of the single patient record. The situation with Palantir is that the contract for the federated data platform is, as I am sure she knows, being reviewed ahead of a potential break clause in 2027, but the situation with the single patient record is a very different set-up. As I have said a couple of times now, information is stored on individual systems—in GPs, hospitals and so on. The single patient record links them up and will be delivered through a range of different contracts to make sure that the system works in the interests of clinicians and patients.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
James Murray
I am going to make some progress.
The single patient record will mean that wherever a patient is being treated, even if they are not at their local GP or are in a hospital they have never been to before, those caring for them will have access to all the accurate, relevant, up-to-date information they need. Through this new approach, we will bring together people’s health and social care records digitally, securely and conveniently, and make them available to patients on the NHS app.
A number of Members have raised questions about data privacy, so let me be very clear on that point. Patients rightly expect their highly personal and sensitive medical details to be protected, and they will be. Under our plans, strict safeguards, strong cyber-security and clear controls on who can read information will be backed by an audit trail of who has accessed what. The single patient record will also be subject to existing forms of scrutiny and oversight in the NHS, from data protection officers to legislative safeguards. Where the single patient record is being used for research or planning, it will be treated the same as all other sensitive health data, subject to the same legal protections, ethical approvals and governance.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making himself the data controller of all the data that will be in place. What impact does that have on the sections he has just talked about?
James Murray
When the data is held by a GP surgery or an NHS hospital trust, for instance, the relevant bodies will remain the information controllers. Where that information is then shared through the single patient record, the Department of Health and the Secretary of State will take on a role as data controller as well. That will all be governed in the way that data protection currently applies across the NHS, through existing forms of data security. Fundamentally, it will reorientate the NHS to be a service that revolves around patients, rather than patients having to revolve around the NHS.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Just before my right hon. Friend moves away from the single patient record, may I highlight the challenge remaining in cross-border communities such as mine in Cumbria? My constituents in Carlisle often register with a GP across the border in Scotland. Unfortunately, at present that means that their single patient record will not necessarily flow with them. Will he work at pace with his colleagues in Scotland —and Wales; I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) nodding in front of me—to ensure that we get this right for anyone, regardless of where they live?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the single patient record applies to the NHS in England, but my colleagues in the ministerial team have regular conversations with our counterparts in Scotland and in other devolved Governments to ensure that we are working on such cross-border issues wherever we can.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of the single patient record will be a huge step forward in the safe treatment of people with allergies? Will he join me in calling on the new Minister in the Plaid Cymru Government in Wales to follow our lead for the betterment of allergy care for people in Wales?
James Murray
I very much join my hon. Friend in urging the new Health Minister in Wales to follow our lead by introducing a way for patients to access the data and, crucially, for clinicians to be able to see all a patient’s data when making those decisions. With complex cases, where people see multiple nurses, doctors, consultants and so on, it can be crucial that clinicians see all the relevant information when making choices on how to treat their patients. I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should make some progress, as I know that many Members wish to speak this evening. I am getting a nod from you that that is the right thing to do.
As I have set out how the single patient record will help to improve patient safety, I also want to be clear that no Government should ever pretend that things do not go wrong. When they do, it is crucial that the right systems are in place to hold people accountable, and to ensure that we learn from mistakes in order to prevent them from happening again. As I mentioned earlier, Dr Penny Dash conducted an independent review into the patient safety landscape. What she found was a confusing landscape of multiple, overlapping organisations that are responsible for patient safety in the NHS, making it harder for staff and organisations to do the right thing. That is why the Bill simplifies the patient safety landscape, streamlining and consolidating functions to make the system more effective and efficient, and to restore patient confidence.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
James Murray
I am going to make some progress.
Following Dr Dash’s recommendations, the Bill will embed the mission and functions of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the Care Quality Commission to establish a clearer link between investigating safety concerns and increasing the quality of care. We will ensure that we protect the principle of a safe space for people to share their concerns. To ensure that patients are heard at every stage, from commissioning to delivery, we will make sure that patient feedback is embedded alongside decision makers at every level.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He has inherited this policy—it is not his own. I assure him that the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is a dreadful mistake, because which other investigative function in the healthcare system is completely unconflicted in what it does? By abolishing HSSIB he is taking its functions into the CQC, which is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator, so that there is no longer any independent, unconflicted body conducting healthcare investigations. Has he consulted the royal colleges about this? I have not spoken to a single royal college that is in favour of the abolition of HSSIB.
James Murray
As I made clear, we will protect the principle of a safe space for people to share their concerns. The investigatory function will remain protected within the CQC. The benefit of embedding the HSSIB in the CQC will be to establish that clearer link between investigating safety concerns and increasing the quality of care. That is something on which we can all agree.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have asked me and looked at me several times, suggesting that that is what I should do.
I mentioned the changes that the Bill makes to HSSIB and the CQC, but the functions of Healthwatch England—I spoke about that earlier—will move to a new patient experience directorate within the Department of Health and Social Care. The functions of local healthwatch groups will be incorporated into ICBs and local authorities. That approach brings the voices of patients closer to decision makers, so that people have a direct impact on the services they receive. Of course, the changes will neither fix everything at the stroke of a pen, nor take effect overnight, but rather than the voices of patients being kept at arm’s length, the Bill puts them where they should be: right at the heart of the NHS.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Secretary of State has not talked about the role of the governors of hospital trusts, which also appear to be abolished by the Bill. With the creation of mega-ICBs, the removal of healthwatch, and the removal of governors, I am worried that the voice of the local community is reducing rather than increasing.
James Murray
The principle behind the changes to local healthwatch organisations is to bring the voice of patients closer to those who are planning and delivering services. Whether through ICBs or local authorities for health and care, it is an important principle to ensure that feedback is followed by action, and that people can have an influence on the design and delivery of health and social care at an earlier stage in the process.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress, because I need to update the House on the important measures in the Bill to abolish NHS England. Those critical measures will reduce bureaucracy so that more energy, time and funding in the NHS can be focused on the frontline, helping patients. The Bill will abolish the world’s largest quango by merging NHS England into the Department of Health and Social Care and the wider NHS system.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I have asked this question both as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and on the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State’s predecessor. Given that the new Secretary of State is a numbers man, I hope that he can answer it where his predecessor could not. How much in redundancy payments will this measure cost the British taxpayer, and can he confirm that no person currently employed by NHS England will be fired, paid a redundancy fee, and then rehired by the Department of Health and Social Care?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we are going through that process with the workforces at NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. Crucially, however, by 2028, across the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and ICBs, we will see a 50% reduction in headcount. That means that the money that would otherwise be spent on those members of staff will now go towards healthcare on the frontline, which is what patients want to see.
As hon. Members will know, NHS England was established by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That Act established more than 300 new NHS organisations, and has led to too much time, money and effort being wasted on overlapping processes, as good people try to navigate a labyrinthine system that holds them back from delivering for patients. In short, we have a system that gets in the way of what staff, patients and taxpayers want to see.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as Secretary of State. The point about ICBs and the devolution of responsibility for NHS eye tests is one that we often forget to talk about in this place, as is the case with eyecare—I know that there are some ophthalmic experts in the Chamber. On that point, can the Secretary of State assure me that the changes will not result in a postcode lottery in the provision of eyecare tests? At the end of the day, NHS sight tests are a universal entitlement, so can he ensure that that will continue?
James Murray
The right hon. Lady raises an important point, but local services are already commissioned locally in many cases. The changes that we are making by abolishing NHS England will mean that more power and resources go to ICBs and local areas to allow them to make the right choices for their local area. That is a way of bringing the services that we deliver closer to the people who need them.
Let me be absolutely clear that abolishing NHS England is in no way a reflection on the committed public servants who work at NHS England and in my Department. The truth is that unnecessary structures are getting in the way of them doing their crucial work and it is time for us to change that. The Bill will mean that more time, money and effort will be spent on improving the care that patients receive, rather than navigating the system around them.
Tom Gordon
Obviously, the Secretary of State has just outlined a huge raft of changes that are coming with the abolition of NHS England and everything else that goes with that. Last year, families and MPs got the inquiry into the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys health trust—the mental health trust in the north of England that had been failing. My worry is that a chair of that inquiry was meant already to be in place. Will that inquiry now be lost amid all the changes to the healthcare system? Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting the families of those affected by the TEWV scandal, and will he get a chair in place as soon as possible?
James Murray
I am happy to look into the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its responsibilities either to the Department of Health and Social Care or to local ICBs is being managed carefully, to ensure that we can continue making progress while the structural change happens. To return to my earlier point, the money saved as a result of these changes can go directly to frontline patient care. We expect about £1 billion to be saved, which is the equivalent of 15,000 nurses. I do not see how anyone can disagree with our decision to ensure that resources are spent on the frontline.
As I have explained, abolishing NHS England as a separate organisation will strip out bureaucracy and ensure that we focus on delivery. The decision also has an important democratic role. The core goal of the 2012 Act, brought in by the Conservatives and Lib Dems, was to take politics out of the day-to-day running of the NHS. However, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the NHS and its place in the democratic life of the nation. The public pay for the NHS; they own it, use it, care deeply about its future, and so they should always have a say in how it is run.
People voted Labour because they trust us to build on our party’s legacy by transforming the NHS for the future, and they will rightly hold us responsible for the decisions we take as we do so. It is not about politics getting in the way; it is about accountability driving change. That accountability has been lost in the confusion of having two separate centres for the NHS, and the Bill will end that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Could he explain what the pathway of local accountability is for ICBs?
James Murray
ICBs, as the hon. Gentleman will know, have a board structure that oversees how they operate. The removal of local healthwatch organisations will mean that the voice of patients and their experiences go directly into the bodies that are commissioning and overseeing services. One of the changes the Bill makes is to ensure that strategic mayoral authorities will have a place on the board of ICBs, which helps them ensure that wider objectives in an area of health are aligned.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I am going to make more progress.
Alongside the removal of confusion and duplication at a national level, the Bill also gives those with local expertise the power, resources and flexibility they need to design and deliver health and care services for their area. The Bill will empower them to innovate, drive progress and do what is in the best interests of the patients they serve.
Under the Bill, ICBs will have more direct responsibility for their services than ever before. They will be at the heart of integrating health and social care, and they will include those people responsible for housing, transport and jobs, so that we can tackle the root causes of ill health, which is better both for patients and for the NHS.
The NHS gave me a second chance at life, and so as Health Secretary I will fight for the NHS every day with the strength it has given me back. The Tories ran down the NHS through 14 years of neglect, and the Lib Dems enabled them. Reform wants to abolish the NHS altogether and replace it with an insurance-based system. The Greens seem intent on ignoring clinical advice and have no practical solutions for the health service. Only Labour has a plan to get the NHS back on its feet. Only Labour is determined to both invest in and fundamentally transform the NHS for the future. Only Labour is showing that change is possible.
We promised to cut waiting lists—we delivered the biggest annual fall in 16 years. We promised an extra 1,000 GPs in our first year—we delivered twice that number. We promised 8,500 more mental health staff by 2029—we have delivered them three years early. We promised 700,000 more NHS dentistry appointments—we have delivered an extra 1.8 million already.
We promised to transform the NHS for the future, and that is what this Bill will do. We are already boosting investment in the NHS where it needs more. We have begun stripping out bureaucracy from the NHS where it needs less. And now we will build a truly modern NHS that will be there for generations to come. The Bill is the next crucial step in our mission, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his new post, and thank him for sharing his very personal story about what the NHS means to him. I look forward to our future exchanges, however long he is in post. I also pay tribute to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), with whom I have had a few moments across the Dispatch Box. I know that the NHS has also been very important to him personally. During my time in hospices, I saw the incredible work that the NHS does, and despite the politics that we may have—and I will be referring to the right hon. Gentleman a bit more later on—we all care deeply about the national health service and want the very best for it.
There are moments in politics when one almost has to admire the confidence of Governments—not their competence, necessarily, or their judgment, and sometimes not their timing, but certainly their confidence—and nowhere has that confidence been more magnificently displayed than in the presentation of the Health Bill. If one had listened carefully to the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the past two years, one could conclude only that this Bill was not merely legislation, but apparently the parliamentary equivalent of the second coming. In every speech, interview and carefully staged hospital visit with sleeves rolled up, they delivered the same message: at last—at long last—the NHS was to be modernised, integrated, digitised, streamlined, revolutionised and transformed into a gleaming technological marvel, where patients floated frictionlessly through a system powered entirely by innovation, efficiency and ministerial self-belief.
I say gently to Ministers that whenever a politician begins using the phrase “once-in-a-generation change” on such a regular basis, it is usually wise to place one’s hands protectively over one’s wallet, given the sheer cost of what is to follow. What became increasingly striking was not simply the scale of the promises, but the sheer showmanship of them, with the former Health Secretary speaking less like a Cabinet Minister wrestling with one of the most complex public services in the world and more like a man auditioning to narrate the trailer for his own leadership campaign documentary. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we arrive at the great political twist: the man who spent two years announcing the future has departed before the delivery date arrived, like an architect unveiling magnificent blueprints before quietly moving abroad just before construction begins.
Into this situation walks the new Health Secretary. Members can imagine the scene: the Prime Minister sits stubbornly in No. 10, grinning with all the reassuring confidence of a man standing knee-deep in a flooded rowing boat insisting that the situation merely requires a modest redistribution of water. Into this bunker is summoned the new Secretary of State—formerly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the very man who helped to allocate the famous £202 billion funding settlement now repeatedly cited as proof that every problem in British healthcare has theoretically already been solved.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I would not give the right hon. Gentleman’s political adviser a raise for their speechwriting abilities just yet. Why does he think we are having to talk about once-in-a-generation change to the NHS?
Stuart Andrew
I would point the hon. Lady to how the NHS was being run in Wales—it certainly was not the great success that she is trying to allude to.
In politics there are difficult jobs and there are impossible jobs, and then there is inheriting a Department after one’s predecessor spent two years promising the electorate that this is the one Bill to rule all Bills and fix virtually everything short of death itself. This was not just a hospital pass, but a hospital pass delivered by catapult.
One can almost hear the poor Secretary of State gulping. “Thank you, Prime Minister,” he replies faintly, in the tone of a man accepting command of the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. Off he trudges to the Department of Health and Social Care, where the automatic doors open and his nostrils are struck immediately by a strange, lingering aroma. It is not the scent of modernisation or the smell of efficiency, and it is certainly not the fragrance of falling waiting lists. No—it is the unmistakeable odour of political panic, mixed delicately with the perspiration of failed leadership manoeuvres and lightly seasoned with the ashes of abandoned promises. There waiting for him, naturally, is Sir Humphrey—because however much Governments modernise, digitise, integrate, recalibrate or synergise, Whitehall always produces a Sir Humphrey.
I can imagine the conversation. The new Secretary of State says brightly, “Good news, Sir Humphrey. I understand that my predecessor has already solved everything through the Health Bill.” At this point, an eerie silence descends. Civil servants suddenly become more fascinated by ceiling tiles, and one junior official attempts to escape through a stationery cupboard. Sir Humphrey clears his throat in the way only permanent secretaries can; a sound rather like an early—
Stuart Andrew
Give me time, give me time.
“Well, indeed, Minister,” says Sir Humphrey.
“I understand,” says the Secretary of State, “that abolishing NHS England will instantly reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability and unleash vast efficiencies.”
“Well, Minister, it will certainly create a large number of meetings.”
“And the single patient record will revolutionise healthcare, won’t it?”
“Yes, Minister—assuming the NHS IT systems eventually stop communicating with each other via what appears to be medieval semaphore.”
“But we have delivered 5 million more appointments.”
“Certainly, Minister—only 1.5 million appointments behind the last Conservative Government.”
“And integrated care boards now answer directly to Ministers.”
“Yes, Minister.”
“So accountability is now indisputable.”
“Well, Minister, blame certainly is.”
And so the conversation goes on. The Secretary of State asks, “And what about the workforce plan?”
“Still developing, Minister.”
“And social care?”
“Still delayed, Minister.”
“And mental health implementation?”
“Still proceeding at approximately the speed of continental drift.”
“And pharmacies?”
“Still under pressure.”
“And GP contracts?”
“Still alarming GPs.”
“And productivity?”, the Secretary of State asks desperately.
“At present, Minister, the NHS measures productivity in the same way that astronomers in ancient Greece measured distant planets: with great optimism and very limited visibility.”
At this point, the Health Secretary clearly begins searching the office for the exit map. “But Sir Humphrey,” he says, “surely my predecessor left me with a fully deliverable programme.”
After a long pause, Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, your predecessor was primarily focused on a different pathway.”
“A different pathway?”
Stuart Andrew
“Yes—the pathway to No. 10.”
And now I will give way to the right hon. Member! [Laughter.]
Wes Streeting
I am sure that sounded really good in the mirror when the right hon. Gentleman practised this morning, but can I bring him back to the real world, where the permanent secretary is, in fact, a woman and an outstanding leader at that? In the real world, I am able to say something that not one of my Conservative predecessors was able to say when they left office, which is that I left the NHS in a better state than I found it. Why is he so determined to defend the bloated bureaucracy that his party created over 14 failed years?
Stuart Andrew
Well, let me say directly to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been a lot of announcements from the Government. We know all about the fall in waiting list figures, and not just from comments from us in this Chamber challenging what is really happening—we are receiving email after email from people who have been taken off waiting lists despite still needing treatment. Patients are being taken off waiting lists, sometimes without their knowledge. This has not been about more appointments for patients—it is about massaging the figures, and he knows it.
There is a lot in this Bill that we will support, and there are many areas where we would like the Government to perhaps go further, but there is also a rhetoric that needs to be addressed, because there are unresolved problems still. Social care is unresolved. Workforce pressures are unresolved. Mental health backlogs are unresolved. Productivity is unresolved. Pharmacy pressures are unresolved. GP satisfaction is unresolved. The Secretary of State is inheriting not just a Department but an expectations crisis, because the greatest danger in politics is not under-promising; it is convincing the public that complexity itself can be announced away.
The Bill abolishes NHS England and centralises significant powers to be governed by the Secretary of State. It takes control out of patients’ hands.
Jim Shannon
The shadow Secretary of State rightly said that there is a lot in the Bill to be welcomed in principle, including the cutting of red tape, and we must recognise that, but unchecked state control must be resisted. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned accountability. Does he agree that we must ensure that accountability is part of the Bill?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is exactly the sort of issue that will need further scrutiny in Committee. I note that local authorities will not have the same seat at the table and that it will be transferred for mayoral regions, but what about regions that do not have a mayor? That measure will create a real democracy deficit in the NHS. I hope that we can look at this in detail in Committee, because that serious oversight absolutely needs addressing.
Gregory Stafford
On the point of accountability and scrutiny, the Government are looking to abolish HSSIB or bring it into the CQC, they are getting rid of Healthwatch—which serves my constituents so well—in places such as Surrey and Hampshire, and they are getting rid of governors from the boards of foundation trusts. That does seem to suggest that they have not really thought the accountability point through. Would not this be the occasion for the new Secretary of State to stamp his mark on this Bill by conceding that some of the changes in the Bill are not what was intended, and to take this opportunity to give confidence back to the public that they will have the accountability and scrutiny that they deserve?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises a very important point; it is an area that the Committee will have to look at very carefully.
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I believe that he wants there to be a patient voice, but there is a serious flaw in the Bill. Abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB is a terrible mistake, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the work that he has been doing on this. The reality is that HSSIB gives members of staff who work in the NHS the confidence to come forward and be a whistleblower. We need that. We need people to feel that they are in a safe environment. The CQC is a totally different beast in the minds of people who work in the NHS and social care, so to put those functions within that organisation is a terrible mistake and one that I hope the Committee will look at very carefully.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech, and I commend his speechwriter! I am sure my right hon. Friend wrote it himself.
On accountability, the Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about devolving powers, but this Bill is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State, and our constituents will not get the accountability that they crave and that some of the reforms we implemented in 2022 gave them. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern?
Stuart Andrew
I am genuinely concerned about that. Members of Parliament from across the House have often brought to the House some very serious cases—things that have gone terribly wrong for their constituents, services that have been commissioned in their area, and awful things that have happened to patients. It is because of organisations like Healthwatch and the HSSIB that those issues have come to light, and work has gone into improving those services. That is what we all want to see, but I am really worried that that progress will be lost. If those functions are absorbed into the Secretary of State’s office, I really do not think it will be able to cope with the sheer volume. It needs to be done on a much more localised basis.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for raising that. If I read the Bill right, schedule 8 allows the CQC to carry out investigations into Northern Ireland and Wales, whereas the CQC has no presence or remit within Northern Ireland, because health is devolved and those functions are carried out by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. Can the shadow Secretary of State comment on how the Secretary of State is now reaching into devolved matters in regards to regulation, quality, improvement and assessment?
Stuart Andrew
That is exactly one of the issues that needs to be ironed out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Committee considers the impact for devolved Administrations, particularly where they have responsibility for health in their areas. I hope that he will raise that with members of the Committee.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I worked in the Department of Health at the time that NHS England was created. I have always been sceptical about the Lansley fantasy that somehow the NHS could be made separate from the Department of Health and Social Care. I saw at first hand man-marking and duplication of function. This Bill finally puts the nail in the coffin of the complex arrangement of masses of arm’s length bodies that was created by Andrew Lansley. Will the right hon. Gentleman please agree that this is the time to restore stronger democratic accountability for our NHS?
Stuart Andrew
I gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the former Secretary of State who said that he did not want to go through another reorganisation, because it would be very costly. We still cannot get a clear answer from the Government about how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer, and there are estimates of £1 billion. There are still serious questions to be answered. The hon. Lady talks about democratic responsibility and accountability, and she is right to do that. She is fortunate—depending on one’s point of view—to have a mayor, but my constituency and county do not. Will my constituents get less of a voice in their NHS than her constituents in Shipley? That does not seem fair to me.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Is it not the case that transferring powers from an unelected quango to the Secretary of State, who is directly accountable to this very House, increases, not diminishes, accountability in the NHS?
Stuart Andrew
I am talking about trying to get accountability down to the local area. That is where it matters, and that is where my constituents want to see it. They know their local services and the hospitals in their areas, and they are the ones who should have their voices.
Dr Spencer
I am glad that we are having this important debate on accountability. Is there not a danger that the centralisation of this direction power in the Secretary of State effectively signals to MPs, “Don’t engage with ICBs, as they will not have accountability to local MPs. If you want changes to happen, go through the Secretary of State rather than engaging locally, because that is where the power is going to lie”?
Stuart Andrew
Yes, and this is—[Interruption.] It is slightly patronising to say to someone, “Read the Bill”. Clearly my hon. Friend has, and we have been talking about this in great detail.
There is a real concern here. We need much clearer answers to these questions, which many of our constituents will have. Those who give up their time to work in organisations to make the NHS better deserve decent answers to those questions and concerns. I certainly hope that reflection will be taken on those points.
At its heart, the Bill is not simply a debate about technology or bureaucracy; it is about who holds, controls and safeguards the most personal data that any of us will ever possess. This is one of the most significant reorganisations of the NHS in modern political history, but it is wrapped carefully in the language of managerial simplification.
Perhaps part of the Bill will help, and of course some reforms are necessary. Conservatives are not afraid of reform—definitely not. Indeed, if the NHS is to survive the demographic, technological and fiscal pressures ahead, modernisation is essential. That is because technology matters, innovation matters, integration matters, data matters, prevention matters, productivity matters and, yes, accountability matters too. That is why, where we see good work in the Bill, we will back it, and where we think there are questions that need to be drilled down into, we will do so. We want to ensure that the Bill works.
There is a difference between modernisations rooted in political realism and announcements designed primarily for political theatre, and too much of the approach we have seen so far is Whitehall talking to itself; meanwhile, outside this Chamber, reality continues uninterrupted. Patients still wait, ambulances still queue outside A&E, the family still worries, the exhausted nurse still works a double shift and the GP still battles impossible demands.
Here is the truth: the NHS does not primarily suffer from a shortage of announcements; it is marked by a persistent lack of grip and direction. The Government today increasingly resemble a man frantically changing labels on a filing cabinet while the building itself quietly catches fire.
The Government say that abolishing NHS England will reduce bureaucracy—perhaps it will—but let us not forget that Whitehall sometimes possesses a remarkable historic talent for abolishing bureaucracies ceremonially before quietly recreating them under another name with slightly different headed paper. We need to ensure that that does not happen in this instance.
We also have to think about the huge amounts of public money involved—yes, nearly £202 billion; an extraordinary sum of money. We understand that pressures rise—of course we do—we understand about ageing populations, we understand that medical advancement increases costs and we understand the aftershocks of the pandemic. But when a Government spend record sums while presiding over delays, workforce uncertainty, transformation paralysis, productivity collapse and public frustration, eventually the British public are entitled to ask a simple question: where has all my money gone? The Government are not judged by the size of the press release; they are judged by whether the thing actually works.
We must now do everything to ensure that the Bill goes through with great scrutiny, as it needs to do, because healthcare is difficult, trade-offs are real and workforce shortages cannot simply be rebranded as opportunities. Indeed, the public increasingly suspect something very different here: they suspect that too much of modern politics has become performance without consequences, announcements without accountability and presentation without delivery. That is ultimately why the Bill matters. If this enormous centralisation of power succeeds, Ministers will claim vindication, but if it fails and bureaucracy persists, waiting lists remain stubborn, workforce pressures deepen and promised transformation dissolves into another cycle of reorganisation, the Government will no longer possess anyone else to blame—not NHS England, local structures, quangos or the system—because the Bill places responsibility squarely where the Government claim it belongs, on the shoulders of Ministers. Perhaps that honesty will prove the Bill’s greatest contribution.
The British people are patient, but they are not naive. They can distinguish between serious transformation and political choreography, and they increasingly understand that there is no technological shortcut around the fundamental challenge facing healthcare. The Government cannot run a service this large, pressured and so deeply connected to people’s lives and wellbeing primarily through presentation. Eventually, every Government collides with reality, and reality—unlike leadership campaigns—cannot be managed through slogans. That is the inheritance facing the new Health Secretary, and that is why the House should approach the Bill not with breathless excitement but with very hard-headed scrutiny indeed so that we get the NHS we all want to see.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will have noticed that about 50 Members want to speak in the debate, so with the exception of Front Benchers I will be starting with an immediate six-minute time limit.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place and wishing him well in the responsibilities that he carries on behalf of patients, NHS staff and communities across the country? I welcome the Bill and its intention to improve patient care through investment, modernisation and better integration across the health service.
It is right to acknowledge the progress made on waiting times and waiting lists since Labour returned to government, with the overall waiting list falling significantly and long waits continuing to come down, but may I add my voice to those of others about the appointment of a chair for the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley inquiry? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) gave that commitment, which we were pleased to hear, but we have yet to see that chair appointed. If that could be given attention, we would be most grateful.
I remain concerned about the continuing impact of historic private finance initiative costs on NHS trust budgets, including the pressures facing South Tees hospitals NHS foundation trust in my patch. Too much money is still being diverted from frontline care. I regret that this issue remains unresolved.
The principal reason I rise today is as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury. Last summer, the APPG’s inquiry into spinal cord injury services reached a clear conclusion: the evidence points to the need for more national co-ordination, not less. Spinal cord injury is a low-volume but highly complex condition requiring specialist pathways, lifelong rehabilitation and co-ordinated support, yet the inquiry heard repeated evidence of fragmented services, postcode variation, delayed rehabilitation and patients being lost within the system. The APPG therefore called for a national strategy and a modern service framework for spinal cord injury care. As we intend to hold a lived experience roundtable shortly, I invite the Health Secretary to come and meet people with spinal cord injury to hear their concerns about the proposed changes to commissioning.
We welcome the excellent constructive engagement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and NHS England officials, but we remain deeply concerned about proposals to transfer spinal cord injury commissioning from national oversight to integrated care boards. Indeed, NHS England’s own evidence to the inquiry emphasised national standards, national quality metrics and nationally co-ordinated pathways, quality measures and oversight. If national consistency has not yet been achieved under national commissioning, what evidence demonstrates that transferring responsibility to multiple ICBs will improve outcomes or equity?
What is at stake is not abstract. When somebody sustains a spinal cord injury, their life changes overnight. They may require specialist rehabilitation, housing support, benefits advice, mental health support and long-term clinical care. Patients and families should not be left to navigate a fragmented system alone. That is why I welcome the ambition behind the single patient record and Diagnosis Connect.
Connecting newly diagnosed patients directly to specialist support reflects one of the APPG’s recommendations. Organisations such as the Spinal Injuries Association help people rebuild their lives after life-changing injury. I hope that Ministers will consider including spinal cord injury within the early phases of Diagnosis Connect.
The question is not whether structures change on paper; it is whether people living with spinal cord injury will experience safer, more equitable, more co-ordinated care. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer some straightforward questions. If NHS England accepts that national consistency has not yet been achieved, what evidence shows that localised commissioning will improve it? How will national standards, benchmarking and quality oversight remain coherent under a fragmented arrangement? Do the Government accept that spinal cord injury differs fundamentally from standard population health commissioning because of its low volume, high complexity and cross-boundary nature? What safeguards will prevent widening regional inequity, if accountability is dispersed across multiple ICBs?
The APPG’s inquiry concluded that spinal cord injury services require stronger national co-ordination and oversight, not greater fragmentation, and I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that evidence. This country led the world in spinal cord injury provision under the leadership of Professor Ludwig Guttmann after the second world war, with the remarkable work that he achieved. We need to return to those days of being pioneering and world-class. As a lawyer who previously practised in this area, I am afraid that over the past several decades services have deteriorated and gone backwards. We must restore those services and bring trust to people who so desperately want reassurance that there is a national system for them to rely on that will address their needs. We are currently not in that place at all. The Bill is an opportunity to address that, and I trust the Minister will take that on board.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party group on patient safety and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place. I very much look forward to working constructively with him during the passage of the Bill.
We all know that our NHS is in desperate need of transformation. Hospitals are in chaos, social care is overloaded and getting a GP appointment is a huge challenge for many. Labour has promised to put patients and communities at the heart of the NHS, but I fear that the Bill does not fulfil that promise. The Government promised to sort out social care, but two years later they are still only part-way through a three-year review. They promised to treat mental health with parity, but although mental health accounts for 20% of the disease burden, its share of NHS budgets is falling to just 8.4%. The Government promised to protect women’s health, but the women’s health strategy published this year was significantly weaker than the men’s health strategy, which received 60% more funding for new research. Healthy life expectancy in the UK is stagnating, and adult social care is under ever more pressure, putting immense stress on the budgets of councils and other local authorities.
The reality in rural North Shropshire is that people struggle to get GP appointments, 12-hour waits in A&E have become normal and finding an NHS dentist is becoming impossible. The social care crisis has left Shropshire council’s finances in a dire situation. A real NHS reform Bill would have changes to social care, general practice and prevention at its heart. Instead, this Bill passes responsibilities around Whitehall, centralising more power with the Secretary of State, while chaos reigns following 50% cuts to ICB budgets.
Early in his term, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) promised that another top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do. Yet the abolition of NHS England is exactly that—focusing on reorganisation at the top, while failing to deliver real improvements for patients and staff. It is true that NHS England has allowed Ministers to shirk responsibility and accountability, but its abolition has been poorly planned, leaving both ICBs and specialised commissioning in chaos. Instead of the Government’s advertised aim of creating a more community-based NHS, the Bill centralises power in Whitehall, giving sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to the Secretary of State. Such powers carry a real risk that political considerations could influence what should be operational decisions about how the NHS provides for patients in future. That is particularly concerning in the current febrile political climate, and the Government must ensure that protections are in place for what may happen in the future.
The Government have made 50% cuts to ICBs, but the Bill gives them new legal responsibilities, different structures and centrally directed spending objectives. It is indicative of a lack of planning that could plunge ICBs into chaos. Meanwhile, the removal of the integrated care partnership and the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning. In Shropshire, the council already spends around 80% of its budget on social care provision. That has a monumental impact on all services, as constant savings have to be found. Removing the pooling of the better care fund among local authorities and ICBs will discourage integrated working between these bodies on social care. Given existing complications over the sharing of costs and social care provision, the chaos of that reorganisation may only exacerbate confusion.
It is also astounding that the Bill plans to remove the duty of GP representation on ICBs, along with local authorities and NHS trusts. The replacement of council representation with mayors is extremely problematic for the many areas that do not have a mayor, and it removes the local accountability needed to ensure true community representation. Like so much Labour policy, such changes risk benefiting concentrated urban areas, while letting down rural communities such as those I represent.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend will be aware of clause 4 on reducing health inequalities, which I welcome. As a rural MP, like me, she will also know that access and outcomes are poorer in our communities. Does she agree that the Government should go further and ensure that the Bill explicitly refers to equality of access and outcomes for rural and coastal communities such as North Norfolk?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with his point.
ICBs are already overstretched and underfunded. In North Shropshire, both Shawbury medical practice and Prescott surgery in Baschurch are in desperate need of expansion. Community infrastructure levy money is available and land is earmarked for a new site, but progress is being held up by the ICB’s inability to agree notional rent. That situation is replicated across the country, and there is no sign of such problems being solved by the Government’s changes.
The plan to abolish Healthwatch will ultimately strip patients of their voice. There has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system for more than 50 years. More than half of patients who experienced poor care in 2024 did not take any action, with many citing fears that giving negative feedback directly to the NHS might affect their ongoing treatment. That is why it is crucial that we have an independent patient voice, rather than leaving the Department or the ICB to mark its own homework.
We need only look at the devastating consequences of the failings uncovered during the Mid Staffordshire scandal, and the long list of maternity failings since, to see how important it is to have Healthwatch exposing challenges in the health service and listening to patient feedback, and how the CQC can fail in that operation. In Shropshire more than 200 babies are thought to have died due to maternity failures; in the reviews that followed, the one thing that came up time and again was that grieving parents were not listened to.
Patients and their families must have a voice. The new system will give no incentive to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main performance metrics of the NHS. To see the value of Healthwatch, we need only look at the Cabinet Office King’s Speech briefing for the Bill, which refers to a Healthwatch report from May 2025 on missing medical records in order to make the case for the single patient record. I urge the Government to protect both national Healthwatch and local healthwatch organisations, and the independent whistleblowing routes that empower and advocate for patients.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create a single patient record; that part of the Bill could prove to be the most transformational for patient experience and, most importantly, for patient outcomes. People are tired of endless NHS admin and of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical professionals. Patient harm has often occurred where clinicians have not had a patient’s full medical history, and different parts of the NHS having access to the same patient information is clearly necessary. However, that must come alongside essential new privacy protections and safeguards for patients, particularly given the understandable concerns surrounding Palantir’s involvement with the federated data platform. We would introduce a health charter to set out guiding principles for data sharing across the NHS, ensuring that patients are in charge of their own data.
The Bill’s references to carers are welcome, as is the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision-making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill goes nowhere near tackling the social care crisis and demonstrates a pitiful lack of ambition on one of the biggest challenges we face. As I mentioned, the chaos caused by the restructuring of ICBs will only worsen the challenges that local authorities face in providing care for an increasingly ageing population. We want to transform the NHS so that patients are empowered to live more healthily, for longer and in dignity. The nation’s health is stagnating, with an ever-widening gap in healthy life expectancy between the country’s most and least deprived areas and growing pressure on adult social care.
Fixing social care is fundamental to our vision for the NHS. It is the key to providing a better quality of life for the frail and vulnerable, freeing up hospitals and building independence for an ageing population. It also empowers our constituents to live as independently as possible in their homes and near to their families and communities. We cannot fix the NHS and move care to the community while ignoring social care—yet the Bill ignores it and, as I have outlined, the changes to ICB commissioning will undermine the structures that are supposed to integrate social care with the NHS.
Liberal Democrat plans will give people control, rooting services in communities, listening to patients and making it much easier to see a GP. We will give patients a right to see a GP within seven days, reverse surgery closures and ensure proper personalised management of chronic conditions and frailty, with guaranteed access to a named GP for those patients. We will also protect the mental health investment standard so that we can rebuild community mental health services—something that this Government have failed to do— empowering individuals with poor mental health by intervening early and allowing them to access care in their community. Our maternity rescue plan will ensure that Britain is the safest country in the world in which to have a baby, offering one-to-one midwifery care and empowering women at this most important moment.
This Health Bill could have been a moment for real change. Liberal Democrats are clear about what real modernisation of the NHS would look like. Our vision for a reformed, community-based NHS is one where proper care and restored investment in public health ultimately cut NHS waste and empower people to live healthier and more independent lives. This Bill focuses on shuffling responsibility around Whitehall and gives the Secretary of State the role of chief micromanager. The Government continue to procrastinate over bringing in real change to fix social care, empower patients and save our NHS. In Committee and on Report, Liberal Democrats will use every lever at our disposal to deliver the transformation the NHS so desperately needs.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Twenty-one years ago, when I started my NHS career as a junior doctor, there were Labour Governments in every part of Britain, and I was proud to have practised in every single nation of our country. The NHS then exemplified the mood of our nation: hopeful, comfortable in its own skin and confident about embracing, even shaping, its future. And we did shape that future. The Labour Government delivered world-class heart attack care, stroke care and cancer care, regardless of where someone lived and their ability to pay for it. We also drove through controversy to secure a smoke-free generation, starting in Scotland and then delivering it all across these isles. The success of that legislation is perhaps best exemplified in the fact that we now have a whole generation who feel it is their inalienable right to go indoors and never have to inhale passive smoke or suffer all the deleterious effects that come with it.
Now, as then, the NHS is holding a mirror up to our society. For those who rely on it, there is anxiety and frustration about why, so often, we do not get the basics right, from grappling with the uncertainty of simply seeing a doctor or specialist to the anxiety that comes with waiting for a scan or its results. There are 1.5 million people working in the NHS—including once-idealistic surgeons like me, who unapologetically gave our youth to the NHS because we enjoyed our craft so much that sometimes it did not even feel like work—but those staff have been battered by austerity and covid. They are hoping for better days but, despite the improvements that have been made in the last two years, I know that they harbour a quiet hopelessness that perhaps their workplace can never be joyful again. They are good people who are resigned to running faster just to stay still and keep their patients safe.
All that is because of a 14-year-long Tory Government and the choices they made. They made political choices to rob Peter to pay Paul, and to fail to invest in our NHS. In an era of AI, technology and digital transformation, they left highly skilled staff with 21st-century clinical skills and 20th-century equipment, and left the public feeling more adrift than ever from their most prized national asset. Let us also not spare their handmaidens in Scotland, the Scottish National Government, who fared no better: NHS spending going up and productivity coming down; no NHS app to book appointments or get test results; lung cancer screening lagging behind; and 24/7 21st-century stroke care that is more like Russian roulette.
It is in this mood of cynicism and despondency that this Labour Government are charged with the responsibility of modernising our NHS and showing that we dare to go big again: going big on giving more power and control to patients and the staff who look after them; going big on taking the bold decisions, even if controversial, on becoming the healthiest generation that has ever lived; and going big on grasping the opportunity that technology presents us with. That is the path we start on today. It answers the cries of patients and answers the call of those who want to look after them.
Take the single patient record, which has been lauded in the news today as an exemplar of this Bill. It is a programme that, as health innovation Minister, I was proud to start off and bring my NHS experience to. It is a simple concept, demanded by patients and the vast majority of people who look after them, that there should be a single and comprehensive source of truth about a patient’s history when it is most needed. Most of the public believe it already exists, yet it has proven harder than ever to deliver because of conservatism, paralysed by the thought of the worst outcomes and unable to plan for the best outcomes, and by a belief that patient safety and data safety are somehow tangled up in the status quo. There is nothing safe about going from one hospital to another where a consultant cannot see your scans, or your child urgently attending an A&E department where their medical history cannot be seen or, as recently happened in my own practice in the middle of the night, having to turn down an organ donation because we could not access GP records at the weekend.
What about data security? The NHS is dependent on thousands of IT systems born out of necessity rather than design. If we were designing it, we would never have done it this way, but we must now be absolutely committed to making sure that data is safe and that military-grade security prevails. During my time as health innovation Minister, I was clear—as those on our Front Bench today are clear—that NHS data is sovereign and must be used for the benefit of patients.
We can no longer afford to look the other way. We have to lean in to the arguments and the headwinds that say, “No, not yet” or, “Not this much all at once.” We have to say to our citizens, and to our NHS staff who demand we get the basics right, that we are ready to face down those headwinds, those noisy tweets and those vested interest positions and say loudly, “Yes, right now” and, “Yes, as big as we can,” because our NHS can, because its patients expect us to, and because its users demand us to go further. This movement and this party were born of difficult times to deliver in difficulty, and this Bill will definitely and ultimately deliver on that promise.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I did not agree with everything in his speech, but I know of his passion for NHS services and I am grateful for the work that he did as a Minister, particularly in helping me to advocate for my constituents, which I will come to in the main part of my speech. I should start with the standard declarations: I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is a current NHS doctor.
There is a lot of good and very reasonable stuff in this Bill. I very much support the abolition of NHS England and I am glad that is being taken forward. The single care record makes complete sense. It is pretty crazy that we do not already have a national system in place. I think there will be some speed bumps in terms of administration, and the question I have is this: how is it going to encode sex data? What data is the record going to use as sex data, given the problems and the discussion that we had just before this debate?
For me, the problem is about accountability. I have a local integrated care board. I also have NHS trusts, one of which is Surrey and Borders, which has been failing to deliver rapid, timely autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments for children. Frankly, that failure to provide a speedy assessment for ASD or ADHD locally is a disgrace. I have been putting pressure on my local trust to try to change that. My constituents expect me to do that. Some of my constituents expect me, as an MP, to be able to click my fingers to make this happen, but of course I cannot do that because this is the NHS trust, the chief executive and the ICB.
I raised this issue in Parliament with the then Secretary of State, asking him to investigate my local mental health trust and look at the failings, and I am grateful that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, responded to me and wrote to my ICB. The response I got was that this was within the ICB’s framework, and that what ICBs do is essentially up to them. My ability to go about changing this is therefore very limited.
I get the point about clause 11 and the Secretary of State taking a few more powers to direct ICBs, but that is a very blunt tool. In reality, it will not be accountability. I cannot quite believe that it will work in such a way that, if I raise something in Parliament, a directive will force my ICB to deliver better for my patients. I cannot quite see that that will happen in reality—or perhaps I am wrong and it will. In that case, Parliament will essentially become a forum for MPs—all of whose constituents will expect them to be able to give directives to our NHS trusts and ICBs—to raise these issues so that the Secretary of State can take forward a directive.
It would be far better if ICBs were directly accountable to local politicians. I heard the response that the plan is for ICBs to be accountable to mayors, but we do not have a mayor in Surrey and, even though many of us have been calling for a mayor, there is no timescale for getting one. ICBs need to be directly accountable to locally elected representatives in some way, shape or form, and the logical group is Members of Parliament, because that is what the public believe and expect. I hope that, as the Bill goes through, we will investigate the local accountability of ICBs in the NHS and that perception.
One of the biggest dangers is the sense that we, as MPs, can deliver direct changes in day-to-day clinical commissioning, from which, of course, we have a degree of distance. I reiterate that, at the moment, the public perspective and public belief is that that is what we are empowered to do. We therefore have to be empowered to do that, or we have to have mechanisms to make it clear to people that local NHS care is not in the direct control of myself or anyone else here, apart from Ministers on the Front Bench.
Patient groups are an important mechanism, but they are also important in terms of consultation. I worry about what will happen when ICBs consult on plans. What is the number? What is the survey? What is the metric? Who is appointing the ICB chair? Who is appointing the NHS foundation trust chair? Who is appointing the members of all these quangos? Where do democratically elected representatives sit in these appointment decisions?
Given the time limit, I will finish on this point. Accountability is critical in getting this right. Care models need accountability. I have raised this matter in Parliament for many years now. I hope that we can use the Bill as an opportunity to give our constituents the accountability they need and deserve in the delivery of local health care.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
That was a characteristically thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is also a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who was an outstanding Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care and has demonstrated again today why his expertise and integrity are highly valued on the Government side of the House.
I strongly supported the speech made by the Secretary of State. He has hit the ground running, and he knows that he has my full-throated and wholehearted support. He does not need a predecessor being a back-seat driver—something that I am sure the Prime Minister feels about one or two of his predecessors after recent days. I also thank the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for her leadership on the Bill, and the brilliant team of officials, who have worked exceptionally hard to prepare the Bill for its introduction.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I strongly support the Bill. The latest NHS waiting list figures show the biggest cut to NHS waiting lists for 17 years, and as we heard from the Tories today, they cannot stand it. They cannot stand that within less than two years we have done something that they failed to achieve in 14: lowered waiting lists. Waiting lists are shorter than when we came in—lots done, and lots more to do, but the numbers are there. Despite record levels of demand and strike action by the British Medical Association, we delivered record levels of activity and waiting lists are falling. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
To understand how and why this happened is to understand why the Bill matters. Those who claim that recent improvements in NHS performance are simply the result of more money are making exactly the same mistake that held the NHS back for years under the Conservatives. Investment matters—of course it does—but, as the Secretary of State outlined, we are combining investment with reform. We are embracing technology, cutting bureaucracy, improving productivity and changing how care is delivered—from cutting £1 billion from spend on agency staff to funding GPs to treat more patients in the community, equipping NHS staff with the latest AI tools, and sending crack teams of top clinicians to bust the backlogs in hospitals with the most patients off work sick. Every single change has been opposed by vested interests, but that is why we are seeing more patients treated and better value for taxpayers. That is the difference between managing decline and delivering change.
For all our progress, we know that there is so much more to do. Too many people are still waiting too long. Too many staff are working against systems that make their jobs harder, not easier. Too many patients have to tell their story over and over again. Too much money is trapped in bureaucracy when it should be reaching the frontline. Too often, accountability is blurred between two different headquarters or two different boards, bodies and acronyms that the public do not know and cannot hold to account. This Bill is the NHS modernisation Bill, and it addresses every single one of those challenges, giving expression to the principle that the NHS should be run for the patient, not the other way around.
The Leader of the Opposition recently claimed that we have not kept our promise to abolish NHS England. In fact, we have already started: 7,000 posts removed from ICBs, and 4,500 more posts going from NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. I know that those changes are not easy for the people affected, and I never treated them lightly, but abolishing NHS England is about cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and putting responsibility for the NHS where it belongs: with elected Ministers who are accountable to the public.
Every pound wasted on administration is a pound that could be spent on patient care. That is why we are stripping out unnecessary layers and directing more resources to the frontline. Hearing the opposition from Conservative Front Benchers, it is no wonder that they presided over such a bloated bureaucracy. This Bill will save money, but they never once asked how much it would cost to pile on layer after layer of bureaucracy, saddling the NHS with top-heavy management, which frustrated patients and really frustrated staff.
Some will say that there is a contradiction: that centralising accountability and giving patients more control over their own data pull in opposite directions. But that is precisely the point. For too long, power in the NHS has sat in a no man’s land—an accountability sink, too distant from patients and citizens to be meaningful and just far enough away from Ministers that there is plausible deniability when things go wrong. The Bill takes back power in order to give it away: accountability for Ministers where it belongs, and power for the patient where it belongs, too.
The Government must face down powerful producer interests on patient data. Our health data is precious. Two things matter above all else: that our data is held securely and that it is used ethically. However, the single patient record is one of the most important reforms of the NHS for decades. It is frankly unsafe, as well as absurd, that patients are still being asked to repeat their medical history every time they access a different service. We also have to take on the producer interest of those who think patient data belongs to them rather than to patients. Our health, our data, our NHS—patients should control who can access their data, and they should control their own data.
By all means let us scrutinise the Bill and suggest improvements, but do not slow it down. The NHS does not have time to waste. The NHS is on the road to recovery, and this Bill puts the foot down on the accelerator.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, after whose speech there will be a four-minute time limit.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure—and slightly surreal—to follow the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), because he is very much an architect of the Bill, and I am sure that we would have had many questions for him about what he meant by parts of it. It was a pleasure to work with him when he was in the role, and I look forward to working with the new Secretary of State too.
We all understand what is at stake here: far too many feel that the system is not working for them. The latest British attitudes survey showed that more than half of people in this country are dissatisfied with the NHS. That should give us all pause. When the abolition of NHS England was first announced, I welcomed its boldness because our population faces enormous challenges. Healthy life expectancy has not just stalled; it has gone backwards. We are getting older and we are getting sicker—so, yes, we need to be bold. There is widespread recognition that the three shifts in the 10-year plan, to community, to prevention and to digital, are the right ones, and if achieved—and that is an “if”—they will be transformative, but along with the enthusiasm, which I share, there is a big dollop of scepticism. Twenty-five per cent of the public do not believe this plan will make any difference to them, and we must prove them wrong.
My message to this Government is this: “Focus on the plan. It is the right plan, and achieving it will be an enormous challenge. Also, please do not forget social care.” We must remember that this merger, which could risk becoming a distraction from the plan, did not start with the Bill; it started with the announcement in March 2025, and the effects are already being felt in the NHS. This was not in the manifesto, so it came completely out of the blue, with many people waking up and discovering that their jobs were at risk only from reading the news. It has been brutal. As a result, the Institute for Government told the Health Committee in our hearing just before the recess that there has been a “large drop in morale”, which is unsurprising. There has been uncertainty, poor communication and disruption. I have heard at first hand how decisions have been snarled up as key people have left, and we must learn from previous reforms that the savings often do not materialise because many of the same people who leave first end up being rehired—a point made in the Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago by the chair of NHS England, Penny Dash. So, despite my initial enthusiasm, there is much that we need to chew over.
In the six inquiries and 13 one-off sessions that our Committee has done so far, there are clear themes for change, and it is on those that I will judge the Bill. The first theme is innovation. Pilots and moonshots are good, but they should not replace evidence-based prevention and joined-up thinking. For example, the Government’s obesity moonshot focuses on weight-loss drugs, but ignores the obesogenic environment of advertising, ultra-processed foods and lifestyle pressures. It tackles the symptoms and not the cause. And too often, these pilots show promise but are then never scaled up. What a waste! Innovation should be a mindset, not a buzzword, and we should strengthen clause 6 of the Bill to ensure that the long term is embedded from the outset.
The second theme, which has come up already, is patient voice. Our inquiry into severe mental illness laid bare a system where vulnerable people feel like pinballs in a machine.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
In my area, children waiting for ADHD assessments—many already on the standard pathway for years—have been told that they will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest. We know this is happening nationally, because Healthwatch told us in its 2024 report. Does my hon. Friend agree that abolishing Healthwatch—the only statutory independent body holding our NHS to account—will leave the most vulnerable patients without a voice and the NHS marking its own homework?
Layla Moran
I do have concerns over Healthwatch; I have even more concerns over the role of the HSSIB. We cannot have it both ways: people cannot sit at desks near other people who are making decisions and at the same time be perceived as entirely independent. The perception of independence cannot be legislated for—the perception is everything, and that is my concern. Clause 15 talks about co-creation, but getting this point right is key to making the system work. There are many examples of where it has been done correctly, but all too often it is just a tick-box exercise.
The third theme is financial flows and integration. Time and again, the Committee is in rooms with local authorities, social care and the voluntary sector all saying that they know how to do this for their local area and it is the system that gets in the way. Section 75 arrangements are a good start and should be strengthened, and there is a lot of promise in the neighbourhood health plans under clause 24. Our concern is over clause 21, because if local authority representation is removed from ICB boards, then social care is not present in those first conversations. That is critical and needs rethinking.
The fourth theme is data. Recently in my surgery, I spoke to a woman called Freya-Rose, who described how repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences compounded her own suffering. The single patient record could be transformational for her and others who find recounting traumatic experiences difficult. We therefore welcome clause 47, but we must be careful about the risks, especially around sensitive data. On that, the Committee will be having hearings on the federated data platform and Palantir, which has already been mentioned today.
The final theme that has emerged in our work is inequalities, so I am excited about the potential of clause 4. I am proud of the Liberal legacy that this NHS is built on. In his seminal report, Beveridge rightly pointed to want, disease, squalor, idleness and ignorance as the five giants that needed to be slayed on the road to recovery following world war two. Obviously, we have come a long way since then, but I would argue that it is time to define some new giants, and health inequality must be one. It is self-evidently the moral thing to do, but—here is something I think the Secretary of State will like—it is also the economically wise thing to do, because study after study shows that tackling inequalities is the key to unlocking productivity in the NHS. Simply put, helping those who need it the most helps us all. This Bill needs to do more than just “have regard” to inequality; I would urge the Government to make it its core mission.
I end by simply saying what I started with: I will work constructively to help the Government make this the success that I hope they want it to be. I would urge them to think about the downsides, because there are some and they need sorting out. Above all, the Bill will be judged not by us, but by Chris and Freya-Rose, the very patients who deserve to be put at the heart of this legislation moving forward.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Like others, I start by paying tribute to the NHS. I know from first-hand experience how important the NHS and its staff are. When I was 13, I had an accident that left me unable to walk for four years. I spent so much time on NHS children’s wards that I went back a year at school and, as a sixth-former, I was one of the youngest people in Britain to have a hip replacement on the NHS. I want to thank the staff at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital who cared for me. Last year, I went back to the children’s ward that I had been on and opened a new outdoor play area for the children on the ward today; it was one of the greatest privileges I have had since being elected.
I am pleased that the waiting list for hip replacements has come down and that opportunities for children to access education in hospital are improving, but I want to focus my remarks today specifically on brain cancer and brain tumours. Brain tumours are considered rare, but 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with a brain tumour. Just one in 10 adults diagnosed with brain cancer in England survive five years or more, and it is the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40.
Behind those statistics are the real lives of people and their families, such as my friend and constituent, Alex Savage. Alex was diagnosed with a glioblastoma in 2021 at just 33 years old and sadly passed away in April this year, aged 38. He leaves behind his daughter Etta—who is now not even two years old and will grow up without her dad—his wife Anna, his mum Marie, his dad Ed, his brother Nick and his sister Rebecca. Alex was intelligent, warm, funny, fearless and full of life. He spent his final months campaigning for change on brain cancer, working closely with the Tessa Jowell Foundation—a cause close to my heart—and I know he will be much missed by the staff there. Alex spoke extensively about how he lived well with brain cancer, and also how severely it impacted his independence and how his family often had to pick up the pieces. They are a real credit to him and to themselves, but the strain this must have had on them is undeniable.
Our improvements to the NHS must be a rising tide that lifts all ships, not just for common conditions, but for rare and difficult ones such as brain cancer. I believe that we have begun to provide answers, many of which are covered in the Bill. First, we have the creation of a single patient record. It is not acceptable, in 2026, to have a health system that is still operating in the analogue age. It was only after the intervention of this Government —particularly the previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and the previous Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed)—that the last NHS trust stopped using fax machines. The single patient record is an important step towards the digital age, finally bringing together patients’ data in one easy-to-access place.
Secondly, if we want to improve the prognosis for patients like Alex, we need to improve the funding and infrastructure behind research and clinical trials. I am glad that the Government have committed to taking action on this by increasing access to trials, giving greater hope to other families who are suffering.
Thirdly, I welcome the Government’s endorsement of the work of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, which has done so much for brain cancer patients by reducing the postcode lottery and raising overall standards of care. However, as Alex’s case shows, we still need further improvements. This means making a sustained commitment to improving outcomes for those with brain tumours, backed by meaningful increases in funding to reflect the incredible burden of this cruel disease.
I am proud of the improvements that we are making to the NHS. I know the impact they will have on the lives of millions of people across the country, including in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge. However, we also need a specific approach to tackling brain cancer. As Tessa Jowell said in her final speech in the other place, it cannot be
“put into the “too difficult” box”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
Through funding, improvements in trials and further expansion of the mission model, I am confident that we can make progress, and I look forward to being a part of that progress throughout this Parliament.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
As an active user of the NHS, I welcome steps that can be taken to help improve patient experience and care, but the NHS is a delicate ecosystem: mistakes and errors do not just lead to a loss of money—they can be life-changing and, quite literally, a matter of life or death—so it is absolutely essential that we get these changes right.
Conscious of time, I will focus on a few points that I want to raise. The single patient record has already been mentioned a number of times. There is no hospital within the boundary of my constituency of South Northamptonshire, so my constituents can be treated at a variety of hospitals, including Northampton, Milton Keynes, Kettering, John Radcliffe or the Horton. Working cross-county and across the country, I can see the value in creating a single patient record, ensuring that notes are available. It really could transform care co-ordination. For example, the wife of one of my constituents was almost given medication that would have killed her—she would have had an allergic reaction—because of the use of old notes. Only her husband’s presence saved her life. We cannot allow that in this day and age.
As the Royal College of Nursing has indicated, we must ensure that any new system has robust safeguards around data privacy, transparency, access, procurement and secondary uses of data. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has put an emphasis on looking at that, but I think we all need more assurances. Even the Royal College of General Practitioners is asking whether the Government will provide any assurances around indemnity for GPs to protect against liability if there are breaches of data protection regulations or instances of mishandling patient records.
All in all, the single patient record will work only if the system has the confidence of patients and staff. Nursing staff have been asking through the Royal College of Nursing if they will be involved in the creation and design of the single patient record, to make sure that it will actually work in practice. Will the Minister confirm whether that will be the case?
Without careful safeguards, structural changes could risk undermining some of most significant advances that we have seen in recent years. As many Members will not fail to know, I am a type 1 diabetic and I will always passionately talk about diabetes. Diabetes UK has highlighted concerns about some of the changes. We have seen some incredible movements in diabetic technology, including the development of continuous glucose monitoring and, most recently, of hybrid closed-loop systems, which I am wearing and using as I speak. Central co-ordination has ensured that funding agreements are secured and access is prioritised. A shift to purely local decision making risks fragmentation and widening inequalities.
Many new treatments are being created and progressed. For example, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill about type 1 diabetes screening in children. We need to ensure that this is prioritised, along with access to emerging immunotherapies. As this is an incredibly specialised area, it requires expert national oversight and co-ordination. It would be inefficient and potentially ineffective for such developments to be pursued on a purely local basis. We want to ensure that we do not see any progress falling through the cracks as changes are made.
Finally, I want to touch on patient voices. The abolition of Healthwatch England has been mentioned numerous times during the debate. Many patients have to be incredibly vocal about the care that they need. Often, they cannot make those points as strongly as we might, so it is vital that we maintain bodies that can speak on their behalf, especially those that ensure the voices of young children and youth are prioritised. I am supportive of some of the changes that are coming, but we do need to exercise some care and caution.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The NHS is at a critical juncture in its existence. In order to survive, it needs radical change in how it is run. I welcome the measures in the Bill to keep the NHS around for generations to come, but there are opportunities for the Bill to go further.
I will briefly touch on the situation in my constituency, where an acute care trust has been under-delivering for decades. It constantly gets terrible CQC ratings, whether they relate to how it is run, specific departments or access to services such as A&E. During a recent inspection, two of the inspectors had to stop the work that they were carrying out to point out that there was a deterioration in a patient that had not been noticed by the medical staff on duty. The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), placed the trust into an intervention programme, naming it as one of five trusts across the country that were “challenged”, which means it will be subject to significant NHS intervention.
I strongly welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly those that put a clear emphasis on accountability and preventing historic patterns of underperformance and that allow the Secretary of State to deauthorise failing foundation trusts, taking away some of their independence and bringing them under the control of the Secretary of State. Ongoing interventions have not delivered the healthcare that my constituents need, so this might be the final measure that ticks the trust into working, benefiting from the wealth of expertise and experience within the Department of Health and Social Care.
I believe that the Bill can go further in the area of special educational needs and disabilities, delivering for children with disabilities or extra educational needs. There is a systemic problem that is not related to individual instances in specific trusts or areas of the country. Far too often, health is not at the table when it comes to commissioning services for disabled children or meeting the needs of children with additional needs, so there is an onus on local authorities, who have a statutory duty to provide services that it is not in their gift to provide. We hear from local authorities, schools, academy trusts, parents and sometimes even children that the absence of health in these discussions is critical.
The crucial role that the Department of Health and Social Care can play in delivering the SEND White Paper relates to the “Experts at Hand” model. These experts provide an early intervention model, so that all children who exhibit an additional educational need can access expert advice from a panel of people who make up part of the allied health professions. We know that there is a huge shortage in this workforce and, again, it is in the gift of DHSC to remedy that. The Bill could go further to create a change in the commissioning and the development of a workforce strategy, moving the responsibility from NHS England to the Secretary of State. The Bill should mention allied health professionals and paediatric allied health professionals, which would put them on an equal footing with normal clinical staff.
Another way in which the Bill could go slightly further is by putting a duty of partnership and a duty of commissioning on ICBs around SEND services, particularly paediatric services. As I said, there is currently a statutory duty on LAs. We have heard time and again that a similar statutory duty on ICBs would help delivery.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. I hear again and again from parents that while different commissioning bodies argue about who is responsible, children fall through the cracks. Does she agree that we must urge the Secretary of State to go further and ensure that these children do not fall through the cracks?
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend is completely right.
One of the biggest issues with delivering care for children in the SEND system and for disabled children more widely is the lack of join-up between the various services that they should be able to access. The single point of access in this Bill is a great way to deliver on the health aspect of that. I hear from my constituents who parent children with chronic or complex medical needs, and they find it extremely frustrating that they are the one nexus holding all the information about their child’s healthcare and what they need. They are quite often battling a number of healthcare bureaucracies to get their child the healthcare and support that they need.
I believe that with a few tweaks, this Bill could be truly revolutionary in delivering the healthcare and support that disabled children and children with extra educational needs require and in taking the onus and the stress away from their parents.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
As I am sure is the case in many other constituencies, the NHS is perhaps the most valued service in Torbay, where it is the largest employer. Ironically, while the Government talk about investing in the NHS, Torbay is looking at 300 voluntary redundancies. Rather than the investment that the Government talk about, the reality in Torbay is job cuts, many of which are likely to be to clinicians. That is the background to my comments, which I will limit to the crucial ones.
Torbay has had the luxury of an integrated care organisation, which has been vaunted internationally as the way forward. The direction of travel of the Government is very much toward integrated care organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) alluded to. We have section 75 arrangements, yet because there has been a failure of focus on this matter by NHS colleagues over a number of years, they have been binned in recent months. We have appealed to the Secretary of State to intervene, but he has failed to do so. In the light of that, how can we have any confidence about greater influence from the Secretary of State? When the appeal happened, he said, “It is a contractual relationship.” The integrated care organisation has resulted in many people being discharged early and people being cared for in the community at a grassroots level. As Liberal Democrats, we know that that is desperately important.
The binning of Healthwatch is disturbing. I pay tribute to Kevin Dixon, who heads up the organisation in Torbay and Devon. Only a few years ago, it identified a failure by domiciliary care workers who were supporting the most vulnerable people in their own homes. That resulted in an investigation, which took away the contract from that provider, and another provider ended up better supporting those people. How can we expect that to happen if we effectively give the duty to providers to mark their own homework?
Let me focus on the better care fund. It is bonkers that this is being handed on a plate to the NHS acute care services. There needs to be partnership working between adult social care providers and the NHS. It should be driving better care—it says that on the label. This is extremely perverse. I hope that as the Bill progresses, common sense will prevail in a number of areas.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
As someone who has worked in the NHS for 25 years as a district nurse and who has been involved in integrated care systems in Birmingham and Solihull since the very beginning, I will focus my contributions on three areas of the Bill: health inequalities, patient voice and integrated care boards.
Let me start by saying that I support the principles of the Bill. My constituents want services that work better. They want care that is easier to access closer to home and properly joined up, and parts of the Bill help to support that ambition. I want a focus on neighbourhood health plans and shifting more care into communities. Some of the best healthcare happens in people’s homes, in clinics and through early intervention before problems become a crisis. That is why the investment in Stockland Green health centre in my constituency in Birmingham matters so much to my residents and to me. It represents the right ambitions: shifting care into the heart of the community, bringing services together locally and making healthcare more accessible for residents in Birmingham Erdington. The principle of that is absolutely right.
My concern is that parts of the Bill risk moving us away from the original purpose of integrated care. Integrated care systems were created because health is shaped by far more than hospitals alone. I am concerned that the Bill risks moving us away from that local collaborative model and towards something far more centralised. As a former cabinet member on Birmingham city council with governance responsibility for health and social care and public health, and as the chair of Birmingham health and wellbeing board, I know how important local government involvement is in these decisions, yet under these proposals, somebody in that position would not automatically have a seat around the table—they would have to compete for it.
I believe the Bill should protect three things in relation to ICBs: genuine local partnership, a combined focus on health inequalities and prevention, and a strong focus on place, reflecting the needs of local communities like mine. One of my biggest concerns about the Bill is the reduction in independent patient representation, including the abolition of Healthwatch structures. If patient voice is weakened at the same time that local representation is reduced, there is a real risk that health inequalities become even less visible within the system, and we cannot allow that to happen.
The ambition to improve joined-up care and strengthen community healthcare is the right direction of travel. I simply ask the Government to keep a close watch on local representation and patient voice as these changes are implemented. Patient voice must not be lost and health inequalities must not increase. ICBs should not be used as a vehicle to reorganise NHS management structures.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will call a Member on the Opposition Benches, and then I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), not least because I agree with a lot of what she just said, especially around accountability and the impact on integrated care boards and Healthwatch. I will try to speak quite swiftly in the time allocated to me.
I campaigned for ICBs, because when I was a new Member of Parliament I had to deal with clinical commissioning groups. In summer 2020, the CCG that I was dealing with told me that I was going to get two new urgent treatment centres at the cost of about £1 million each, but I had a call with the same CCG a month later and it denied ever saying that to me. Luckily, one of my staff members had been on that call. I went to see the Health Secretary at the time, and I thought, “This is not possible.”
I am not a health expert, but I have been in business, and accountability and transparency really matter. That is why I supported the Health and Care Act 2022 and the introduction of ICBs. The consequence of the Act was much more local accountability and delivery. That is why, since 2020, we have seen the introduction of an urgent treatment centre at Solihull hospital, a locality hub, state-of-the-art surgical units with robotics, and the second-largest community diagnostic centre in the country. That was opened under this Government, but it was allocated and instigated by the previous Government.
I am a big advocate for transparency and accountability, which is why I have great concerns about the Bill. I have great respect for the Minister, but I hope she will appreciate that the cross-party concern on the legislation is very valid. There is a bit of a power grab going on here; the central pillar of the Bill is to centralise powers. Despite the Secretary of State—I would welcome him if he was in his seat—saying that the Bill is not about politicisation, it is inevitable that that centralisation of power will be a politicisation. In fact, the integrated care boards in the form that we created them reduce politicisation. I will not stress that point more than the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington did, because I was in total agreement with her.
Moving on to Healthwatch, I will start with a compliment to the Department of Health, because I wrote to it last year on 12 September and had a response on 15 September. That is pretty good going—long may it continue—but my compliments will stop there, because I am greatly concerned about the abolition of Healthwatch. The Secretary of State kept talking about integrating it into ICBs, but the response I had from the Minister clearly says that the changes will close local healthwatch organisations. I do not agree with the term “integrated”; a new mechanism is being created that will take away patient voices and patient independence.
Healthwatch plays an important role in gathering local intelligence. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington talked about inequality, and I have great concerns about that. Two of the most deprived wards in the country are in my constituency, and Healthwatch also plays an important role in giving a voice to the voiceless. I was not reassured by the Secretary of State that that role will be preserved as those powers are taken into the ICB or centralised into the Department of Health, where the Secretary of State will be an important arbiter.
There was one question that I wanted to ask the Minister. The inequality I referred to includes huge amounts of digital exclusion, another area in which Healthwatch plays an important role. When I talk about the voiceless, I mean the people who do not have the strength or confidence to address those issues. What work has the Department of Health done regarding the digitally excluded? That is a really important question, and I share the concerns about accountability and transparency that have been expressed. I hope the Minister can address them.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
At the outset, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). As fellow SEND parents, we both call for the measures that she has pressed for.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. I wish to speak about some of those issues, predominantly as they relate to clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill and how ICB commissioning needs to be considered in relation to carers and disabled people. Last October, the APPG for access to disability equipment published a report entitled “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, which made recommendations that I believe need to be considered as the Bill progresses. Its main recommendation was that there be a national strategy for community equipment, ensuring consistent national standards and accountability at every level.
Disparities exist not just across ICB areas, but within them. In my part of south-east London, there are different contracts in Bexley, Greenwich and Bromley—three neighbouring boroughs within the same ICB, where people receive completely different service levels. My daughter is a wheelchair user. She is in a school class with children from the neighbouring boroughs that, despite being in the same ICB, have completely different commissioning contracts and different levels of service. That postcode lottery, both across ICBs and within them, is something we really need to look at.
Getting the commissioning of disability equipment right is crucial if we are to streamline processes, reduce delays and prevent unnecessary hospital stays. For instance, there is no timescale for equipment when it comes to hospital discharges. A timescale of 18 weeks for wheelchairs is set out in the national strategy, but not for disability equipment. That leads to delayed discharges, but also to operations that in many respects are unnecessary, such as for people with cerebral palsy who do not have the equipment they require. There is clear evidence, as we will see again in the months ahead, that providers of disability equipment and wheelchairs bid lowest for contracts, creating cash flow issues for them. They then have to slow down the ordering and provision of equipment, which has great knock-on effects on both operations and discharges for the NHS. That is why our APPG has called for a streamlining of communication channels between local authorities, health bodies and Government Departments to ensure a more joined-up approach.
I have very little time, but I want to mention the recycling of equipment. Often, one ICB will have the equipment that a patient in a neighbouring ICB requires, because it has recycled it, but it cannot pass that equipment on because the contracts are different. We saw that issue to a great extent last year in the area of disability equipment when the NRS Healthcare contract collapsed. I welcome the Bill, but I believe it can be strengthened to better address the needs of carers and the disabled.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
This Bill contains welcome elements, such as creating a single patient record and enabling integrated care boards to become commissioners across a wider area. However, I cannot support the weakening of patient voices, nor removing local authorities from oversight of health trusts. I pay tribute to Gill Keniston-Goble and her team at Somerset Healthwatch for all the fantastic work they have done.
In moving to a single patient record, we need to prioritise privacy and rethink putting the American firm Palantir in charge of our data, with its founders such as Thiel opposing democracy and denigrating our NHS as part of a “Stockholm syndrome”. My constituent, whose family member was brutally murdered, is rightly horrified that victims’ NHS records were shared unlawfully online with NHS workers—she called it “repugnant voyeurism”, and she was right to do so. I hope the Minister will echo the apology of the trust and condemn that kind of behaviour.
However, none of the reforms in the Bill will have a positive impact on patients or staff in Taunton and Wellington who use the maternity and paediatric department until and unless the promised new unit is brought forward. One of my constituents, Jeff, told me of their grandson Ryan, who was admitted to the ward a couple of weeks ago. The lack of air conditioning meant that temperatures there exceeded 30°C over the past week—no wonder medical staff have fainted in the heat while looking after mothers and children who are baking in single-storey flat-roof buildings—buildings that were put up for the United States army as a temporary measure during the second world war and never replaced.
As Jeff put it,
“Walking down the corridor of the old building is an embarrassment. There are literally sheets of plastic attached to the leaking ceilings running into guttering in the corridor”.
I do not need my architectural training to know that guttering should be on the outside of the building, not the inside. It is therefore unsurprising that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), when challenged on BBC Radio Somerset only a month ago, promised that he would speed up the Musgrove Park hospital project if he could. I hope the new Secretary of State will honour his predecessor’s promise to meet me to discuss that.
The Bill is based, at least in part, on the mission to move from treatment to prevention, which is of course the right ambition. Because of its major teaching hospital status, Taunton has a big medical community who know a thing or two about prevention, and I will highlight two areas in which this Bill should be going further on prevention. On prostate cancer, I hope the Government do not decide to hold back from widespread screening, as a recommendation to do so is before them. As a member of a family in my constituency recently hit by that disease told me,
“I am a recently retired doctor and I do not believe the statistics that have been published, with the emphasis being placed on over-investigating patients and the distress this causes. This pales into insignificance compared to a missed diagnosis.”
Finally, more should be done to reform the dental contract. Unless the Bill leads to more NHS dentists, social care reform and better prevention—
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Today, we stand at a defining moment for our healthcare system. We face a ballooning NHS budget and a social care system in crisis. We ask ourselves what must change to reduce deep-rooted health inequalities, improve patient-centred care and remain financially sustainable. The NHS was designed to treat acute illness and provide healthcare free at the point of use, regardless of income, background or status. Medical and scientific progress has transformed healthcare—people are living longer than ever before, often managing multiple, long-term conditions that once would have been fatal.
The NHS was founded on the simple but powerful principle of equity, yet health outcomes remain profoundly unequal. Research consistently shows that where someone is born and the socioeconomic conditions they grow up in can determine how long they live, sometimes by more than a decade. The wider determinants of health—income, housing, education and employment—shape outcomes long before illness appears. Now we must embrace the global technological revolution; from artificial intelligence to robotics, we must harness it to improve patient-centred care. Used well, technology does not replace humanity in medicine, but restores it, giving clinicians more time to care.
Indeed, we should go further. AI and data analytics should be used not only to treat individuals, but to understand communities, designing healthcare around the real conditions in which people live. A true systemic approach means not just knowing that a patient has a condition such as high blood pressure, but understanding why: the environment that shapes us, rates of poverty or unemployment, housing conditions, education levels, access to green spaces, the density of fast food outlets or accessibility of affordable healthcare services per capita. The reality is that health inequalities are complex, interconnected and predictable. We require a whole-system approach, bringing together the NHS, local councils, hospitals, charities and grassroots organisations.
Having a way to fully map communities and what they look like would allow for tailor-made healthcare services to be delivered to the population. Healthcare and the NHS do not need reform; they need an ecosystem map. I want to call it the health biosystem. It would be a system where health is shaped not in hospitals, but in homes, schools, streets and workplaces. As Attlee once said, we have
“not been elected to try to patch up an old system but to make something new”.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome the idealistic vision that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) sets out for us, but I am afraid that it is far from what is in this Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), I shed no tears for the demise of NHS England; it was never an organisation independent of politics, but always looked upwards at the political leadership and did what Ministers wanted. It was created as an unnecessarily complex organisation. However, I ask myself whether reasserting the principle—unspoken in this debate—that somehow the man in Whitehall knows best is not reverting to the previous failures of the system, when we need to be looking for a much more organic and local system.
I speak in this debate to lament the demise of HSSIB, as proposed in this Bill. It is a profound mistake. It represents a downgrading of safety as a priority in this Government’s health policy, because HSSIB is the only organisation that can independently investigate safety incidents in the NHS and is not conflicted by any other function or role. It does not compromise any other functional role in the NHS, yet the Government have decided to get rid of it. It will not save any bureaucracy. This tiny organisation costs a few million pounds, yet it is pioneering a new system of safety management in the NHS that the NHS culturally barely understands.
We forget that NHS reform is really about people and leadership, not management structures and organisational structures. HSSIB was one of the catalysts that was beginning to transform attitudes towards safety. It was a safety valve for clinicians and patients and their families. It was the one place they could go to tell their story, without fear nor favour, in a safe space, and it was instructive.
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend is delivering a passionate speech. Is he reassured in any way by the changes the Secretary of State alluded to that will help strengthen the patient voice?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Well, no, and the abolition of HSSIB is an example of that. It was the one organisation that could independently hold any part of the system to account. If its functions are transferred to the CQC, those functions will be compromised in their independence —and they are explicitly intended to be compromised. The Government set great store by the Dash review, but it is a flawed and dishonest document that misleads the public by what it says. The Dash review is not about patient safety. It puts far more emphasis on quality. It elides quality and safety, which are not the same thing, even if many people believe them to be so.
That concern is reflected by the fact that there are too many recommendations flying around and too many resources being diverted to recommendations that the NHS does not want to implement. All those recommendations are coming from this plethora of public inquiries that Secretaries of State keep setting up. Surely we want to replace the public inquiry system with something much more effective, as we did for rail accidents. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, we replaced public inquiries with the rail accident investigation branch in the Department for Transport.
There has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because we have the rail accident investigation branch. There has not been a public inquiry into an aviation accident since 1972, because we have the air accidents investigation branch. Why can we not have the same principle for safety in healthcare, instead of this ridiculous Dash review, which is full of falsehoods and misleading statements? I will give the House just one example of that. The review says:
“HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.”
That is wrong. It had to give them up, because it did not have the capacity to do them.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
First, I must declare that my husband works for NHS England, which is a bit awkward, if I am honest. Today I will speak to a few different aspects of the NHS modernisation Bill, including the single patient record, the independence of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB, and possible changes to the make-up of NHS foundation trust boards.
I welcome the introduction of a single unified patient record, accessible to patients and clinicians in one place. Too often patients are forced to carry the burden of holding together their own medical history. I have heard the same story from countless constituents: they arrive at appointments with records that they have pieced together themselves, having to rehash their medical history over and over again to each new clinician. That clearly does not work for the patient, and it does not work for the clinician either, because when clinicians do not have access to the full picture, decisions are made with incomplete information, and the right diagnosis or treatment might be missed or, even worse, an unsafe care decision could be made.
The single patient record addresses long-standing issues of fragmented records and poor communication between NHS services, and this Bill is an opportunity to make things work that much better, but that needs to come with strong safeguards. People rightly want to know that their personal, private information will only be used for proper purposes and will be kept secure. I urge the Secretary of State to take full notice of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s views on that. In other ways, the single patient record can make our data more secure. I recently received a letter containing personal information, and I had been sent to my last house but one. That is not secure at all.
I will talk quickly about the abolition of HSSIB and its responsibilities moving to the CQC. There is a fragmented and confusing patient safety and regulatory landscape, but independence and the appearance of independence in patient safety investigations is very important. I would like strong reassurances from the Minister that there will be still an independent investigative function that patients and staff can have confidence in. Harmed families have told us just how important that is.
Finally, I flag the changes to the make-up of NHS foundation trust boards. The Bill appears to remove the requirement for registered nurses and doctors to be represented on trust boards. I hope that is an oversight that can be examined and rectified in Committee.
For all its faults, the NHS is there for us right from the beginning and right to the end of our lives, and for the most difficult moments in between. From the birth of our children through to every broken bone and every anxious wait in A&E, we are supported by the NHS and its staff. If we want it to remain for future generations, we have to be willing to modernise it, reform it and make sure it is fit for how people live today.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We all cherish the NHS, and all of us in this Chamber have a duty to ensure that anybody who does not believe in the basic principle that care should follow need, not wealth, must be nowhere near the jewel in our crown that is the NHS. I begin with primary care—or, indeed, the glaring inequality in primary care. Practices in the most deprived areas carry, on average, 300 more patients per fully qualified GP than those in the least deprived. That gap has grown by 50% since 2018. In Leicester—my constituency and my home—there are 1,985 patients per GP, which is significantly above the national average. The Bill introduces a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and, under clause 24, to produce neighbourhood health plans, but a plan without the workforce to deliver it is a plan in name only.
I must also declare my interest as a practising optometrist. Clause 14 gives integrated care boards new responsibilities over primary care services, and the Bill transfers commissioning of NHS sight tests from a national framework to individual ICBs. I completely understand the logic of localisation, but I have already seen what happens in practice. In Coventry and Warwickshire, a community urgent eye care service that was diverting more than 13,000 A&E attendances per year was withdrawn at the end of 2025. In Hampshire, community glaucoma schemes have been moved back into hospitals. This is the postcode lottery in action.
Glaucoma affects approximately 700,000 people in the UK, with about half of them walking around undiagnosed. It causes irreversible sight loss, it increases the risk of falls, and it carries serious long-term costs for both the NHS and social care, and we now have the technology to address it more efficiently than ever. The iStent inject device can be inserted during routine cataract surgery in a single procedure, treating both conditions simultaneously. This is exactly the kind of innovation that the 10-year health plan calls for, yet uptake is inconsistent because there is no national commissioning guidance. I urge the Government to ensure that the single patient record supports consistent clinical decision making across the glaucoma pathway, and that integrated care boards are required, not merely permitted, to commission those procedures.
The Bill also abolishes NHS England, and we have heard much about that. History gives us cause for concern, especially when it comes to private finance initiative arrangements, which have cost the NHS tens of billions of pounds over decades.
Let me end by saying something about the Palantir question. The creation of a single patient record is welcome, but the vessel matters as much as the vision. The £330 million NHS federated data platform contract, awarded by the last Government and inherited by this one, raises serious and unresolved questions, and it must be addressed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The national must determine the “what”, and bringing NHS England into the Department is therefore the right decision. However, as many Members have said today, it is the “how”—how we do this at a local level—that determines the outcomes we see. Given the huge inequalities in our constituencies, which we have all spoken about today, the question of how we deliver, in particular, the third shift to prevention, is really important. The right integration, the right systems and the right focus will bring our health service together at a local level.
I agree that the accountability processes are not in the right place under the Bill, and I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about the need to ensure that we in this place have that connection to the national and the local, while also integrating with those held publicly accountable in our councils and combined authorities. But the focus also needs to be there. It is because there is no coterminosity between commissioners and providers that people are looking in both directions in trying to bring about a system that cannot have the capacity to deliver in such ways. We need to see that bringing together of services to focus on a “population health” approach, but the Bill does not do that.
We need to think about what the outcomes that we want to see. I have lived through so many reorganisations, and I know that it is not reorganisations that ever deliver the satisfaction outcome. Given that ICBs have now been stripped back to such an extent—unable to communicate with us, as MPs, and not having the resources to make decisions—I fear that that delivering the “how” will become harder under this model. However, we also need to ensure that local accountability comes from our communities—and that leads me to the issue of healthwatch.
What we called community health councils were abolished in 2003. We replaced them with public and patient involvement forums, and replaced those with local involvement networks and then with healthwatch, which is soon to be scrapped. If it did not exist, we would invent it, because it has the independence that the new structures do not have, giving patients and people confidence in a system that enables them to raise their voices, and to be sure that their voices will be heard and systems will be held to account. I therefore oppose clauses 64 and 65, with the respective schedules 9 and 10, and ask the Government to reconsider and also to take on board the questions that have been raised about the systems that make it possible to hold investigations. HSSIB has done that well, and I think that its role should continue.
Given what has happened over a decade of raising concern in the House, I welcome the commitment of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to a public inquiry, but we do not have a chair and we do not have terms of reference. It is therefore really important that we put in place the right structures to hold the system to account.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Government present this legislation as technical, restructuring NHS England and reconfiguring integrated care boards. They also say that they want to devolve power from Whitehall and give patients more control over their care. However, there is a mismatch between this presentation and the contents of the Bill. While some responsibilities are being devolved, other powers are being drawn upwards to the Secretary of State, with greater control over spending, appointments and key operational decisions. There are serious concerns about how the patient voice is to be treated, and hearing that voice is essential if we are to address inequality and replace the negative health impacts of austerity, bad planning, poor housing, weak transport and divisive social policies.
With the Bill, we have the chance to address the totally unacceptable 16-year gap in life expectancy between different postcodes in the UK. I therefore urge Ministers to amend the Bill to include clear legal frameworks and a cross-Government strategy to mirror new duties on strategic authorities for tackling health inequalities—inequalities that I see in my constituency, where those without the means to pay for a private dentist endure horrible pain and suffering, and where children go without care; inequalities that mean men in the most deprived areas can expect to live, on average, 11 fewer years in good health than those in the least deprived areas.
It is a real concern that the Bill will permit the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. How might that power be used in the hands of a pro-privatisation Secretary of State?
As for the issue of patient voice, it beggars belief that, as drafted, the Bill abolishes the statutory duty underpinning local independent patient and public voice, including the entire network of local healthwatch organisations. That must be rectified. We need independent challenge, because without it accountability is at risk. Healthwatch Norfolk has pointed out that it has a legal power to visit health and social care services and see them in action, but the Bill does not mention that statutory power, or how it might sensibly become the responsibility of the ICB or the local council. What will happen to it? Healthwatch Suffolk has pointed out that recognition of an independent voice for patients has been a principle supported by Governments for 50 years, but if this Bill passes into law unamended, it will end that recognition.
Finally, ensuring that the different records in the health system are in one place so that patients do not have to repeat their stories is an important principle, but that single patient record must be safeguarded. I therefore urge the Minister to rule out awarding the contract for its development to Palantir, so that we can ensure that clear safeguards are in place.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The history of the NHS shows that there is no one way of securing improvement or accountability, and that a range of different mechanisms have a role. Patient voice, patient choice, performance management—including centralised performance management—planning, democratic challenge, competition and collaboration all have a place, and it is for the Government of the day to make a judgment about the right blend of mechanisms with which to pursue their objectives. Overall, I think that the Bill represents a good attempt to do that, given the NHS that this Government inherited and their ambitions, as set out in the NHS plan. There was undoubtedly duplication between the DHSC and NHSE, and returning to the situation before 2012, when there was direct departmental oversight of the NHS, is not a radical step.
There are, of course, costs to this transition. Unfortunately, in terms of morale, I think that these costs were somewhat exacerbated by the regretful manner in which the original announcement about NHSE abolition and ICB changes were made, which did not do justice to the commitment and professionalism of impacted staff. But that does not change the fact that the Government’s overall diagnosis is correct: since the 2012 reforms, accountability has been muddied, and a total reset of regulation is required to empower NHS providers to meet the urgent health needs of the population with the resources available. However, I agree that there are significant questions about the role of HSSIB, and I hope that this issue can be resolved in Committee.
The Government have been clear that they see the future role of ICBs as strategic commissioners. That capability needs to be developed, and I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) that it needs to be done with particular care in relation to specialist services. There also needs to be a resolution of how the development of neighbourhood health services will be strategically led. ICBs must retain the capacity to work at place level, and I join others in questioning the proposal to remove local authority representation on ICBs. Combined authority representation does not suitably replace that. Mayors’ responsibilities are entirely different and do not include anything to do with social care or public health that rightly sits with councils, and we need that to be hardwired into ICB membership.
I want to end on an area of healthcare that is the subject of a manifesto commitment that is not currently in the Bill: delivering parity of esteem for mental health. It is unconscionable that waits for NHS mental health services are significantly longer than physical health waits and that, as yet, there is no specific commitment to bring them down. The Health and Care Act 2022 introduced a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on NHS mental health spend. I wonder whether, as part of this Bill, there is scope to widen that duty to include reporting on the different waiting times for physical and mental health, and to make some progress on the very welcome cross-Government mental health strategy that has recently been announced.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
All too often in my role as a local MP, I have been frustrated by the buck-passing in the NHS. My local ICB cuts a service, pleading no money, or refuses to fund a new one. It tells me to ask the Government, the Government tell me it is a local decision for the ICB, and the cycle goes on.
With this Bill, I welcome the accountability conferred on the Secretary of State, but I am slightly gobsmacked that he has agreed to it. Every Back Bencher should be rubbing their hands with glee. This legislation makes the Secretary of State personally responsible for commissioning arrangements in all ICBs. I look forward to sending him a letter on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent listing every change I want him to make. My ICB has one of the worst offers on IVF, it has been far too slow to adapt to new dynamics in ADHD and autism, it has left commissioning gaps in palliative care and closed down step-down beds, and now it wants to close down child and adolescent mental health services.
I make this prediction: the office of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will balloon under this legislation, because every Back Bencher will appeal to him to make sure that they get their local commissioning arrangements sorted. This reform is, of course, fully in line with the UK’s overly centralised Whitehall system, but it is not in line with the Government’s supposed devolution agenda. Mayors could be the answer, but the Government have been too timid about the role of mayors, who merely sit as members of the ICB. What of areas that have been slow to get mayors?
Although the Bill addresses ICBs, there is no reform of the sclerotically slow-to-act Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation or UK National Screening Committee; they have been painfully slow to act on spinal muscular atrophy screening.
Although I welcome the single patient record, I would like to raise a serious concern. In my constituency, I was recently made aware of a case of a patient’s record being accessed multiple times, unrelated to their care. In fact, they were not receiving care at the hospital at the time; instead, they were campaigning on maternity care. Clinicians had no business looking at the record. Although a single patient record of this scope is welcome, it opens up the abuse of data privacy on steroids. What steps will be taken to protect data and confidentiality?
Finally, I want to discuss how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations are implemented. Trusts have 90 days to implement NICE technology appraisals, yet this Bill confers on the Secretary of State the right to change that. How will that be handled? It should definitely be considered further in Committee.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Since the general election, there are 10,000 fewer people stuck on NHS waiting lists in my constituency of Gloucester, we have the green light for two new NHS dental practices, and a new GP surgery is being built in Hucclecote. But now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back and say, “Job well done.” It is not even job half done. We must go further and start to deliver change at the pace that my constituents expect. Too many people in my city still struggle to see their GP or dentist when they need to, are placed on excruciatingly long waiting lists—particularly for mental health—and have to battle just to get a diagnosis. We have to go further.
I am pleased to see the creation of the single patient record. I hear time and again from constituents who are fed up with having to explain their story several times to different medical practitioners. Keeping records that do not speak to each other just does not make sense in the digital world in which we now live. It is inconvenient, frustrating and, most of all, it threatens patient safety. I am also grateful to the Government for taking the bold decision to abolish NHS England. It is clear that the model has not worked and does not provide the value for money that Gloucester residents deserve.
We are facing a health crisis in the UK, with significant gaps in life expectancy across the country. Someone from Gloucester who, like me, lives in Abbeymead is likely to live a whole decade longer than someone who lives just 3 miles down the road in Kingsholm. That is just not acceptable, and it highlights the entrenched health inequalities found in constituencies like mine up and down the country. Deprivation, poverty and a lack of adequate healthcare are harming life chances in every part of our United Kingdom. I therefore urge Ministers to meet the charity Health Equals, and to consider its proposal to strengthen the requirement for the Secretary of State to tackle health inequalities. The Bill should also introduce a duty requiring all Ministers across Government to consider the impact of major policy decisions on health inequalities.
Speaking of cross-governmental missions, I read with interest the report by Alan Milburn last week about young people not in education, employment or training. He sets out in damning detail the impact of the failure of the Conservative Governments to properly invest in mental health services. Today, mental health conditions account for 20% of all ill health in UK, but only 9% of NHS spending. Our Heath Committee has recommended making the mental health investment standard a statutory requirement, and the Government should make such a change.
I also ask the Government to consider amendments that confirm our commitment to tackling the obesity epidemic. I and several other Committee Members were concerned to read press reports that the Government are considering scrapping measures included in the 10-year plan to tackle the obesity crisis. Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box that the Department of Health will not bow to pressure from the supermarkets and large food manufacturers to scrap our important work on obesity? We spend billions of pounds every year on tackling obesity-related illnesses, while food manufacturers and supermarkets lobby to avoid scrutiny. Of course we need to do more to tackle the cost of living, but the food lobby’s argument that we must choose between the cost of the weekly shop and tackling the fact that one in three children are overweight or obese is disingenuous at best.
This Bill is great, but there is more we can do to tackle mental health waiting lists, to tackle obesity and to tackle health inequalities in places like Gloucester.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)—I call him my hon. Friend as he is a fellow member of the Health Committee.
The 2012 Act was mentioned earlier, and I am one of the few Members who was in this House when it was passed. I was sitting on the coalition Benches at the time, but I eventually voted against the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Bill because it broke the coalition agreement. We had agreed that there would be no top-down reorganisation, but it was the biggest reorganisation that the NHS had ever seen. Although the Liberal Democrats made the Bill significantly less bad—and I congratulate all those involved in that—there was still far too much that damaged the NHS. I welcome this Bill as it addresses some of those deficiencies.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I strongly agree about the abolition or the merging of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the CQC.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Clause 59 states:
“The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is abolished.”
It is going to be abolished.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the representations made by both the CQC and HSSIB itself seem to refer to its amalgamation into the CQC. The point is that, as he rightly says, a really important role is played by HSSIB, which could be lost as a result. It is a vital safety agency, and its independence is really important. There needs to be a safe space giving those working in the service the confidence that they can blow the whistle confidentially to that service to improve, protect and enhance patient care. There is a major risk, as the evidence has shown, that the protected disclosure of important legal information could in fact be compromised as a result.
Many Members have also referred to clause 4, on reducing inequalities. I entirely agree, but I hope the Minister will also look at geographical inequalities. In my constituency there are places where, as a result of clinical improvements and sub-specialty developments, services are moving further and further away for people facing emergencies. For example, in 10% to 15% of stroke cases, mechanical thrombectomies are required, but in west Cornwall, people need to travel 80 miles to Plymouth to get that service. That geographic inequality is reflected in other areas of sub-specialty too.
Clause 10 refers to not
“causing a variation in the proportion of health services provided by the public or private sector”.
I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of whether that is to protect the public sector or the private sector.
Other Members referred to the federated data platform. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) made an excellent speech on that on 16 April, which I hope the Minister will look at.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill and the modernisation it will bring. To deliver the change needed requires a fundamental redesign of NHS structures and practices. Without a willingness to make the big changes, we will never deliver on the aspirations of the NHS 10-year plan.
At the same time, patients and NHS staff need to see change now. We cannot reasonably expect our residents and frontline workers to buy into this long-term vision of the NHS when they face so many issues with services right now. How will the Bill and the ongoing change process impact on some of the areas of most concern to my residents in Rossendale and Darwen? Top of the list for us is Blackburn A&E, which is one of the busiest in the country. I fully recognise the work being done by brilliant doctors and nurses to try to manage demand. None the less, the indignity of corridor care remains a blight. Almost every week I hear of patients spending hours and hours in the corridor, not knowing when they will be seen, often in discomfort, feeling exposed, anxious and unsupported. Ending that sort of experience is a crucial test for NHS modernisation. Only when we see the end of corridor care at Blackburn A&E and others will the residents of east Lancashire feel that something has really changed for the better.
As we have heard, the Bill is also about improving patient safety. It includes some significant steps, but, again, what about the practicalities? For years now we have been stuck in a vicious cycle of investigating shocking cases of patient harm and system failure, making numerous recommendations to improve safety and yet failing to implement them, and repeating the same mistakes. We must break the cycle. This cannot only be about simplification; it requires bold action as well. For example, as we have heard many times in this place, we have a crisis in maternity safety and soon Baroness Amos will deliver the report on her national investigation, which is likely to identify a requirement for some really fundamental systemic and cultural change. There will also be areas outside her remit that need to be addressed, such as the role of the regulators in a fit-for-purpose patient safety landscape. I therefore wonder if the Bill goes far enough and if there will be a need for amendment after Baroness Amos reports. Perhaps the Minister will share some thoughts on that.
Finally, I will touch on prevention. The move from sickness to prevention is one of the three big shifts in the NHS 10-year plan. It is surely the key to a health service that is sustainable in the long term. Although the Bill makes some reference to prevention, frankly, a lot of it feels pretty peripheral and leaves some key questions unanswered. For instance, how—in a practical sense—are we enabling ICBs to support prevention at a local level and at a scale that will make a difference? How are we driving the prevention agenda across Government Departments? Are we doing enough to ensure healthy lifestyle habits are developed in early years and at school? Why are we not putting the social prescribing of proven interventions, such as exercise programmes, on the same financial footing as pharmaceutical interventions? And so on and so on.
I suspect the Committee stage will be crucial in ensuring the Bill matches its aspirations. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on how we can balance long-term modernisations with delivering change today.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I will focus on two things: the changes in data privacy and access to support a centralised single patient record, and the abolition of Healthwatch.
Healthwatch is not the same as the other regulators and it should not be amalgamated. Regulators can be amalgamated only if they have a single purpose and a single viewpoint. Healthwatch today is not a regulator but a patient advocate and there are no others in the system. Without Healthwatch, the remainder of the checks and balances come from the medical profession and the health establishment—and we have seen cases where that goes wrong. Healthwatch guards against that. It is a vital body to speak up for the patient, rather than the NHS itself.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I have had a look at the parliamentary record; Healthwatch has been mentioned over 100 times in the past five years. One key area of focus is its reporting and the insights it provides to Members of Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that whatever replaces Healthwatch must retain that research focus?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We heard earlier how Kevin Dixon of Devon gives us excellent reports of what is happening with Healthwatch.
The modern NHS must run on data, but critically, on data that carries the consent of patients. A single patient record is undeniably critical to see the data of patients all in one place, but it must be built from a patient’s point of view, not from a centralised data-analysis point of view, and with privacy by design from day one. We obviously need GPs to see hospital data and vice versa, and ambulances to see everything that they need to help, but we do not need the new regulation to do that.
The single patient record already exists in a federated model; in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and more, trusts already run interoperable access for care services, GPs and hospitals. The Government admit that but claim it is partial and fragmented. They also claim that the data will remain in the systems where it currently exists. However, with the Bill, the Government are asking to remove all protection of patient data—look at proposed new sections 250E(1) and (3) to the National Health Service Act 2006 as set out in clause 47(2) of the Bill. We are asked to trust somewhere below primary legislation that it will all be okay—we should trust the regulation. It is a big-tech approach to deliver an overreaching centralised system, rather than a distributed interoperable solution.
NHS England has ignored and discounted UK sovereign systems that can and do provide what is required along with patient trust. Systems built over years with focus on patient treatment and defined use cases could be rolled out today with no change required in law and privacy by design built in from day one. Greater Manchester and others have the single patient record capability and the hard-won foundation of trust.
I will be tabling amendments to remove the relaxation of data privacy from the Bill. The measures are unnecessary if NHS England does not follow the Palantir advice and instead follows what has been proven to work in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and many other places. Perhaps it is an example of something that has worked in Manchester that might work everywhere.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The NHS needs reform, not least after years of Conservative underfunding, fragmentation and neglect. I strongly support the Government’s commitment to shifting the NHS from sickness to prevention. As co-chair of the APPG on smoking and health, I was proud to support the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, but smoking still remains one of the greatest drivers of ill health and inequality. Prevention must be built into the machinery of the NHS, and that must apply to mental health provision too. My constituency office deals with huge volumes of casework involving people waiting too long for support, families in crisis, and vulnerable people being passed between services.
On the safety and voices of patients, we have seen the devastating consequences of failures in breast cancer care at County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust. I pay tribute to the brave women who have spoken out after unimaginable distress. Their experience was in sharp contrast to the excellent cancer care that I received only 12 miles away at a neighbouring hospital. I hope that clause 4 of the Bill addresses the postcode lottery in quality of care.
I think of a husband who lost his wife and two sisters who lost their mam after tragic failings in what should have been routine care. Their fight for justice continues. The Bill must not weaken independent scrutiny or make it harder to raise the alarm when things go wrong.
I briefly raise dentistry; as co-chair of the dentistry and oral health APPG, I know that access to NHS dentistry is one of the clearest examples of where the system is failing constituents. Dentistry is public health, and Ministers must explain how ICBs will be held accountable for NHS dental care.
Finally, on the single patient record, there is real potential for better joined-up care, but patients must have confidence that their information is safe, confidential and used in their interest. That means safeguards on NHS data, including the role of private technology companies such as Palantir, and transparency around access by private providers and consultant partnerships, including limited liability partnerships. The point of reform is not to move boxes around Whitehall; it is to ensure that when people in County Durham and across the country need care, they can access it, trust it and be listened to.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
All of us want to see a better NHS, but there is a profound contradiction at the heart of the Bill: the Government are handing ICBs more responsibility and authority with one hand while cutting them off at the knees with the other. ICBs are being merged, clustered and completely reorganised with no idea of what the landscape will look like in six months, let alone six years down the line.
In my constituency, the Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB is cutting 50% of its staff. In the midst of this, HCRG Care Group, a private equity-owned provider, has taken over essentially all community health contracts. It has arrived with a rapid programme of change, new technology and frontline staffing cuts, promising efficiency and ease of access, yet patients are facing new barriers, unanswered calls and a mounting backlog of referrals. The ICB is supposed to be overseeing and scrutinising all this while running at half capacity, mid reorganisation, with its own future uncertain. Can the Government assure us that no patient will be lost in the shuffle?
On the subject of robust scrutiny and oversight of our health services, I am alarmed at the proposed abolition of Healthwatch, which has been an independent champion of our patient care for more than a decade. Part of its function will be transferred to ICBs, to add to their ever-growing list of responsibilities. My late friend Anne Keat, a long-serving Healthwatch member, would be highly concerned at the prospect of the NHS being given the role of marking its own homework. Independent scrutiny is vital and healthy for the future of our NHS. Will the Secretary of State please reconsider this element of the Bill?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
We are here tonight to talk about a very large piece of legislation, but I would like to focus my remarks on just one part of it, which is the changes the Government want to bring in around planning for the future in the NHS, which are so very needed. There is perhaps no better example of where that planning is going wrong than in Burntwood in my constituency.
Almost 20 years ago, a new doctors surgery was planned for the town. The NHS at that time was very good at knocking things down; however, when the coalition Government rode into town in 2010, all the funding for the replacement was cut. Here we are, almost 20 years later, with no replacement. That has been to the detriment of the town: for well over a decade, people in Burntwood have had to see their doctor in portacabins in the leisure centre car park. In all that time, nobody has stepped up to right that wrong.
We thought there might be light at the end of the tunnel in 2023, when we were promised a replacement by the end of last year. But before that happened, some pen pusher at NHS England decided that the existing surgery in that temporary structure had to close, which meant 5,000 patients distributed to other surgeries in the town. In a town of 30,000 people, that is a significant number. They were told simply to disperse them—“It’ll be fine, don’t worry. We’ll just disperse them.” That dispersal was so traumatic that an existing surgery has had to pick up the same temporary structure and is now operating out of there as well. There was also all the paperwork, legal matters and everything that went with that, because NHS England said that it could not extend for two years. I am very pleased to see the back of that particular quango, which so disadvantaged my constituents.
However, that structure is still being used because the replacement is still not here—it was not delivered by the end of 2025. We do not have the planning application yet. We have once again been promised that it will be here by the end of next month.
I am aware that the Reform-led county council inherited this situation and promise from a Conservative-led county council, but it has not sought to talk to the people in Burntwood. The council has not sought to explain why that promise was not going to be met; it just blew past it. It broke the promise with very little expectation. We now have another one, and that must be met, because so many people across the town have seen so many broken promises and false dawns that they are failing to believe that anything will actually come good.
This entire saga reinforces exactly why the Bill is needed and why these changes are needed. I do not want any other community in any other constituency to be overlooked and forgotten in the way that Burntwood in my constituency has been for so long.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Reducing duplication, streamlining priorities, and getting resources close to frontline care—these are reasonable aims. My concern is that in pursuing simplification the Bill makes a series of choices on patient safety that it is not clear have been fully thought through and that risk repeating mistakes that this country has paid a very high price to learn from.
Through successive inquiries, including Mid Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury, Ian Paterson—I could name more—Parliament has repeatedly recognised that the NHS cannot be relied on to scrutinise itself. Each found the same pattern: concerns present within the system but not acted on, problems developing in isolated services, and a culture in which those who raised concerns were treated as the difficulty rather than as sources of vital information.
Yet the Bill’s general approach is to remove independent scrutiny rather than improve it. I am not arguing that all the bodies that have been created—Healthwatch, the National Guardian’s Office, which has been absorbed into NHS England, which will now be abolished, and HSSIB—have worked exactly as intended. In fact, I have been working with families and others affected by failings at Cambridge University Hospitals trust. It has been suggested that the trust has not published independent information, commissioned by the trust, that found 32 missed opportunities to identify and address concerns about a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon between 2012 and 2024, and children were harmed as a result.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the HSSIB question. The Dash review accused HSSIB of exceeding its remit. That is completely wrong in law, and it was always intended to look at systemic problems across the system. The new investigation function in the CQC will not be able to do that, because it will not be independent.
Ian Sollom
The CQC and HSSIB themselves have expressed concerns about how those two organisations might be brought together. The AAIB is separate from the Civil Aviation Authority, and that model was created for a good reason. The hon. Member made good points about the statistics on that earlier.
Returning to the case I was talking about, a clinician at the trust who did raise concerns formally in 2015 was simultaneously subjected to disciplinary proceedings and told by the trust that they did not want to hear any more complaints. I wish I could say that I had not heard similar stories from NHS staff several times in a little under two years as an MP.
Just because there are some flaws in those independent systems for the NHS, it is not a reason to remove the independence. That would represent a return to conditions that so many of the inquiries warned us about, and I think that patients would rightly question whether lessons have really been learned.
As the Bill proceeds to Committee stage, I urge the Government to ask a simple question about each body that it proposes to absorb or scrap: not just whether the function will still be performed somewhere but whether it will be performed with genuine independence from the organisations that it scrutinises. That independence has been hard-won, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on that carefully before legislating to remove it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions are going to make it very difficult for everyone to speak in the debate. I call Dr Beccy Cooper.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief. The NHS is one of the most unifying institutions in our country today. It is a huge employer, a major source of pride, and a safety net for us all at our moments of greatest need. We all know that it has been creaking under significant strain for some time now, so it is good to see new life and new energy in the 10-year plan. I welcome this Bill as a response to some of the purpose outlined in the strategy.
A lot of the detail in the Bill has been covered by colleagues already and will doubtless be covered further in the Bill Committee, so I will limit my remarks to single patient records and the role of public health in the Bill. I am fully supportive of a single patient record finally being realised. Our health and care system should revolve around patients, rather than patients revolving around it. It is over 20 years since I was a junior doctor, but I still remember my and my patients’ frustration when I once again had to ask them for their clinical history after they had already told it to the GP, the paramedic and the triage nurse.
This endeavour has been tried several times before. The financial cost of NHS Digital and the litany of platforms, software and systems that have been tried and abandoned provide a wealth of lessons learned to ensure that it is successful this time—which, let us face it, is long overdue. Public trust is very important for health data systems. We could consider new safeguards such as a public interest test for sharing data or bringing back requirements to report to Parliament. The NHS must ensure that the technical know-how is sound, as well as being fleet of foot.
I turn to the role of public and population health in this NHS Bill. Public health must be front and centre to provide the right health services in the right place at the right time. At an ICB level, there is now an explicit requirement for population health considerations to be understood. Integrated care boards will be responsible for commissioning the vast majority of our local NHS services, so they need to know the population health need.
That has been demonstrated in my ICB area of Sussex over the past couple of weeks. In the discussions about proposed sites for neighbourhood health hubs, it became clear that the population needs of my constituency of Worthing West had not been entirely understood when considering sites: there is a large area containing several villages with an ageing population and limited access to transport, whose requirements had not hit the radar of the ICB.
To be clear, this is not about blame—anyone who thinks that planning for population health needs is straightforward is welcome to sit the public health exams in epidemiology and statistics. Expertise is there to be used, and we should draw on it. I therefore suggest that we require a statutory appointment of a lead director of public health to represent the area covered by each integrated care board.
Finally, to guard against a focus solely on reorganisation, alongside this NHS Bill and as a key focus of the 10-year strategy we must have a whole of Government approach that recognises health as a strategic and shared asset—
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer and the donations made by trade unions to my constituency Labour party.
I welcome a Bill to modernise the NHS, but our local hospital in Stockport, Stepping Hill, needs a lot of modernisation. The building is quite old and lots of problems have presented themselves over the years. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago to talk about Stepping Hill. The former Health Secretary and I had several conversations about the Stepping Hill estate. I urge the Government to work with me and other Stockport MPs on a long-term solution for Stepping Hill. I am very grateful to all the doctors, nurses and volunteers at Stepping Hill hospital.
I want to mention ICBs, as they feature quite a lot in the Bill. My experience of the Greater Manchester ICB has been quite poor. I thank the British Fertility Society and the charity The Fertility Alliance for all they have done on protecting access to in vitro fertilisation. I also thank in particular my local councillor Karl Wardlaw and his late wife Jodie, and place on record my gratitude to them for all the work they did on protecting access to IVF.
The Greater Manchester ICB consulted on levelling down the offer for NHS-funded IVF treatment across Greater Manchester to just one cycle in each borough, including Stockport; 74% of respondents completely disagreed or disagreed with that proposal. The ICB did the consultation—I am not sure how much time and money it wasted on it—but then proceeded with the levelling down offer of just one cycle of IVF. My experience of the ICB is therefore very poor.
Many constituents have written to me about their concerns about Palantir and access to their data. I know that Unison has also raised significant concerns about the damage done to public confidence by Government data initiatives and the use of organisations such as Palantir, the spy tech firm.
I have limited time. On a more positive note, as we are talking about the NHS, I am always keen to encourage more people to donate blood; I have been donating blood myself for almost 10 years. I place on record my thanks to everyone at the Plymouth Grove donor centre in Manchester. In particular, I thank Connor, Phil, Vivian and Dorcas, who always look after me. May I ask the Government to do more to promote blood donations?
I welcome the Government’s reforms to bring more democracy and accountability to the NHS, but we must ensure that health inequalities are addressed and reduced. In the richest part of my constituency, people can expect to live almost nine years longer than those who live in the most deprived part.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I know of a quite frail diabetic patient with cancer, who underwent several operations as well as complicated chemo in London. He eventually decided that he was well enough to take a short holiday, so he went to Cornwall on the train. Unfortunately, shortly after arriving he was found in a state of collapse by his daughter, and taken to the nearest hospital late on a Saturday night. The doctors had no access to his medical notes, and no answer when they called the hospital in London, so they were puzzled. That situation is familiar to doctors. Patients are incredulous when they are told that we are unable to see all their medical records: “Surely everything is on the computer?”
As a surgeon before becoming an MP, I worked in at least three different hospitals. There was no compatibility between the records, which meant that transferring care was complicated and hazardous. I would be asked to advise on a patient from another hospital, relying on a dictated note from the referring doctor, but I could not access the clinical records, the results of investigations such as the pathology test, scans or, crucially, the operating records. Consultations were delayed as I stared at creaking computers, with numerous software programmes, each individually protected by ever-changing and forgettable passwords, that slowly booted up. That obviously needs to change.
I would link the NHS number to an unique single patient record. I would give ownership of the record to the patient, and let the patient be the custodian and the gatekeeper. That is the truly revolutionary idea. If someone could easily look at their medical record, with appropriate physician safeguards, they could monitor everything—blood pressure, heart rate—and perhaps there would be an incentive for them to look after their health a little better.
Let us imagine for a moment the power of anonymised medical data for a population of 70 million people. The NHS is perhaps the largest complete set of health data on a whole population in the world. That is a huge resource for informing health policy and medical research. By tracking the health outcomes of millions of our fellow citizens, we can sort out all kinds of diseases, such as heart disease, cancer and mental health disorders. I can think of no greater innovation, or more helpful measure to improve the health care of this nation, than a single patient record.
Martin Wrigley
All the features that the hon. Member is asking for are available to people within the Greater Manchester area. Exactly those things are there and work today, even down to the remote monitoring he mentions.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful for that intervention, and I am aware that in various bits of the country such systems do exist. I would like to see a single patient record that is genuinely single, so that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who is sitting next to me, writes something in the record, I can see it, and when I write in my record, he can see it, and no letters are passing back and forth between us. That is why I am sure that legislating for the mandatory single record is what we must do, and as a surgeon who has worked for 40 years in the NHS, I will do everything I can to help.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which I believe has the power to transform patient care in the NHS. Particularly after the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), the House will be aware that I also have a vested interest in this, as I have been a working GP in the NHS in Stroud for at least the last three decades. Indeed, I did a surgery last Friday, and I excitedly told the other doctors that we are going to have a single patient record. Instead of being excited, they said, “It’s about time.”
Those of us working in the NHS have been calling for a single patient record for years, so it is about time that a patient can tell their story just once, and about time a GP knows what a consultant is saying and the consultant knows what the GP is saying. It is about time that, when a patient gets admitted to A&E, the doctors know what the GP has already done, and that, when a patient gets referred to a psychiatrist, they know which antidepressants have been taken. As my hon. Friend said, patients struggle to understand how all the doctors do not know what is going on. We got rid of the fax machine in our surgery only last year, so we are fairly behind on communication, but the Bill lays the foundation for that to be remedied.
The benefits of the Bill for patients are huge—their medical knowledge at their fingertips, just as they are for clinicians and for integration. We cannot have integration without a decent single patient record. On research, our data is a national asset. I fear that a company such as Palantir owning our data is a derogation of our duty, and that we should use that data as a fantastic resource. I am also worried about Palantir’s involvement with death in Gaza and the infringement of civil liberties under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in America. Also, at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, it seems that the benefits that Palantir said it would bring to the operating theatre were not provable. The data is owned at the moment by GPs, and if there is a spillage of data, GP practices are unlimitedly liable. We must change that; otherwise, no one will become a GP partner. We must also be careful, because excessive and over-the-top safeguarding could obstruct the single patient record, and that would harm patient care.
Peter Prinsley
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must have a single patient record, not simply federated records from other sources?
Dr Opher
I do agree, although that is a much bigger job. At the moment, mental health uses a different system from the hospital, and it would be great to unite them. I agree with that, but whether it would possible in the next couple of years, I am not so sure.
Let me quickly go on to NHS England. The administrative burden on GP surgeries from NHSE has been huge, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, and it will be fantastic to get rid of that. When GPs undergo CQC inspections we have to do pointless protocols to fulfil the criteria, and they involve weeks of work. I want to make a little bid here for a much more supportive, lighter touch approach when looking at proper data around GP surgeries, which we would not have to prepare for. That would be very popular with GPs.
I warmly welcome this Bill. It is about time we reduced the ridiculous administration around patients and allowed clinicians to properly care for patients, and it is about time we had a single patient record.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
First of all, I very much welcome the Bill. It has been designed to deliver and work with our 10-year plan in that bigger picture.
I will touch on three issues raised with me by my constituents in Blaydon and Consett. The first is the single patient record. Of course it makes absolute sense for everyone to be able to access up-to-date records when a patient is admitted. I think of the groups I have worked with who have rare conditions, for example, who find that when they are taken into a different hospital, the doctors there are unable to access the records of their specialist treatment. That is the first thing, although there is also a good deal of concern among my constituents and others about how that will be managed and brought about, and how the data will be handled and the contracts awarded.
The second issue I wish to raise is Healthwatch. I understand that the Government’s real intention, through the Bill, is to strengthen the patient voice and the ability to raise issues, but there is real concern that an organisation inside the Department of Health and Social Care will not provide that independence. Will the Minister commit to looking again at how that independence can be built in and linked with the ability to pull the levers that Ministers have talked about, in order to make a real difference for patients? It is about getting that balance right.
Finally, I want to talk about parity of esteem for mental health services. As we move from treatment to prevention services, we need to use this legislation to reinforce parity of esteem for mental health services, including in the ability to access them. We need to build in preventive measures and access to those mental health services. I would just like to comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about building public health issues into the overall health framework. We need to look at re-establishing that public mental health function within DHSC under the new arrangements, and indeed within ICBs. We need also to link this to our mental health strategy, which we are expecting in the very near future. I welcome the Bill greatly and look forward to seeing those issues addressed in Committee.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This Bill has to be set in the proper context of the mess that we are clearing up from the previous Government. The Darzi report laid bare the crisis in the NHS. We must learn from that Government’s disastrous reorganisation, because we cannot afford to make those mistakes. I approach the Bill as a critical supporter of the changes that we have made and that we seek to make.
I have not always given my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) the easiest time, but I pay tribute to his leadership, both on this Bill and in the NHS more generally. Waiting lists are down, treatment is up and we are seeing a real shift to the priorities that we need—from sickness to prevention, from analogue to digital, and from hospital to community. We have seen an overall reduction in NHS waiting lists of more than half a million since July 2024.
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. He has a famed eye for detail, which this job demands, and I hope that his background in local government means that he will take seriously the need to get to grips with social care.
Clearly, there is a real problem that needs fixing. Over the past decade, the centre of health policy has increased: staffing across DHSC, NHS England and local commissioning bodies has doubled since 2013, from 20,000 to 40,000. The Lansley reforms were one of the most high-handed acts of sabotage that a Government have ever committed on the health service. They were meant to reduce bureaucracy, improve efficiency and save money, and they achieved none of those things.
Some concerns about the Bill came up in a recent sitting of the Health and Social Care Committee. I am curious as to how, in practice, the merger will be able to concurrently reduce headcount from NHSE, DHSC and ICBs by 50% without causing unintended consequences. I am concerned about that and want to see more detail on it, particularly given the scale of the changes that we are trying to make in the NHS. A report published in 2012 by the Institute for Government entitled “Never Again?”, which looked at the Lansley reforms, warned against making redundancies that are quickly undone as organisations recognise that essential roles have been lost and end up rehiring the same staff. The cost of redundancies under the Bill is estimated at about £1 billion. The cost of the Lansley redundancies was about half that, but one in five of those staff ended up being re-employed by the same organisation. The Select Committee heard before the recess that some areas of the NHS are under-managed, and I do not want clinicians to take on those roles.
Overall, I support the Bill, but we should be clear that a reorganisation of the centre at this scale is not simple. It has to be properly planned, co-ordinated and communicated. I welcome the new Secretary of State, but I hope that the Bill can make the changes we need.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
We have already seen the difference that a Labour Government can make in improving our NHS. That is the result of the difficult choice that this Labour Government made to prioritise investment in the NHS and our other public services, but I know from my 22 years working in our health service that investment on its own is not enough. That is why I am pleased that this Bill will reverse the legislation passed during the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, which made NHS overly rigid and too prescriptive, increasing bureaucracy and weakening accountability. The Bill is an important part of delivering a reformed NHS by implementing the elements of the plan that require legislation.
I particularly welcome the parts of the Bill that will amend the National Health Service Act to make provision for the establishment of a single patient record. Patients too often receive care that is not as co-ordinated as it could or should be, meaning that they must repeat their story each time they see a different medical professional. From my experience in mental health services, I know that mental health patients go to A&E, explain their story to the doctors there, explain the same story to a mental health worker, and then explain the same story the next day when they are admitted to a mental health ward. That is very challenging for professionals and patients. The single patient record can therefore be very useful.
We also have patients coming from other parts of the country. For example, a patient from Manchester could be admitted in Kent, where the doctors and medical professionals will, in some cases, be unable to access that patient’s records for many days. That delays the treatment, so it will be a big step to have a single patient record.
The other area I welcome is the abolishment of NHS England. During my time in the NHS, I saw layers and layers of management structures and scrutiny by different organisations, which caused lots of repetition, so I welcome the abolishment of NHS England. I would like to see that money go to the frontline, so that we can recruit many more nurses for hands-on patient care.
Finally, I would like to raise the issue that many other colleagues have raised: parity of esteem for mental health services. I would like to hear from the Minister that the single record system will be implemented not just in other parts of the health system, but in mental health services.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Before becoming an MP, I worked in communications in our NHS. Combined with numerous stories from my constituents, that gives me a view of the NHS at its best, but also where things do not work as they should. Very few of our constituents think about the structures of the NHS. For them, whether it is working right comes down to whether they can see a GP and how long it takes to get a diagnosis and treatment. I welcome the Bill because all of us have constituents who have had to give the same information over and over, wasting their time and their clinician’s time and undermining trust in the fundamentals of a unified national health service.
A member of my team told me about one of her family members who suffered a stroke two years ago. He got to A&E at 11 am, was diagnosed after several hours and then at 6 pm, after several scans, was told that he needed to travel to another hospital to see a specialist. When he got there, he was told that the data had not been passed across, so all those scans and tests had to be done again. Stories like that demonstrate why the single patient record made possible by this Bill is so vital for patients, who should not have to repeat their symptoms, and for clinicians, who want to focus on care.
On the abolition of NHS England, the Government are right to shift money currently tied up in monolithic bureaucracy to frontline services. But as one of, I assume, very few former NHS communicators in this House, I want to dedicate the time I have left to them.
The abolition of NHSE comes at a time when ICBs are shedding half of their staff and are busy clustering. It is a time of immense change and anxiety for staff. I have recently seen a slew of posts from brilliant NHS communicators who are signing off for the last time, or posting bittersweet celebrations of securing a role while many colleagues are leaving. Some see NHS communications jobs as a “nice to have”, but the reality is they are the people who ensure that patients, from general practice through to discharge, know how to get the right care at the right time. They are the ones who spring into action when the phone lines go down. They tell the stories of real people working and getting treated in our NHS, which is so vital to encouraging others to spot early warning signs and come forward.
Comms in the NHS literally saves lives, and that is why when I see comms professionals leaving the NHS, I fear that we could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater through this important and justified process of change. I pay tribute to every NHS communicator, and I hope the Minister will say a little about how these legends will be valued and retained. The Bill will do so much to improve the NHS for millions of people in our country, so I will proudly support it, but let us ensure that we know the value of everyone who makes our NHS world-class.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the NHS modernisation Bill as the next step in improving our NHS. When I was elected as the Member for Basingstoke, access to GPs, dentists and mental health services was not good enough. There were unacceptably long waits for elective care and at A&E, poor conditions of our hospital building and an overstretched primary care estate, so I welcome the progress made since my election, nationally and locally, through the investment, reform and hard work of NHS staff. We have seen 3,500 fewer people waiting for healthcare at Basingstoke hospital under a Labour Government, more GP appointments delivered across Hampshire than ever before, money to upgrade the practice at Chineham surgery from the Government’s upgrade fund and, after significant pressure from my office, the local council providing developer contributions of nearly £1.4 million for the same surgery. But we do need to go further; we have made progress, but there is so much more to do.
I particularly want to recognise in the Bill the importance of bringing about the single patient record. Before my dad died at the end of last year, he spent many days, weeks and months, over many years, in hospital, including in diabetic foot clinics and dialysis units, and in far too many intensive care units and wards. While the single patient record will bring about safer and more efficient care, the most important thing for me, as many other Members have mentioned, is the reduction of the burden, anxiety and stress placed on both the patient and their carer. When my dad was in hospital, I remember vividly that my mum carried around several sheets of A4 paper with his medical history and medications written on them. She did not just have to present that record to different parts of the NHS—she often had to present it to different units within the same hospital. Rather than worrying about my dad, she was worrying about whether she had brought that record. Clearly, that record should be held by the NHS. I know that many patients will recognise what an advance that will be both for their care and for hospital efficiency.
I recognise that the streamlining and abolition of NHS England will put more services on the frontline. As I said earlier, that is still badly needed in Basingstoke. It will help to improve GP access, deliver the health centre at Winklebury, ensure that there is a neighbourhood health centre across the constituency and further improve the A&E wait, for which there is plan in place.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
In his opening remarks, the Health Secretary set out our record in office on waiting times, patient experience and investment. My local area has benefited from this record level of investment. The BEACH—births, emergency and critical care, children’s health—building at Bournemouth hospital opened in March 2025, improving maternity, children’s and emergency care services. Poole hospital will this year become the largest planned care hospital in the country.
Over the past month, I have been to the opening of two new mental health facilities, representing a £70 million investment in the local area. One of them, the Seastone building, is a high-intensity unit for young people, the first of its kind in our region, and it will stop young people from being sent to Manchester or Newcastle from Dorset or the south-west. I am particularly proud of the commitment to get Winton health centre back open, and we have now secured £1.3 million in investment to do that. It will open in the summer and will bring care closer to my community and alleviate pressure on our local GPs.
I have not met a person in the health system, in education or in the community who does not agree with the NHS 10-year plan’s ambition to move the health system from treatment to prevention and to get more care into the community. The Bill helps us to get closer to delivering this ambition for all people. I want to talk in particular about three often vulnerable communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke eloquently about the experience of children with SEND and their parents, so I ask the Minister to reflect on how the Bill helps with joined-up services and access to specialist care for those young people.
HealthBus, a local charity that I support, brings direct nurse-led care to people experiencing homelessness. Their core ask has been to have access to system 1 records and local NHS historical records to better help their patients. I am grateful to the civil servants who have been helping them to date, but I ask that particular attention is paid to ensuring that the single patient record is rolled out to benefit communities who struggle to engage and get support from existing structures.
We must support our elderly population to get the care they need. I met staff at Lewis-Manning hospice care this week. They have done an incredible amount of work on the number of hospital admissions that people have in their last 12 years of life. They are proposing hospice at home hubs to ensure that up-front investment can help people to spend their last days in dignity. Will the Minister provide reassurance that any frontline services that become available are put into end-of-life care as well?
Finally, when this Labour Government came into office, the fundamental promise of the NHS, that it would be there for us when we need it, had been broken by decades of under-investment, by bureaucracy and by ditching reforms that had been made under the last Labour Government. I am proud of the progress to date, and I support the Bill to improve the patient experience, to put more resources into frontline services and to deliver our NHS 10-year plan, getting care closer to the communities who need it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that the final four speakers can get in, the speaking limit will become two and a half minutes.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s plan to make it easier for doctors and clinicians to share critical information in a single patient record, but I would like the Minister to confirm whether access to patient records could be extended to carers, giving them the ability to access information concerning the person they care for. The NHS often fails to look after our amazing carers, so I am keen for ICBs to have a duty to identify and support the health and wellbeing of our fantastic unpaid family carers, and give them the right to a break.
Our health service needs to do a better job of identifying the next of kin of people who die in its care. There are currently 4,000 public health funerals each year for people whose loved ones cannot be reached, including Ken Bower, a friend of my constituents Cathy and Richard. In his memory, they launched the “Next of Ken” campaign. I invite the Minister to meet me and my constituents to see how this could be embedded in the patient record.
Ministers should promote integration between local authorities and the NHS, and I urge Ministers to implement a stronger duty to integrate health and care services. I welcome the duty to reduce inequalities in access to care, but the Bill needs to go further. I echo calls from colleagues for a cross-Government duty to have due regard to health inequalities.
Finally, as an officer of the APPG on patient safety, I know that the relevant Minister has received many representation on the issue of patient safety, not least from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I hope the Minister will provide reassurances that when harm occurs, there will continue to be fully impartial investigation by HSSIB and clinicians will be able to speak openly about safety incidents.
The Health Bill is a comprehensive and ambitious piece of legislation, but I hope that, on the matters I have mentioned, changes will be considered in Committee. Our ambitions must be bold, our delivery must be rapid, and our NHS must be renewed.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the priority and the additional investment in our NHS over the first two years of this Government. In my constituency, we are seeing positive change with our newly opened North Kent community diagnostic centre, which is delivering vital tests and results for residents in a few short days from a great building with amazing staff.
On top of that, we are seeing major investment in our local Darent Valley hospital, with £27 million being spent on a new intensive care unit. That said, there is still a long way to go to reduce the length of waits in A&E, and the hospital remains in a building that is prone to problems, as illustrated by a recent water outage that lasted several weeks and affected patient care across half the hospital.
Above all, we need Kent and Medway ICB to recognise the speed of population increase and ensure that there is new primary care capacity to meet it so that GP practices such as Swanscombe health centre are able to cope with patient registration numbers—an extraordinary 38,000 in its case. Health infrastructure must be properly planned alongside new homes, and a test of the powers for the ICBs in this Bill must be that this happens.
I also warmly welcome measures in the Bill to provide a single patient record. This new information must drive fully integrated care, the absence of which is causing worse outcomes for my residents. One of my constituents, Frank Fitzpatrick, suffers from severe coronary artery disease and a separate condition that affects his oesophagus, and he has also had a stroke. He has recently received severely disjointed care, including discharge without medication or a letter, unsafe transport, and a lack of co-ordinated follow-up to provide physiotherapy or monitor his range of conditions. The result has been a major worsening of his health and quality of life. We must urgently bring in proper patient-centred care for Frank and so many others.
I have two final concerns. The winding up of NHS England must ensure that more resources are available and that decisions are made at or near the frontline. With the abolition of Healthwatch, independent scrutiny must not be lost. We will need to be convinced that the patient experience directorate, alongside the local service user voice, will genuinely hold the system to account.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I do not think there is a single person who thinks the current recording system is working. Navigating this system, whether as a patient, a family member or indeed an MP on behalf of constituents, is a nightmare. When it comes to safety and accountability, it is not transparent, and the experience is made harder for people who regularly move, so I would like to speak about the single patient record and what it will mean for the tens of thousands of people in my city who serve or have served in the armed forces.
Thousands of serving personnel, veterans and their families call Portsmouth home, and many more pass through it at various points in their careers, because one of the defining features of military life is mobility. Serving men and women move regularly at short notice, sometimes across the country and sometimes overseas and back again, and often their families move too. Every new posting means a new GP practice—starting from scratch with a folder of letters and a bag of medication boxes, hoping that the new surgery can piece together a medical history from scraps of paper or that the patient themselves can remember every diagnosis, allergy and procedure. For young families, those expecting a baby or those waiting for a diagnosis or tests, it is stressful, but for someone managing complex or chronic conditions, it is dangerous.
Veterans in Portsmouth have also described to me the exhaustion of having to re-explain their medical history every time they register with a practice, including mental health histories that are deeply personal and difficult to revisit. That is not good enough, and this Bill will help to put it right. The single patient record will mean that when a family moves from Norfolk or Plymouth to somewhere near Portsmouth, their medical records will move too. However, it will not work for those who move from Scotland to Portsmouth, so I urge the Government to work cross-border to rectify that situation.
I also want to acknowledge what the single patient record means for mental health. The mental health needs of veterans are well documented and often unmet. Continuity of care is critical for those managing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other service-related conditions. Losing that thread every time a file fails to transfer or a referral gets lost between trusts could cost lives, and the single patient record can hold that thread together.
Military personnel already sacrifice an enormous amount in service to this country. The least we can do is ensure that their health service keeps pace with their demands and those of their families. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering a Bill for our armed forces, and I am proud to say to those people: we see you and we see your family, and your health matters to us.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Given the lack of time remaining in this debate, I will focus my remarks on the long-overdue move to a much-welcomed single patient record.
Many Members will have had constituents get in touch with casework, raising blunders and delays that stem from fragmented patient records. When they have been in severe pain or at their most vulnerable, patients have been asked to repeat the same medical history again and again to different clinicians, whether in hospital or in the GP setting. It is frustrating, and in some cases distressing, especially if the patient is elderly or with neurological conditions such as dementia. A single patient record will ensure that clinicians have the right information at the right time, including on allergies, medications and previous diagnoses, so that they are better placed to make the right decision quickly. Today, we have heard of surgeons who have had to cancel operations because patient histories were incomplete or did not arrive quickly enough. There is consensus that a single patient record will make a significant difference in A&E, for paramedics at the roadside and even in routine care, where small details can have significant consequences.
I must, however, also make clear the concerns of many of my residents in Wolverhampton North East. Bringing together such large volumes of highly sensitive personal data into a single system will inevitably raise questions about cyber-security and data protection. We know that patient data in the UK would be extremely lucrative to some, and many will be acutely aware of international interest in getting hold of our data-rich NHS in order to profiteer. As such, can the Minister set out in more detail the safeguards that will be built into the system from the very start to guard against cyber-attacks and unauthorised access? How will this be controlled, and what oversight will exist to ensure that public confidence is maintained if threats evolve?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Before I start, I must declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as someone who has been moved to the back of a waiting list, after asking for a consultant review for the third time, and finding that I still do need it but it will have to wait a bit longer.
Churchill once said:
“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”.
Good health is perhaps the most important asset that any individual can have, and I am sure that across the House, we all want the very best healthcare and the most efficient NHS for our constituents. As such, I am confident that this Bill has been brought before the House with the very best of intentions, but does it achieve its goals?
In general, organisational restructure involves some sort of assessment of where we are now, followed by a vision of what the future should look like, and then a focus on how to get smoothly from A to B. The Government started with a review of the current system. They called it the “Independent investigation of the NHS in England”, although the House should note that it was independently conducted by a former Labour Minister. In his report, Lord Darzi said that
“a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”.
The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), seemed to agree. In September 2024, he was reported as saying that a top-down reorganisation was the “last thing” he wanted to do. Within six months, he seemingly changed his mind, which he is allowed to do, but it is regrettable that, having begun the last thing he wanted to do, such little progress has been made on his promised first acts, such as the roll-out of fracture liaison services. So many other promises are delayed, undelivered or, in the case of the promise to double the number of medical school places, somewhat bizarrely denied.
Another of the Government’s stated objectives is improving the patient experience. At the moment, we have Healthwatch—an independent organisation that listens to patients and provides feedback. More than 300,000 people a year share their experiences with their local Healthwatch to improve services, and that feedback has led to positive change. The Government cited Healthwatch data in their King’s Speech publication. Against the backdrop of rising clinical negligence claims, concerns about maternity care and even reports of abuse in hospitals, it is clear that more must be done to listen to patients and address the problems, but this Bill abolishes Healthwatch England and effectively ends local Healthwatch organisations. The Government plan to replace it with a patient experience directorate within the Department of Health and Social Care. As Councillor Dr Wendy Taylor of the Local Government Association has warned that this
“risks organisations being seen to mark their own homework.”
There is another concern. Facts are stubborn, but statistics can be pliable. How can the public ensure that they are getting reality and not spin from the Government? Ministers keep celebrating falling waiting lists, when in fact patients are being removed from the list without treatment because their appointments have been cancelled, because they missed an appointment they were not told about, because they have not filled in a form, or because they were called several times asking if they still needed an elective operation and agreed to see a consultant to check.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a passionate speech about the importance of HSSIB. This Bill seeks to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It provides a safe space, modelled on air accident investigations. Through the avoidance of blame and liability, it can get to the truth and prevent future tragedies. The Bill abolishes HSSIB apparently to simplify the patient safety landscape and reduce the number of organisations. In response to criticism, the Government have attempted to provide reassurance by saying that HSSIB will retain autonomy within the CQC, but the Government cannot have it both ways. Is HSSIB being abolished, or is it being hidden within the CQC?
Either way, the new unit within the CQC will face a number of challenges, such as the undermining of confidence in safe spaces, because it will be within a regulatory body. Its independence will be undermined, because Ministers have now signalled their intent to direct the vast majority of investigations and because the national quality board will prioritise any recommendations that they make. We will also have a CQC board without full oversight of what it is accountable for and, somewhat bizarrely, a risk that if the regulatory part of the CQC wants information from the safe space, and the other part of the CQC does not want to publish it, we could see the CQC suing itself. We have all this upheaval to have one less—or at least the illusion of one less—organisation. How on earth does that improve patient safety?
As many have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), the single patient record is a good idea in principle. Patient information is currently fragmented across different parts of the healthcare system, and bringing it together could save lives, save time and improve prevention. However, the introduction of such a system must be well executed.
First, there are practicality concerns. Do patients want their full medical records, including sensitive conditions and perhaps including sexual health records, visible to every health professional? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about the difference between a single patient record that is all of the same type and one that is part of a federated platform. The Secretary of State talked about linking up people’s ability to see the current system, but there is huge variety in systems. Even within one hospital, there might be a different system for maternity, A&E, blood results, historical notes and current clinic appointments. Will NHS staff be required to learn all those systems for all over the country, or will data be transferred to a new system? Either move has its downsides, but I am not clear which the Government intend to do.
Secondly, there are security concerns. As has been said, the NHS has the most valuable health dataset in the world. The Government must provide clarity in relation to who controls the data, who is responsible for maintaining its accuracy, and how it will be kept securely. Hackers are already trying to gain access to it, knowing that even if it is encrypted, quantum computing will be able to unpick encryption in the years to come. The Government must ensure that they are quantum-ready. What role is the National Cyber Security Centre playing in this regard?
Life, in all things, is a balance. If arm’s length bodies are in control of things for which Ministers are nominally responsible, we have a democratic deficit, and it is understandable that the Government want to recoup that, but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the powers in the Bill for them to take control of everything risk the creation of a politicised service in which those who shout the loudest get preferential treatment. Those with very rare conditions such as corticobasal degeneration, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, Lafora body disease, Friedrich’s ataxia and many more such conditions may not have as well-funded or celebrity lobby groups acting on their behalf as those with other conditions. How will the Secretary of State ensure that clinical need drives the provision of services, rather than the resources of lobby groups or access to Ministers or, indeed, the Secretary of State?
As the NHS is undergoing a massive reorganisation, I am mindful of what the Minister once said:
“The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 680, c. 809.]
It also stalls progress and takes a lot of staff time, which may be why we have a 10-year health plan that took a year to write, why the workforce plan has still not been produced, why the so-called “rapid” national maternity investigation has not been completed, why waiting lists are up for patients referred for admission in several specialities, why we have a glacially slow roll-out of fracture liaison services, why the mechanical thrombectomy service promised for stroke victims by April is not available, why there is no response to the Hughes report, why there is a denial of the promise of an increase in the number of medical school places, and why doctors have announced their 16th strike, costing millions of pounds in appointments. The Government promised results, but all they have delivered is disruption, delay and disappointment.
I feel for the current Health Secretary. His predecessor was more focused on unseating the Prime Minister, and he is left to pick up the pieces. However, despite our political differences, I do have hope. Previously, he insisted that trans women were women, but I understand that he has now changed his mind. He has listened, and he has accepted that biological women are distinct and require single-sex spaces, in line with the law, biology, and common sense. I am therefore hopeful that the new Health Secretary will also listen to concerns about the Bill, and that we can work together in Committee to improve it. As I said at the beginning, we all want the best possible health service for our constituents.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I was going to say that sometimes it is the hope that kills you, but instead I will say that it is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of this Government.
Let me begin by commending the many fantastic speeches that we have heard this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made some excellent points about spinal cord injury and specialised commissioning. His comments apply to many people, and I take them on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) talked about the experience of Alex Savage and his work with the Tessa Jowell Foundation; we thank Mr Savage for that, and mourn his passing. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), made a number of valuable points, and I will continue to engage with her and her Committee. I also note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). My hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) talked about the experience that they bring to this place in relation to SEND, supporting disabled people—particularly children—and joining up services. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) drew on her experience of designing services for the future around people and patients.
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson)—another excellent manager from the service—for the expertise that he brought to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made some excellent points about professionals in NHS England, and about communications professionals as well. We know that it is difficult, and we want to use their expertise as we go forward. My hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about mental health, obesity prevention and their local services. I thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for his support for my work in presenting the Bill, and I am relieved that he is still here in support this evening. That is good to know. A week is a long time in politics.
As I often tell people—you have heard it before, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have Lord Lansley to thank —or blame—for my being at this Dispatch Box. I left the NHS and stood for the Bristol South constituency because I could see the coming catastrophe of those coalition reforms. In 2010, patient satisfaction was an all-time high; in 2024, it is at an all-time low. In 2010, the last Government inherited the shortest waiting lists in history; in 2024, they left the waiting lists at record highs. In 2010, the NHS was efficient and delivered value for money; by 2024, we had dropped down international rankings despite a massive increase in headcount at the centre. That is the scorecard that the last Government left for the 2012 reorganisation.
In preparing for this debate, I have looked through my past comments since becoming an MP. In 2016, I said that despite being a non-executive director and manager in the NHS, I could not easily navigate the plethora of bodies in the health and care field. From 2016, it got worse. Each crisis or scandal brought more so-called independent bodies, but no more efficiency, effectiveness or, crucially, safety. We on the Public Accounts Committee were desperately trying to get clarity on accountability for spending, but we did not get it. In 2019—this is on the record—I did an interview with the Health Service Journal in which I highlighted how the role of Parliament in nodding through the estimates bore no relation to financial accountability or spending in my local NHS, and how it was impossible to follow through on funding allocations for facilities for my constituents, or even to understand the decision making of local commissioners, trust boards, regions, NHS England, the Department or the Treasury. When I sat on the Opposition Benches, I watched Tory MP after Tory MP chastise their own Government about what was happening in their constituencies, which was met with a shrug of the shoulders to say, “It’s all down to NHS England.”
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), talked about ICB accountability, but there is none. Many MPs come to me and say that they cannot get a response from their ICBs. At the moment, some people cannot even get a response to their emails. It is shocking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) outlined so clearly. The Conservatives’ approach was to hand £200 billion of taxpayers’ money to one body, and more taxpayers’ money to a host of others that were charged with delivering, monitoring and checking a health system in which there is a lot of monitoring, a lot of checking and no end of tick boxes but, crucially, too little delivery of the high-quality services that the British public deserve and the staff want to give.
That cavalier approach changed with this Labour Government, why is why we are bringing forward this Bill. We are abolishing NHS England, devolving commissioning budgets to ICBs, putting patient voice at the heart of the new directorate, and making local commissioners in councils and ICBs embed patient voice and experience in their commissioning, rather than outsourcing their responsibility and then ignoring it. The system does not work, and Members know it. Patients deserve better.
This is the biggest transfer of power to local systems that we have seen. Most significantly, this Government are delivering on giving power to patients, who are frankly astonished to find in 2026 that their records are not joined up in the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made an excellent point about the impact that that has on veterans. Although we have a patchwork of local workarounds that benefit a few people—in Manchester, Bristol or the north-east, for example—patients across England have the right to their own record, and for their clinicians to have access in order to deliver the care they need. That point was well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), all of whom gave us real examples of patient experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) says, it is about time that we had single patient records. We heard about the impact on patients from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who spoke about the sad passing of his father.
A lot of questions have rightly been asked about the single patient record and data, including by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), and my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge). We want to make sure that we get this right. They should know that although the Bill establishes the legal framework for the SPR, much of the detail will be in secondary legislation. I can assure the House that all Members will have a chance to scrutinise the regulations in due course. However, we firmly believe that pursuing a single patient record is the right thing to do. We have found that patients and staff support it, as long as it is built with the strongest safeguards for security and privacy. We hear their concerns, and we will make sure that those safeguards are built in.
The single patient record will protect personal data by default. It will be considered critical national infrastructure, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance, so that only the right people can access the right information at the right time and for the right reasons. There will be audit trails of who has accessed a patient’s data, and UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 will apply. The Bill does not create new legal gateways for purposes other than direct care. It does allow data to be used for research, population analysis and service improvement, but only where there is a separate legal basis for doing so.
Let me pick up on the issue of accountability, which is very important to me personally. I agree that it is important to get this right, and we need to work both nationally and locally. I am old enough to remember the world before 2012. For 60 years, the Secretary of State had overall responsibility and accountability for this service. I think the comments about local accountability were well made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Let me be clear: the Bill puts more power, not less, in the hands of local organisations. ICBs will be responsible for commissioning a wider range of services, including primary care, and they will hold a large proportion of the NHS budget—over £179 billion, as before—but at the same time the public expect Ministers to be accountable for the NHS they pay for.
Therefore, Ministers should have the tools to hold ICBs to account and direct the system where necessary. That is why the Bill provides the Secretary of State with a power of direction, but with important safeguards on appointing specific individuals and directions to intervene in decisions about services provided to a particular person. If a NICE recommendation on a drug or treatment exists, this takes precedence over a direction. The powers in the Bill will ensure the Secretary of State is able to create the conditions for ICBs to succeed with effective and proportionate forms of intervention, where necessary.
Another major point made this evening was about Healthwatch. I think there is an important philosophical point about independence, the perception of independence and effective decision making, which we will discuss in Committee and it will be important to do so. However, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), outlined very well, we have had these bodies for 50 years. Patients are saying that the system does not work and are not reporting to it, so the system does not work. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about getting the balance right, and we will discuss those really valuable points.
Currently, the patient voice sits isolated in separate organisations, which criticise the status quo but are not able to change it. That is why we want a new director of patient experience in the Department to ensure that voices are heard as part of every decision. Locally, it is the job of the commissioner—and I have been a commissioner—and of a good commission organisation to include the patient voice and experience in all its decision making. That is where the difference is made, and such organisations should not be outsourcing those decisions. That is the difference, but a debate is to be had, and we have to assure people on the perception issue. We want to ensure local ICBs incorporate the patient voice and experience appropriately—including digitally excluded people, as the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) said— into their decision making. How that happens is not set in stone. It is our job to set the destination, not exactly how we get there. If an organisation can provide a good service locally for the patient voice and experience, the ICB could continue to contract with it.
Briefly on HSSIB, I hear the points from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), whom I have met, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and other Members have raised these issues. The Dash review is very clear—I recommend Members to read it—and it is why the new CQC will combine its regulatory functions with the depth of HSSIB’s investigatory capability to the benefit of both. As was rightly raised by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the safe space is important to enable people to share concerns in confidence, and that is safeguarded in the Bill. I understand that there is a perception issue, but we must ensure that that is real. The CQC has also raised some operational issues with implementing the integration of HSSIB, and we are working with it to ensure that, when passed, the measures concerned will be implemented effectively.
To conclude, the Bill is only one part of our modernisation agenda, but it is a crucial one, because for decades Governments have failed to grapple with this fragmentation. Like capital and the workforce, the problem was put in the “too difficult” box and left to this Government to solve, but solve it we will. The single patient record will finally mean patients get the joined-up, proactive care they deserve. By voting for this Bill, we can have a fresh start in NHS history. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Health Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Health Bill:
Committal
(1) That the Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 July 2026.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jade Botterill.)
Question agreed to.
Health Bill: Money
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
Coastal Communities: Government Support
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is good to know that I have not lost the ability to lose the room, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Like all hon. Members who represent a coastal constituency, I have a huge pride and privilege in representing Poole. When I get off the train at our local station after spending time in Westminster, the smell of the sea reminds me how lucky I am to live in such a beautiful place; it has the world’s second largest harbour, some of the best blue flag beaches in the country and a surrounding coastline that is simply stunning.
We cannot eat scenery, however; like other coastal communities, Poole faces a number of key issues that need Government attention. Since becoming MP for the area, I have been running a project called Positive About Poole, asking local residents for their ideas on how we can make our town an even better place to live. They have highlighted ongoing problems of traffic congestion, a lack of youth services and, of course, the lack of affordable housing.
Average gross median weekly full-time earnings in Poole are £764, but monthly rent is around £1,400, meaning that half of someone’s wages immediately goes on housing costs, not to mention council tax, energy bills and food. Nearly one in four children in Poole are living in relative poverty after housing costs, further suggesting the impact that high rents are having on the cost of living crisis.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The issues in Poole sound very similar to those in Cornwall, where we have a chronic housing crisis. For several months now we have been asking the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for a strategic place partnership with Homes England to give us the money to build the social and truly affordable housing we desperately need. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to expand the availability of strategic place partnerships with Homes England well beyond mayoral combined authorities?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes; I agree with my hon. Friend’s point and I will develop it further.
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, towns such as Poole are desperate for good quality, affordable and secure housing—I would argue council housing—for local families, rather than the developer-led luxury waterside apartments that have sprung up.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Again, that sounds similar to Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that speeding up a registration scheme for holiday lets would help to deal with all the second homes and holiday lets proliferating around our towns? Maybe if we had that, we could move towards more affordable housing.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
My hon. Friend is right. There are some areas of Poole where no one lives; they are all holiday lets, second homes and so on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He is a very assiduous MP on behalf of his constituents and he should be congratulated on his contribution. I am also an MP for a rural coastal area, and there are other issues as well as social housing, including isolation, which many suffer from. Isolation means more expensive shops and more expensive petrol, less frequent transport, social housing scarcity and a lack of digital connectivity. Does he agree that there is a clear need for the Government to understand that greater support is required, not in terms of per head accountancy, but taking into account rural isolation difficulties, and that more investment is the first step to achieve that?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I always welcome contributions from the hon. Member, and I often find myself agreeing with him, as I do on this occasion.
The expensive apartments that have sprung up in my constituency and others are unsuitable for young families in the area or are out of the reach of many local people. While I support the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, we must also go further and look at rent controls to ensure fair play.
That brings me to the health challenges that coastal communities face, and the excellent report from the chief medical officer published in 2021, in which he recognised that coastal communities have some of the worst health outcomes in England, with low life expectancy and high rates of many major diseases. While coastal communities are not all the same, many share similar characteristics, which should help in developing some common policy responses. Fishing or port communities such as mine have particular challenges, and a national strategy informed by those common experiences will help reduce health inequalities in those areas. For example, many coastal communities were created around a single industry that has since moved on, meaning that work can often be scarce or seasonal.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Similar to my hon. Friend’s constituency, Blackpool has some of the worst health outcomes in the country. A boy born in my constituency will live 10 years less than a boy born in Hampshire. That is my son, and many others across Blackpool, with a decade lost before they have even started their life. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just additional funding for the NHS, but reducing inequality in the housing and jobs markets, as well as strategic support for coastal communities, where support for the big cities has been for the last few decades?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s contribution. Let us be clear that we are not going to get the kind of society that we want until we eradicate inequality. I believe that with a much more equal society, we will see more compassion, care and community.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Labour Rural Research Group recently did a report on rural poverty, which identified that on average someone living in a rural area is spending £39 more per week on transport costs. That was described as a rural penalty. Would he agree that there is also a coastal penalty, and that ultimately the Government need to abandon their one-size-fits-all approach to running this country and identify the differences between rural, coastal and urban areas?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
My hon. Friend makes a positive point on something that has been overlooked in Government debates until today. We need to recognise the differences between the various parts of our country, celebrate those differences, but also recognise the unique problems that they all face.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is right to point out Poole’s history as a fishing and port town; like my constituency, however, it is also a tourism town. Bournemouth has millions of visitors every year; most of them come to spend a nice time, but some come to drink excessively, start fights and disrespect residents and our local area, putting excessive pressure on our police forces. Would my hon. Friend agree that, where those seasonal pressures are predictable, forces such as Dorset police should have a fair funding formula to reflect that?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I will make that point later in my speech, if colleagues will let me make some progress.
Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are all lower in coastal areas, and the gap between more affluent and poorer areas continues to widen. Professor Whitty makes it clear that high levels of deprivation, driven in part by major and long-standing challenges with local economies and employment, are important reasons for the poor health outcomes in coastal communities. That means we need a new approach to dealing with the gap in life expectancy between those with limited incomes and those with large amounts of wealth. Tackling the social determinants of ill health such as housing, employment opportunities, access to healthcare and education is key to bringing about a healthier society.
One of the key features linking all our coastal communities is the water that surrounds us. Poole harbour is both scientifically and environmentally important and it needs to be protected. The beauty of the harbour lies in the stark contrast between ecosystems, ranging from intertidal salt marshes and mudflats to freshwater marshes, reed beds and wet grasslands. Visitors will also discover a wide range of wintering, migrating and breeding birds. However, most of Dorset’s rivers suffer from high levels of both nitrate and phosphate pollution.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I represent a coastal city that has high levels of deprivation and inequality. Unlike your beaches, none of ours are blue flag—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Martin, I do not think my beaches were being discussed.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the beaches are first-class in Poole; if your constituency had beaches, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they too would be first-class.
The nutrients that go into the water system come from a number of sources, including both treated and untreated sewage, as well as agricultural sources including poorly managed soils, animal waste and fertiliser. Sewage discharge has grabbed the headlines in recent months; as well as the nutrients from treated discharges, outdated infrastructure and regular system overflows in stormy weather can result in untreated or partially treated sewage entering our rivers. In Poole harbour, that can lead to shellfish contamination, as well as direct health risks that put restrictions on the local fishing industry.
The Environment Agency monitors water quality at designated bathing sites from 15 May to 30 September, but not all year round, and only in the areas that have been officially recognised as suitable for bathing. In Poole there are many different types of water users, from paddleboarders to windsurfers, who are excluded from those forms of oversight. That is why we need to expand the definition of bathers, monitor water quality all year round and have a serious conversation about bringing water back into public ownership.
Finally, I want to consider the issue of tourism and its impact on the local economy and public services. Like most coastal communities, Poole relies on tourism as a key part of our local economy, but with that comes a number of challenges. The local council no longer has a dedicated tourist office promoting the area or funds the kind of events on the quayside that would attract visitors, and the idea of a tourist tax or levy is contentious in my town.
Government funding also fails to take account of the seasonality that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned earlier. With the influx of additional people and the extra demands the area faces in terms of car parking, public order and even litter collection, both our police and fire services regularly witness a seasonal surge in demand.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. During half-term last week, Looe in my constituency saw some really difficult antisocial behaviour, with our public services under pressure to deliver. I welcome the dispersal order that was granted and thank our frontline services for their work, but we need a fair funding formula in our communities to ensure that services are provided during peak tourist season, and I look forward to hearing more about that in my hon. Friend’s speech.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely welcome and support my hon. Friend’s point. A fair funding formula that properly reflects the diverse demands, unique demographic complexities and specific geographical challenges faced by the police and fire services is long overdue.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the point of geographic inequalities, as my constituency is in west Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, it is impossible to call on emergency services from the north, the west or the south. The consequence of that geographical reality is that it is much more expensive and challenging to provide those services in such circumstances, a problem that many coastal areas face. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these things need to be factored into the funding formula, rather than being ignored, as they are at present?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s point. As I mentioned earlier, the current funding formula is inadequate for communities such as ours. I should also just say that if anybody else wants to intervene, I have two more paragraphs to go.
Finally, I want to turn to hospitality, which is a key driver of many coastal towns’ economies. Hospitality is suffering. In Poole, 486 hospitality businesses generate £239 million in annual revenue and employ 5,738 local people, but the lowering of the national insurance threshold and the removal of business rates relief, alongside new revaluations on premises, are forcing many of them to consider whether they can carry on at all.
My town needs places where tourists can buy an ice cream, have a meal or enjoy a drink. What we do not want are hollowed-out high streets that offer vape shops and little else. We need a vibrant campaign for people to holiday in Britain and the necessary support for hospitality that brings the high street to life. There are suggestions that the Government are looking at a “nice pub tax”, which would hit landlords whose premises are on the waterfront and would kill off towns like Poole. I urge the Treasury to think again about such a proposal.
Coastal communities may not grab headlines the way that cities with a proud industrial heritage do, but there are over 5 million residents living in 169 coastal towns across England and Wales, and they all deserve a voice and a future. They deserve a Labour Government who recognise the challenges that they face and whose policies will ensure a rising tide that lifts all the boats, not just the super-yachts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. I so appreciated the way that he spoke about the area he represents. His opening remarks made reference to the smell of the sea, which I know will be nostalgic for many. He also made an important point about hospitality and how important it is for the local economies of coastal communities.
Coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a key reminder of our national pride and shared maritime history.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is very important that coastal communities are recognised for our role in the overall identity of the country, but we are also a vital way of developing economic growth in this country. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for coastal communities, what I am asking for, along with many Back-Bench colleagues who are present, is a coastal economic strategy that identifies the key industrial sectors that can help us to grow. It is not only about hospitality, although that is vital; it is also about ensuring that we have a year-round economy.
Nesil Caliskan
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. It is only my second week in this role, but I have already had passionate representations from my hon. Friend and other colleagues who represent coastal communities, and I will continue to engage with them to talk about the important points they have made in this Chamber and beyond.
The Government are committed to supporting coastal communities everywhere to fulfil their potential and thrive. Coastal communities are a key part of our ambition for the whole country. They play a vital role both for the areas themselves and for the whole economy. Protecting coastal communities, particularly from coastal erosion, is a priority for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will continue to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole made important points about the local communities and economy. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about MHCLG’s commitment to Pride in Place and a number of the other programmes that the Department is using to directly target a range of economic, social and health-related challenges felt by coastal communities. Our £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 284 communities across the UK, and at least 56 coastal communities across the UK are part of it. They will receive over £1 billion collectively through that programme.
A package of targeted investments will be delivered through each community developing a plan, in consultation with local people, that reflects local need and determines where that money is best spent. The programme will help communities to improve local infrastructure and play areas, important cultural venues, and health and wellbeing services, among many other things.
Perran Moon
Coastal communities, because of our geographical location, work very closely together, so within the Pride in Place definition of “community cohesion” we are marked down in our ability to access Pride in Place funding. Therefore, across six constituencies in Cornwall—even though Cornwall is one of the most deprived regions in northern Europe—we have had zero pounds from Pride in Place because of our community cohesion. Does the Minister agree that needs to be looked at?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Community cohesion is an important aspect of how we allocate money through MHCLG, but I recognise that it is not the only important aspect. I am therefore happy to meet him and other Members of Parliament who want to talk about how we allocate money in a fair and transparent way.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for issuing invitations to meet to colleagues. My constituency did not get Pride in Place funding, and I would be grateful if she could find some time to have a cup of tea with me so that I can make the case for it to her before too long.
Nesil Caliskan
I am always happy to have a cup of tea with colleagues, and especially my hon. Friend.
I will turn to the important points made about holiday lets, which particularly impact coastal communities. The Government have committed almost £40 billion to the social and affordable homes programme, which is important for the delivery of houses and affordable homes more generally.
Amanda Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as housing, education is vital, and that is really missing in coastal communities, so our constituencies are often seen at the bottom of league tables?
Nesil Caliskan
That is a very important point. As my hon. Friend will know, education is a top priority for the Government, which is why we have seen record investment. I believe that coastal communities will benefit from that commitment.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Nesil Caliskan
I will make a little progress.
Although short-term holiday lets can be hugely beneficial to local economies, the Government appreciate that their excessive concentration in some areas of the country can impact on the availability and affordability of homes to buy and rent; hon. Members have highlighted some of the challenges. That is why the Government are making progressive changes to the tax system to protect our vital public services and to ensure that housing is primarily seen as a home rather than an investment. Those taxation changes will be important for coastal communities.
Alongside that, the Government have abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime, meaning that landlords will no longer be incentivised via the tax system to make their properties available for short-term holiday lets. That is an issue that has long been raised by those who live in coastal communities.
On the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made on health, I recognise that some of the greatest health inequalities can be found in our coastal towns. I am therefore delighted that the Government have made it a core mission to strengthen joined-up approaches between health and social care services so that people experience health services locally in a more integrated way, with a person-centred approach. Coastal areas will really benefit from that joined-up thinking. A neighbourhood health service approach along with reforming the better care fund in line with the commitments set out in the 10-year NHS strategy are all things that will benefit our coastal communities, which are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities.
Lee Pitcher
We cannot talk about coastal communities and health without talking about safety, and particularly water safety. Over the past couple of weeks, when we have had hot weather, at least 17 people are known to have died by drowning, many of them children and young adults. Will the Minister talk to other relevant Ministers about holding a national campaign before the summer, when it gets hot once again and children are on school holidays, to ensure that we prevent unnecessary deaths on our waterways?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important point. Sadly, over the past decade or so children have become less likely to have swimming lessons, and the consequences have been catastrophic, particularly when we consider coastal communities. I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have already made such representations, and I am happy to take the idea away and ask MHCLG to look further at it. We must also work across Government to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support children and adults to benefit from swimming classes, so that we can keep them safe, as well as communities more generally.
We also need cross-departmental and cross-Government work with the Environment Agency to ensure that water is clean, so that our coastal communities can be enjoyed not just by the people who live in them, but by those who visit them. Clean water is not just a “nice to have”; it is fundamental to the health and safety of everybody who visits coastal towns, and I will ensure through MHCLG that we have an adequate cross-departmental approach on that.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole for securing this debate. I know that he cares passionately about the issues he raised, which go beyond his coastal area and speak to many constituencies across the country. The identity of our coastal communities is intrinsic to the identity of our country, and each of our coastal communities has a particular identity that is important to the local area. Government investment to ensure that our coastal communities are properly looked after is not just about borders; it is about ensuring that we support people who live in those communities, reduce health inequalities, and ensure that everybody has the opportunity to thrive.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time that you and I have been in the same room in this context.
The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 March, will set the reductions applying to delinked payments for England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, they will deliver on our commitment to phase out those subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers. The last year of delinked payments will be 2027.
The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers, to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient in the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential if we are to fund the other schemes that will help us to achieve that. Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability; they do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water needed to produce good food, or promote innovation and provide good value for money.
The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of firms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with larger reductions to amounts of the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan ahead.
The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 and 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and get up to £400 million extra from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and restoring peatlands. The investment includes increasing annual funding to the environmental land management schemes from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. That means we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to restore nature and boost farm productivity. There are now 50,000 farm businesses, and half of all farmland is managed under our environmental land management schemes.
Earlier this year, we announced plans for a new sustainable farming incentive offer, and the first application window will open later this month. The new offer will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements are being introduced to make the sustainable farming incentive 2026 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security.
Last September, the new countryside stewardship higher tier opened for applications for those who have been invited to apply. They have received pre-application advice and completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course.
The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July, backed by £225 million in funding—a 50% increase from the last financial year. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants in 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector to access cutting edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers to grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and to trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy. We will spend up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and we are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming in protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029.
We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations made in Baroness Batters’s farming profitability review. We have also engaged with farmers and stakeholders on the 25-year farming road map, which will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead.
We want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is perhaps not surprising that we are here talking about yet another piece of legislation that will impose further harm and unnecessary burdens on our farmers. We have already had the family farm tax, which has now regrettably come into force, the added financial costs of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and, of course, uncertainty and mixed messages on things such as fuel duty and the rising costs of fertiliser.
After leaving the EU, the previous Conservative Government committed to transitioning farmers in England away from direct payments to domestic environmental land management schemes, or ELMS, as they became known, which pay for the direct delivery of public goods. To fund the new schemes, direct payments, now called delinked payments, were scheduled to be reduced gradually from 2021 to the end of 2028. This Labour Government, however, are accelerating that transition. The draft regulations propose a staggering 98% reduction on the first £30,000 tranche that a farmer would previously have received under direct payments, in effect limiting payments to a maximum of £600 per year in 2026 and 2027.
When the previous Conservative Administration brought forward delinked payments, we intended a gradual phase-out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. However, this Government accelerated that decline dramatically last year and have continued at a similar rate this year, which in effect has ended the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect. That was not announced before the last general election, so farmers were under a false illusion when the Labour Government came to power, which undermined their budgets at a time of already unprecedented worry and uncertainty.
This is not a party political point that I make here, but one that reflects the concerns of the whole sector. When the percentage reductions for 2025 and 2027 were announced in June last year, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union said:
“Having had significant reductions to delinked payments announced only last autumn in the Budget, to have further big reductions starting next year will be yet another financial blow to many farmers who haven’t had the time to effectively plan for them.”
The then president of the Country Land and Business Association said that
“the sharp fall in BPS payments was expected but is nonetheless unwelcome. It will hit especially hard those whose profit margins are now cut to the bone…While there might be a consolation that the new SFI 2026 scheme could be ready for applications in spring 2026, there is as yet no clarity on what that will look like and who will have access to it”.
This Labour Government promised that farmers would be able to access new income streams as direct payments were phased out, but that has not happened. The SFI closed to applications in March 2025 and it remains closed. While I accept that the Government have committed to opening SFI 2026 this month, it is not open yet, and it will only be open for smallholdings of up to 50 hectares. Currently, farmers lack access to replacement support during this period of high cost inflation and market volatility, much of which has been brought on by policy decisions made by this Government.
Many SFI 2023 agreements and countryside stewardship mid-tier agreements are due to expire at the end of this year and in early 2027. With no clarity on when farmers can expect to see an SFI 2027, or a further replacement from SFI 2026 opening to all from September, they face being locked out of funding schemes until early 2028 through no fault of their own, by which point, under these draft regulations, the delinked payments will in effect have ceased. Additionally, due to the first-come, first-served nature of the new SFI approach for 2026 and the long period of inaccessibility, demand for SFI 2026 in September is expected to be high. The NFU and the CLA have also expressed concerns about the capacity issues that the Rural Payments Agency is expected to experience. Farmers approaching the end of their environmental agreements face being unable to apply unrestricted for a new agreement until the window has already closed, due to the budget being allocated.
Given the well-documented cash-flow crisis in the farming sector, what assessment has been made of the volatility impact on farming businesses that have had their basic payments reduced by at least 98% and are unable to apply for SFI, capital grants or countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes? I also note that no impact assessment is associated with these draft regulations. Why has no full impact assessment been undertaken by the Government, despite the policy change that we are debating having huge financial implications for many—in fact, probably all—farming businesses in England?
We support the long-term fair transition of delinked payments, but we cannot do so at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the middle east has caused uncertainty about fuel and fertiliser prices and grain prices remain low, undermining arable farmers’ profitability, but it is not just external factors that add pressure on farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Labour Government have left many farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI window applications last year, the family farm and family business taxes, increased employer national insurance contributions and the Government’s refusal to consider the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to lower energy costs have had a cumulative impact. Ultimately, these draft regulations do not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability, let alone their profitability. That is why the Conservatives will vote against the passage of the regulations. I urge the Government to rethink their plans.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I do not wish to detain hon. Members for any longer than necessary, but I am keen to speak about this issue.
I am proud to represent South West Norfolk and its 500-plus farmers—it is a real privilege to visit farms in my constituency, where, since the election, I have met more than 100 different farmers—and to serve as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on farming. I also sit on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
It is fair to say that I am concerned about the future of farming and the numerous challenges facing the industry. Arable farming, which makes up the vast majority of farming in my constituency, is particularly at risk, especially from climate change. Water availability is already a major problem in our part of the country, and it will worsen. Other input costs are rising, too. We have seen the impact of red diesel price rises recently— I welcome the Government’s action on that. More widely, profit margins are decreasing, and, more frequently than not, they are non-existent for many years in a cycle. Financial resilience is low, as is emotional resilience after years of struggle, particularly over the past decade.
The current legislation, the principle of which is a hangover from the previous Conservative Government, was developed during a period in which decades-long structural challenges facing the industry collided with the unexpected withdrawal from the European Union. That withdrawal removed the safety net of the common agricultural policy, which masked so many of the challenges facing the farming industry.
In supporting the draft regulations, we should be clear that, if we are to achieve food security, we must ensure that there is a future for farming in this country and that the underlying profitability challenges are addressed. I support public money for public good, and the sustainable farming incentive and other schemes, but the sustainability of food production must be of great concern. I know that the Minister is passionate about addressing that profitability challenge, and she has made great progress during her time in this role. Baroness Batters’s profitability review has laid a great foundation, with the farming road map to follow. For farmers in my constituency, this work is crucial, and I look forward to supporting the Minister with it.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for her speech.
Liberal Democrats will also support the long-term move towards a fairer farming system that rewards sustainable food production, nature recovery and climate resilience rather than relying solely on an outdated subsidy model. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government are accelerating the withdrawal of support before replacement schemes are fully available, adequately funded and trusted by farmers. We are particularly concerned that England is now the only country in the UK and Europe that does not financially support farmers in the production of food.
Farmers are being asked to absorb rising costs, including increased fuel and fertiliser costs caused by war. They face uncertainty in environmental land management schemes and in the closure of the sustainable farming incentive, while facing the prospect of losing almost all remaining delinked payments in 2026 and 2027. That risks creating yet another cliff edge for the farming sector after years of Conservative mismanagement and continuing Labour uncertainty.
We are also concerned that the Government continue to characterise these payments simply as “delinked subsidies” despite the fact that farmers still had to demonstrate cross-compliance with environmental standards to get the basic payment. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must ensure a fair transition by properly funding ELMS, restoring confidence in environmental schemes, providing long-term certainty for farmers and recognising the vital role that farmers play in producing food, restoring nature and supporting rural economies. That is why we are calling for an additional investment of £1 billion in the farming budget to support that transition. We will therefore vote against the draft regulations.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank all those who have contributed to this short but perfectly formed debate.
The draft regulations were announced last June as part of a process that commenced under the previous Government following Brexit, when they announced a seven-year programme to transition away from the common agricultural policy, which makes delinked payments, to a much more focused environmental policy. The previous Government created that policy and the then Labour Opposition supported it, because we both accepted that farming has to be done on a more sustainable basis. We must see nature recovery, we must invest in healthy soils and in recreating healthy pollinator populations, and we must ensure reasonable food production rather than degrading our natural assets and resources to maximise food production at any cost. We are shifting to a much more sustainable model, and although the Opposition indicated that they will vote against the draft regulations, I hope that everybody can support that shift in principle.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that we are going too fast, but the farming transition was a seven-year transition. All the ELM schemes and support for farmers will be involved in protecting nature and increasing sustainability, rather than going towards delinked payments. He seems to object not to the end point, but to the speed of the transition over the next two years. I understand what he is saying, but I think that he is dancing on the head of a pin.
Robbie Moore
If the Minister were speaking to a farmer, would she say that this is dancing on the head of a pin? We are talking about reducing an annual delinked payment to a farming business from a potential £30,000 to about £600. Given all the additional overheads placed on farming businesses that produce food, the Opposition believe that that is too quick a drop, and it comes without sufficient notification.
Dame Angela Eagle
Sufficient notification has been given, since the transition began seven years ago—everybody has been expecting it. It is important that we get the transition done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money being taken away from delinked payments is going straight back into the system and will be available for the transition.
The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way of supporting our farmers, protecting food security or restoring nature. Former Secretary of State Lord Gove certainly agreed with that when he began the transition after Brexit. We continue to invest in our environmental land management schemes and our range of grants and other support for farmers to deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity. Without the reductions contained in the draft regulations, spend on delinked payments in each of the years 2026-27 and 2027-28 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a shortfall in the remaining farming budget for each of those years that then could not be spent on financing the transition. Those who believe in the principle of the transition need also to believe in the means.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke extremely well about his farmers, and I welcome his support. I understand that the transition can be difficult and worrisome, but it is crucial for the future of our farming profitability and resilience that we manage to get this done. The Government are determined to assist farmers all we possibly can in achieving the transition. The vast majority of them know that it has to happen, and we will see what we can do to ensure that it does.
The money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector; it is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and managers. We are being transparent about how the money is used. Each year, we publish a farming and countryside partnership annual report, which shows how the farming budget has been spent. The report for the financial year 2024-25 was published last September. We will publish our next report later this year. That will be transparent about where the money has gone and how it has been spent. We have provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme, showing planned spend for each of the years between 2026-27 and 2028-29. That was set out in a farming blog, which is available on the Government website.
It is clear that we cannot achieve our environmental goals or have food security unless farm businesses are profitable. By increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environment and the business foundations of farming—our soils, our water and our pollinators—which will help to reduce their input costs and boost productivity.
We know that there is high demand from farmers for our ELM schemes, so I am pleased that SFI26 will be opening to small farms later this month. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that it was for small farms only, but the first window is also open to those without an existing agreement, so it is a slightly wider opening than he hinted at in his speech.
As was announced at the NFU conference, in 2026-27 we will invest £120 million in new productivity grants, which can help businesses to cut costs, improve efficiency and protect profits. Farmers can also boost their businesses through the animal health and welfare pathway, a programme designed to strengthen biosecurity, manage disease risks and improve animal health and welfare outcomes, which, in turn, boost farm productivity and profitability. We are also continuing our work to ensure fair competition across the supply chain, and have announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure development. The Government’s new farming and food partnership board has set out how it will work to drive growth in all sectors, improving productivity and profitability. It is beginning its work with two sectors—horticulture and poultry—but it will get on to work in others.
Our vision is to help farmers to improve their productivity and profitability, and to collaborate with them on delivering positive environmental change. Continuing to phase out delinked payments will enable us to invest in the long-term future of farming, by ensuring that funding is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Access to household waste recycling facilities in Sherborne
Flooding in Ladygrove, Didcot
Banyamulenge Community
Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework
Houses in multiple occupation
Stockport Green Belt
UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia
Antisocial Behaviour in Holton Heath
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Child Sexual Offender Data
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 730605 relating to collection and publication of child sexual offender data.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
Adam Dance
Brave young constituents in Yeovil reported historical cases of sexual abuse, but workforce shortages in the police, terrible communication and other failings meant years of stress, delays and the Crown Prosecution Service ruling that it could not advance prosecution despite the evidence threshold being met. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need urgent investment to ensure that the criminal justice system can address historical cases of sexual violence and communicate clearly with victims? No young person should see justice denied.
Jamie Stone
My hon. Friend makes his case with some passion. I take note of it, and I thank him.
As Chair of the Petitions Committee, it is always encouraging to see public participation in politics, so I welcome our friends to the Public Gallery. With more than 200,000 signatures, it is quite evident that this petition has engaged a very large number of people across the country. At this point, I remind people that the person leading a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee sets the scene, as it were, so I will refer to the petitioner and to other points of the argument.
The petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). Prior to this debate, he explained to me that he tabled the petition out of concern that existing non-statutory approaches to data collection and transparency regarding child sexual exploitation have been insufficient. He wants to see a clear legal duty imposed on the relevant authorities to consistently record and publish offender data regarding the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders.
Furthermore, the hon. Member explained to me that he found the Government’s response to the petition insufficient, on the basis that it relies on expectations and directives rather than statutory duties. He believes that this data should not only be collected but be published and standardised to achieve full transparency and accountability.
Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the profound sensitivity of this subject. Alas, child sexual abuse is far more common than many people may think. Far more children are sexually abused than are ever identified or responded to. At least 500,000—half a million—children in England and Wales are estimated to experience child sexual abuse every year. Crucially, I want to instil in every Member intending to participate in this debate that, behind every statistic, every case file and every policy discussion, there are real people whose lives have been deeply impacted by these offences.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member refers to real people. There are no people more real than the three girls mentioned in the 2017 BBC docudrama and the whistleblowers involved. Does he accept that within days of that broadcast, which exposed to the nation the horrific actions of a Rochdale grooming gang, Andy Burnham commissioned an independent inquiry that led not just to the exposure of institutional failings but the vindication of those whistleblowers and, subsequently, the arrest and conviction of seven sick paedophiles in Rochdale, who were jailed for a total of more than 170 years? Does that not prove that we need to have real, strong political leadership on this issue, but also cross-party consensus, and that we should not be making party political points out of this? We should be working together to defeat paedophilia.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I point out to Members that this is an incredibly important debate, which is why so many of you are here today. I would ask you to be brief in your interventions, out of respect for all other Members who have something to say.
Jamie Stone
Thank you, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member underlined the point I am trying to make. Of the people watching this debate, many will alas be survivors of child sexual abuse who did not report that abuse until adulthood. That is the terrible thing. Their safety, dignity and wellbeing must remain at the centre of the debate and all that we say today.
I also want to recognise that there will be people watching this debate who have felt failed by institutions and public authorities in the past. That is precisely why we should use any parliamentary time on this topic—specifically with regard to information sharing—as a way of better equipping safeguarding agencies, local authorities, our criminal justice system and Parliament to improve the protection of children.
Unfortunately, no institution can undo past failures, but we have a responsibility to learn from them and to strengthen the systems we rely upon to improve the identification of abuse, our response to it and the experience of survivors.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Research has repeatedly shown that about half of child sexual abuse in the UK happens within the family, and the majority of the rest is by known, trusted adults. When I was chief executive of a rape crisis service, I worked very closely with an organisation called Child Abuse Prevention UK, which taught children to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report it to a trusted adult, such as a teacher. Unfortunately, it folded due to lack of funding, because the support for prevention and education in this area is absolutely non-existent—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Will the Member please sit down? Please do not make me have to intervene a third time.
Jamie Stone
Thank you, Dame Siobhain. I will come to my hon. Friend’s point very shortly.
This petition provokes legitimate questions that the public want answered, regarding how data on these offences is collected and how patterns of offending are identified. When discussing this practice, it is important that we balance transparency with privacy, proportionality and the risk that data may be misused or presented in a misleading way. For that reason, our discussion today must approach the petition with reasoned, constructive and evidence-based recommendations. We should all be guided by what best protects children, supports survivors and strengthens public trust in safeguarding institutions when dealing with offenders.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very clear and reasoned argument. Does he agree that everyone here cares deeply about this horrific crime, and that we should be thinking about how we can approach this together rather than attacking people over their party political positions?
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Today, we have with us people in the Public Gallery who have been through this dreadful experience. Sadly, it leaves scars that can last a lifetime. By referring to “offenders”, this petition is focused on a person who has admitted guilt to a child sexual abuse offence or who has been found guilty of such an offence in a court of law.
Prior to this debate, I spoke to people at the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, who pointed out that although there is understandable interest in strengthening the collection and scrutiny of data relating to offenders, such an approach taken in isolation will have but limited impact on the scale of harm they are seeking to confront in order to protect children. Data on known offenders is, by its very nature, retrospective—it looks back. It tells us where the system has already failed, but it does not help us to identify where abuse is occurring right now, unseen. In this way, it is crucial to consider that better safeguarding outcomes should, first and foremost, be driven by the identification and prevention of abuse in the first instance.
Alas, the reality is that a significant proportion of child sexual abuse never reaches the criminal justice system at all. These children are not reflected in datasets or analytical frameworks based solely on convicted offenders. It is therefore worth remembering that, although offender data has its place within a broader safeguarding landscape, it is not adequate as the central focus for protecting victims and preventing further abuse. Failure to consider that risks neglecting the hidden majority of cases and misdirecting our resources and attention.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As a fellow Scottish MP, the hon. Member will know that, sadly, these gangs operate across all parts of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that we need consistency in the collection of data in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland?
Jamie Stone
Indeed. The hon. Member has some knowledge, as I do, of the situation north of the border. The point is well made—I shall come to it shortly—that this crime is no respecter of where in the United Kingdom someone lives. Only by prioritising the identification of unreported abuse can we begin to address the true scale of the problem, rather than merely documenting its aftermath, retrospectively.
The petition makes particular reference to “gang based crime”. Many hon. Members will be aware of previous inquiries into this particular offence and its severity, which should not be undermined. However, we must remember that children can be sexually abused in many different ways by different people and in different places and situations. I think that is precisely the point to which my Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), alluded.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for the reasoned caveats that he lays out, but in the case of Rotherham, the gangs that were grooming and abusing young children in my constituency were predominantly of Pakistani heritage. That mattered because, had we recognised it early on, we might have been able to disrupt and prevent some of the abuse. In specific cases, we need this data and we need to be transparent. Sometimes all the caveats in the world just dilute what should be a laser focus on protecting children.
Jamie Stone
Wise words indeed.
To turn to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) touched on earlier, in England and Wales alone almost half of all child sexual abuse offences reported to the police in 2021 and 2022 took place in the family environment. That means the abuse was by parents, siblings, grandparents or anyone considered one of the family. After sexual abuse by a parent, harmful sexual behaviour by siblings is the second most common form of sexual abuse within the family environment that is reported to police.
My point is that we must be cautious about framing child sexual abuse as primarily an external or culturally othered threat, when the evidence shows that it is most often perpetrated within existing relationships of trust and care. I suggest that overemphasising outside narratives risks distorting public understanding and could distract from the full range of contexts in which abuse occurs.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, given that we are about to have a national grooming gang inquiry that Opposition Members had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to do, would it not be helpful for that inquiry to have the data? Surely sunlight is the best disinfectant on this issue?
Jamie Stone
Of course, the Minister will sum up. It will be interesting to hear the Government’s view on this.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I want to make a small point following the strong and powerful point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the gang-related stuff. The petition that the public signed does not selectively go for gangs only. It refers to all offenders, including gangs. Surely the key is to get the knowledge. That sunlight will help us to solve those other crimes.
Jamie Stone
I believe that we must distinguish carefully between evidence-based policy and generalisation, between transparency and sensationalism, and between the legitimate scrutiny of institutional failings and the prejudiced stigmatisation of whole groups of people. In short, we have to treat this subject with great care.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Before becoming an MP, I was a prosecutor for 21 years. I prosecuted many perpetrators of violence against women and girls, including sexual offenders. I am aware that the CPS has inputted data on all manner of aspects of offenders, including ethnicity.
Data can be useful in identifying patterns of offending, including pockets of offending in particular areas. Does the hon. Member agree that data can be useful, but that each individual case needs to be considered and prosecuted on the basis of evidence rather than anything else, and that it is important that we prosecute as many offenders as the evidence will allow across the country, notwithstanding their ethnicity, religion or nationality? Anybody committing acts of violence against women and girls, including grooming gangs, should be prosecuted, where the evidence allows.
Jamie Stone
Children cannot look after themselves in this regard, so it behoves every single adult to sort this out. How do we do that? By having a conversation, by discussing the issue and by operating on an absolutely cross-party basis. In that way, we can improve responses, and prevent further abuse and exploitation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jamie Stone
I have accepted a rather large number of interventions, and I know that a lot of Members want to speak in this debate. I will therefore close by making this last point. In my view, it would be a great tragedy if this issue became a party political football. It should not because, as was said earlier, sexual abuse is no observer of rank in society or geographical location. It can affect everyone, from those in the remotest parts of the UK to those in the most suburbanised places.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak. I want to be sure that I have a good idea of who wants to contribute, because we want to make sure that everybody has as long as they need to make their contribution. We will make that calculation now.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I want to begin by putting on the record my thanks to the 651 constituents in Hartlepool who signed the petition. They are right to demand greater transparency and accountability from the institutions responsible for protecting children. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate in such a measured way.
Let me be absolutely clear: child sexual exploitation is one of the most vile, destructive and unforgivable crimes imaginable. It destroys lives, shatters childhoods and leaves scars that never heal. It is a crime that demands from all of us the strongest possible response. That word “unforgivable” is important. I make no apology for saying this, both as a Member of this place and as a dad: for those convicted of the rape of a child, no punishment is too harsh. They should be chemically castrated, they should be given hard labour, and they should never be allowed to see another free day for the rest of their, I hope, very miserable lives.
There should be no ambiguity and no softness when it comes to protecting our children. I support wholeheartedly the intent of the petition: transparency, accountability and truth. Where facts are missing, speculation—sometimes fostered by malign actors—fills the gap, and when trust in institutions breaks down, it is ordinary people and, most importantly, victims who suffer. As we have heard, sunlight is the great disinfectant. It matters. The public have a right to know the full picture of crime in their communities and how we intend to deal with it.
Of course there are practical challenges. As Baroness Casey has highlighted, some categories, such as religion, depend on self-declaration and, on that basis, may not always be particularly reliable. But those challenges are not a reason for inaction. They are a reason for getting the systems right, not for avoiding the issue altogether.
Let me make a second point very clear: this debate must be about victims, not about political point scoring, and not about narrowing or distorting the problem. Analysis by the police showed that 115,000 children were victims of sexual abuse in 2023. The child sexual exploitation taskforce identified 4,228 group-based offences in that same year, of which 1,125 were cases of family abuse and 717 were sexual exploitation cases, including offences perpetrated by grooming gangs. Even if we accept that not all crimes will be recorded, not all data will be accurate and many crimes will remain hidden, there is simply no doubt what these figures reveal: group-based abuse is real and must be tackled without fear or favour.
The figures also show something broader and far more uncomfortable: this abuse takes many forms and happens in many settings. The most common offenders are not organised networks; tragically, they are family members, trusted adults, friends of the family, neighbours, acquaintances and, in a growing number of cases, peers—children themselves, under the age of 18. These are hard truths, but they are essential truths if we are serious about prevention. That is why we cannot afford a selective focus. Every victim matters, every offender must be pursued, and every form of abuse must be confronted with equal seriousness.
It is true, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that investigations of grooming gangs have identified instances where offenders come disproportionately from an ethnic minority background. That must be investigated and confronted without fear or favour wherever it occurs. I trust that the independent inquiry, which in my view was set up too slowly, albeit much faster than under previous Administrations, will do that. Anyone found to be complicit in not dealing with these appalling crimes should be brought to justice with the severity of punishment they deserve.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Three years ago, when I was Home Secretary, I set up the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year, it led to 500 arrests and safeguarded over 4,000 girls. I am proud of that, but it was not nearly enough. Just for daring to tell the truth that, in places like Rotherham, these were racialised crimes perpetrated largely by Pakistani Muslim men against white girls, I was attacked by—it has to be said—my own Conservative party colleagues for being Islamophobic and for amplifying a far-right narrative. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ethnicity reporting is essential if we are to combat the institutional fear that has taken over the police, social workers, schools, parts of our media and political parties, and if we are to get justice for victims?
Mr Brash
I would say very clearly that nobody should be castigated for highlighting a truth that is self-evident. I think the most important thing here is that once the essence of the petition is taken up by the Government—and I hope that it is—it will reveal a truth that there is an issue with grooming gangs, and that sometimes they come from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, but it will also reveal another truth: that the vast majority of perpetrators are not from grooming gangs or ethnic minority backgrounds. That is a truth that we have to get out into the open if we are to deal with it properly. I go back to the point that if we are insistent on a narrative that tries to sow division in our country and to be selective in its focus, the only people who will lose are victims of this appalling crime.
It is of genuine concern to me that we do not narrow the focus of this debate. Why would we want less transparency rather than more, unless the goal was something other than protecting children? Narrowing the focus of the debate to only some crimes is not about protecting children, but a tactic to weaponise the issue with the goal of promoting division, driving social media clicks and furthering the individual political ambitions of certain Members of this place. It is of genuine concern to me that today’s debate has been promoted, including by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a debate on grooming gangs. That is not what this debate is about. It is about all victims of child sexual abuse. It is about all data on all perpetrators.
I noted this morning that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said that he was going to name and shame every Member of Parliament who did not attend the debate. There are 650 Members of Parliament, and I believe there are 50 seats around this Chamber. Temperance in our language would serve the victims of this crime far better than the language of the hon. Member. This issue must never be weaponised, and it must never be reduced to slogans or selective outrage. It must be about truth, accountability and, above all, justice for victims. I say wholeheartedly: publish the data, show the truth, and never forget the children we are duty-bound to protect. We owe them nothing less.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the 260,974 British men and women who signed the petition to make this debate possible, and I welcome the brave survivors who are sitting behind us in the Chamber. This debate is about them; as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) quite rightly said, it is not about politics.
I want the world to hear what we heard during the two weeks of our independent rape gang inquiry hearings —an inquiry that should never have needed to happen. I sincerely urge this Parliament to listen to the testimonies from these brave survivors and to finally act.
The first testimony:
“He took his pants down, penetrated me, had sex with me. And then he stopped before ejaculation. He picked up the bottle of Jack Daniels, which was now empty, and he forced it up inside me. He broke the glass while he was there. At that point, I was about 12, nearly 13.”
Another testimony:
“I was held down by the men as they each took turns to orally and vaginally rape me, taking it in turns to pin down my arms and legs. When the assault ended, the men hit me repeatedly, threatened to find me, kill me and harm my loved ones if I ever told anybody what had happened.”
Another:
“Comments were constantly made suggesting that ‘white girls’ and Christian girls were viewed as having fewer morals or lower value, whereas ‘Muslim girls’ were described by some of the men as having dignity and higher moral standing. These comparisons were used to justify the way I was treated and to further humiliate and control me.”
Another:
“She was a white woman herself, who I imagine may have been groomed and has obviously now married into the family, shouting obscenities at us. Throughout the whole sentencing, she was constantly saying, ‘Fucking liars, lying white bitches’. She said to me that God will be the witness for what happens to me.”
Another:
“Race did play a part and motivated the selection or demographic of the victims. Throughout my exploitation, the other girls I encountered or who were abused alongside me were almost exclusively white.”
Another:
“She had a baby by him, and his dad was an Imam. His dad knew. And he got his son married and said that he wasn’t allowed to see the child. They look after their own community.”
Another:
“Over the course of the abuse, I was raped by multiple police officers in different parts of the country.”
Another:
“He put a cigarette out on the baby’s face.”
Another:
“It started when I was 13. I was raped by probably about six or seven hundred different men over the three years.”
Another:
“They would toot the horn of the car and then a child would be taken to the front door by a staff member of the children’s home.”
Another:
“I was bleeding from both my vagina and back passage and was so swollen I could not sit down. I told hospital staff my drink had been spiked and I did not know what had happened because I was too afraid to tell the truth. They did not ask any questions. They gave me tablets and discharged me. I was 15.”
Another:
“Things would escalate around Eid and holidays. Parties got bigger, got worse, got more violent. More people involved, more girls involved. The parties were just bigger.”
Another:
“The main clash that I kind of had with the religion side of it was, I grew up a Christian. I would wear my cross because it was something really, really special to me. It was just used as a way to break me down. They said, ‘Where is your God now? Why has your God forsaken you?’”
Another:
“It was all of the white girls in every home that I went to. I remember a man opening the back of a van and I saw maybe 15, 20 girls locked in dog cages.”
Another:
“Dogs were brought in and I couldn’t move at all. I had nowhere to move. I think what was the scariest thing was not having any concept of it. There were men around me. Not horrified, not disgusted, not helping, but filming and laughing. Making bets on whether the dog could actually rape me or not. And yes, I was raped by a dog. The man just held my face, stared me down straight in the eyes, and he wanted to see me break, and he did.”
Another:
“I just want it to stop and not happen to any other children and for people to actually act and do something and stop being so scared.”
I could continue for hours and hours. All of us in this building have a responsibility to finally act—not to talk, but to act. Our rape gang inquiry report will be released in the coming days, and it will change Britain for good.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Almost 500 people in my Mansfield constituency signed this petition, and many more constituents have written to me expressing their deep concern about child sexual exploitation, grooming gangs and the failure of our institutions to protect vulnerable children in our country. I understand from them why this issue matters so profoundly to the public, and why there is such a strong demand for transparency, accountability and action.
Where child sexual exploitation has occurred, including in organised, gang-based offending, the failures of our police forces, councils and safeguarding agencies have had absolutely devastating consequences.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
When I was a county councillor in Nottinghamshire, I asked the children and young people’s committee on a number of occasions where child exploitation was taking place in Notts, as well as what age groups and what genders it was affecting. However, I was denied that information both publicly and privately. Does my hon. Friend agree that child exploitation concerns should never be dismissed, that victims must be believed and that institutions must be willing to confront the truth, no matter how uncomfortable they may find it? Truth, transparency and accountability are how we protect our children.
Steve Yemm
I wholeheartedly agree with the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. Too often our vulnerable children were absolutely failed because our institutions were worried more about reputational damage, political sensitivity and some kind of corrupted political correctness than about protecting working-class boys and girls from harm.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
We absolutely need transparency on who the perpetrators are, but we must also confront the systemic failure that let the grooming gangs’ abuse continue for years. Those children were not believed; they were dismissed by the police, overlooked by the health services and failed by the local authorities that were supposed to be their corporate parents and that should have kept them safe. It is a profound institutional failure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that today we must also ask why these children were ignored, and who will be held accountable for those devastating failures?
Steve Yemm
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and of course, I agree with her. Parliament should never be in a position where we shy away from confronting those failures with absolute honesty—that is critical. Equally, we must approach this issue with a great deal of care, evidence and proportion.
I looked at the crime survey for England and Wales. It estimates that about 7% to 8% of adults experienced some form of sexual abuse before the age of 16—that is about 3 million people. It shows that the abuse is most commonly perpetrated by someone already known to the child. Other Members have alluded to this: it could be a family member or acquaintance—often a trusted adult or family friend—and, in fact, a growing proportion of abuse now takes place online. That matters, and it is an important issue to raise in this debate, because the majority of child sexual abuse in this country does not take place in the form of organised group offending.
Although grooming gang cases are among the most serious, heinous and disturbing forms of abuse, they are not the totality. It is important, as many other Members have said today, that we reflect the totality of child sexual exploitation in Britain. We should not narrow our national understanding of this crime to a single form of offending that might risk not reflecting on where harm is actually occurring. That does not mean that we should avoid difficult questions where patterns or clusters of offending emerge. On the contrary, we should be prepared to follow the evidence. Honestly, I do not think we have always done that; often we have not.
Steve Yemm
I will happily give way, and this will be the final intervention that I take.
Jim Shannon
I am very conscious of the title of the debate, which is, “Child Sexual Offender Data”. I am also conscious that in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, we have had sexual abuse through some churches and organisations. Things have happened in Northern Ireland, and if we are to collect child sexual offender data, it is important that it is shared between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England in case perpetrators move between those places, as perhaps they have in the past. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that all regions share the data to ensure that wherever the perpetrators are and whatever they have done, they are accountable?
Steve Yemm
The hon. Member makes a profoundly important point, which I completely agree with—as might be expected.
We must take on those difficult questions and be prepared to follow the evidence, including all those questions on nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Where those factors can be properly recorded and are operationally relevant, we should of course record them. However, that information always has to be treated carefully, interpreted responsibly and understood within the wider safeguarding environment. The data should help protect children; it should not become a substitute for serious safeguarding policy. That is why any approach to statutory data collection must be rooted in thinking about operational safeguarding. It should not be approached in the light of symbolism, political pressure or other types of political correctness.
Good data helps public authorities identify children at risk earlier, allocate resources and understand patterns of offending and allows us to intervene so that fewer children are harmed. Ultimately, the debate comes down to trust. People in my Mansfield constituency want confidence again that the institutions that serve them are honest, competent and focused above all else on protecting children. They want consistency in safeguarding, accountability where there are failures and reassurance that no category of abuse is ignored, minimised or politically inconvenient for anyone.
I understand the motives behind the petition, which I wholeheartedly support, but I believe that any statutory requirement we make has to be based on evidence, operationally meaningful and genuinely focused on improving child protection, not driven by any type of incomplete narrative. Above all, as other Members have pointed out, our duty in this House is very simple: it is to protect children, learn from past failures and ensure that every form of child sexual abuse is confronted with the seriousness, honesty and resolve that it demands.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion, and I thank the many people who signed the petition, including 435 from my constituency, who helped to secure this important debate.
Although I welcome it, it is deeply disappointing that such a debate is needed. We are here only because of the outcry from the public, who are outraged that the Government and public institutions continue to shy away from questions of ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Baroness Casey’s “National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” reported in June last year, and concluded that catastrophic systemic failures and institutional inaction had allowed grooming gangs to operate freely for many years. Recommendation 4 rightly stated that the Government should mandate
“the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just want to point out a clear example of why this is necessary. In 2022, the Home Office asked police forces to collect ethnicity and other data to have a display of evidence. Out of 43 forces, only one complied. That is why it must be statutory and enforced; does my right hon. Friend not agree?
Esther McVey
That is shameful. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend brought that up; that is why it is essential that today’s debate rectifies that situation.
Missing from Baroness Casey’s recommendations was the vital need for data collection on religion and immigration status—factors that surely need to be understood so that if they are found to be related to higher offending rates, strategies for protecting children can be that much more targeted and effective. As Baroness Casey acknowledges in her audit, for too long the authorities have shied away from the ethnicity of people involved, and “blindness”, “ignorance” and “prejudice” led to repeated failures, over decades, to properly investigate cases.
If we had complete and consistent data, we would be able to answer more questions with greater accuracy. Are certain types of exploitation increasing? How are offenders operating? Are those from certain ethnic backgrounds more likely than others to commit certain sorts of crimes? If we understand what patterns exist, we can improve policing, bring more survivors the justice they deserve and stop these horrendous crimes happening again.
Other questions need to be answered, too. Why are institutions so adverse to collecting and reporting such data? The Jay report, published in 2014, documented a reluctance to discuss offender ethnicity openly. We know that the Labour-run councils of Rotherham—
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for referring to the Jay report on Rotherham. She will be aware that the frontline staff were gathering that data; management and the upper echelons were blocking it. She is absolutely right to ask why that happened, and what the consequences were—I put it to her that there were not many.
Esther McVey
I thank the hon. Member for all her work on this matter over many years. I know the abuse that she went through for standing up for those girls.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My point flows from the important case that my right hon. Friend is making and from what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said. A key element of transparency is finding patterns of behaviour in covering up the crimes. It is not only about patterns in offenders; we also need transparency about where crimes were covered up and the patterns in that.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point; only then can we root out why people failed to investigate. Was it because of fear of being called racist, or even far right? Why were the cases not investigated? Was it because of a culture of political correctness that has been thriving in some Labour councils, such as in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, and in other agencies, such as the police? They dodged the hard questions. Why? Because they were worried that it might reveal something that did not fit with their ideology of multiculturalism.
Shockingly, in her audit last year, Baroness Casey concluded that
“Questions about ethnicity have been…dodged for years.”
After a six-month wait, the Government responded to the Casey audit, accepting all the recommendations, but six months on from that, and a full year since the audit was published, here we are, still waiting for implementation. Will the Minister update us on that and let us know when we can expect the data to be published? Also, not only has the Government’s official inquiry into grooming gangs moved at a glacial pace, but one of their own—a Labour peer—has been appointed as its chair, and a former council chief executive and a chair of an NHS foundation trust have also been involved as panel members. That is exactly what the survivors expressly said they did not want to happen: the inquiry to be handed over to people from the very institutions under investigation.
Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has got on with the job, putting the Government to shame with his independent rape gang inquiry, which heard 10 days of evidence in February and which will report its findings next week. I would not say that I was “fortunate enough” to be part of that panel, but when asked to do so, I accepted. Quite honestly, what we were told was horrifying. There were horrendous stories of rape, but it was not just rape—although that is bad enough. Women were tortured—battered, strangled, cut, whipped—until they were close to death, and then brought back around to be raped again.
That happened over a sustained period because nobody wanted to believe what these women said when they reached out to the institutions that should have looked after them. Some were reaching out to children’s homes, which were paid thousands of pounds a year to look after them, but they were let down. Why? Because they were white, working-class girls, many of them vulnerable. People did not want to listen to them and would literally call them “white trash”, while allowing others whom they saw as elders in a community to be above reproach, and therefore did not investigate at all.
If we are to successfully end these appalling sexual crimes against children, we must fully understand what is happening, and to do that, we need the data. It is not racist to examine the ethnicity of these criminals; nor is it discriminatory to examine their immigration status. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the truth of it is. These awkward conversations must finally be had, and anyone who might be avoiding them because of a self-serving sense of political correctness must now decide to put the safety of children first. This is not a political football, a right-wing bandwagon or a dog-whistle issue. This is about life-altering suffering and abuse of the most shocking kind—suffering and abuse that could have been prevented. The survivors deserve to know the truth about the failings that were allowed to happen. I hope that all of us here today can agree that the only thing that really matters is protecting children, and that we must do everything to put them first.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I begin where every debate on this subject must: with the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, like the brave women here in the Public Gallery. There are few crimes more devastating, and there are few duties more important for this House than ensuring that every perpetrator is identified, convicted and punished with the full force of the law.
Let me be clear at the outset: I support the proper collection and publication of data that helps us to understand patterns of offending, to close gaps in safeguarding, to improve prosecution and to protect children. As a barrister, I believe in evidence. I believe in facts. I believe that the criminal justice system must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether those facts are convenient or uncomfortable. However, I also believe that we must be honest about what some people are doing with this issue, because there is a difference between using data to protect children and using children as a shield for prejudice. There is a difference between seeking transparency and seeking a radicalised political weapon. I am afraid that around this petition and the wider debate, there are some who appear far less interested in victims than in validating their own hatred of ethnic minorities, Muslims, migrants and foreign nationals. That is not safeguarding. That is not justice. That is exploitation of another kind.
We have to be incredibly careful here, because the facts simply do not support the narrative that some would like to peddle. The data currently collected by the police is undoubtedly incomplete, and I welcome serious efforts to rectify that, but it is simply not true to suggest that we are operating in an evidential vacuum. The Ministry of Justice already records ethnicity and nationality data for those convicted and held within the prison estate. Although more up-to-date figures would of course be welcome, the available data show that as of 2020, more than 88% of prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences with an associated child sexual abuse offence were white. Fewer than 6% were Asian and fewer than 0.5% had no stated ethnicity.
That is a relatively complete dataset. On those figures, white men are significantly represented, yet no serious person in this House would argue that white people are inherently more likely to commit child sexual abuse because of their ethnicity, culture or background, and rightly so, because it would be obscene policy and an obscene politics to draw sweeping conclusions about communities of millions from the crimes of 16,000 of the most depraved individuals in our society. When people insist on doing exactly that to Pakistani, Muslim, Asian or migrant communities, they are not following the evidence; they are revealing a prejudice. They are not interested in protecting children; they are interested in blaming communities. That does not mean we ignore cases involving Asian men, Muslims, foreign nationals or anyone else; it means the opposite. It means we investigate all of it. It means we should prosecute all of it. It means we do not allow any community to hide behind discomfort, political embarrassment or fear of reputational damage.
However, it also means that we reject the grotesque idea that rape, abuse or grooming are the product of select or even inferior ethnicities, religions or nationalities. These are crimes committed by human beings. They are rooted in power, misogyny, coercion and the exploitation of vulnerability. They are not committed only by Muslims, migrants and minorities—far from it.
If we are going to talk about consistency, let us talk about consistency. When John Ashby raped a Sikh woman in Walsall, he did so while directing Islamophobic abuse at her because he believed she was Muslim. That was not incidental; it was part of the terror inflicted on the victim. Yet many of the very people who are usually desperate to talk about ethnicity and religion suddenly changed their view. They said rape is rape. They criticised media outlets for making it about religion. Suddenly, the victim’s identity and the hate-driven nature of the attack was cleansed and downplayed. But when the perpetrator is Asian, Muslim or foreign, those same people insist that identity is everything. That is not concern for victims. That is selective outrage.
When the victim is from a minority community, they tell us not to mention her race or religion. When the perpetrator is from a minority community, they tell us that his race or religion explains the crime. That double standard should shame anyone who claims to care about justice. I say this plainly: celebrating or minimising the rape of a woman because she is Sikh or because she is presumed to be a Muslim, is vile. Denying the religiously or racially aggravated nature of such a crime is vile. It is not British. It is not patriotic. It is not about protecting women and girls.
I support better data collection, but unlike some, I do so because I am consistent and because facts matter. I support it because bad data creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is filled by either denial or hatred. We should not tolerate either. The Government must ensure that ethnicity and nationality data is collected accurately, consistently and nationally. They must ensure that safeguarding agencies share intelligence properly. They must ensure that victims and survivors are believed, supported and protected. They must ensure that local authorities, police forces, schools, health services and prosecutors cannot fail children because they are afraid of asking difficult questions.
The victims of child sexual abuse deserve better than to be turned into ammunition in a culture war. They deserve justice and, above all, they deserve honesty. They deserve a system that is brave enough to collect the facts and decent enough not to twist those facts into bigotry. Let us have transparency. Let us collect the data and let us publish what can properly and safely be published, but we must do it for the right reason—to support survivors and bring offenders to justice, not to feed hatred or attribute those crimes to certain communities. This is a problem that everyone in our society shares and one that we all bear. It belongs to all of us to prevent it, and it belongs to Members to confront it with facts, consistency and compassion.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
While this debate is very welcome, it is on the broad range of sexual offences against children and the gathering of data about the perpetrators. I suggest, and certainly my constituents in Clacton suggest, that there is something uniquely evil and awful about mass-rape gangs. That is not in any way to diminish sexual abuse committed in the home or elsewhere by trusted people, but there is something uniquely evil about what is going on.
I certainly speak for many of my constituents in saying that there is a feeling that for a couple of decades the authorities at all levels have not done the job of genuinely pursuing justice because of racial sensitivities. I was unaware of the problem, its scale and the cover-up until the Rotherham by-election in 2012, when the current hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was elected. In the intervening years she has spoken out more bravely on the issue than most Members of this House. I was genuinely shocked by the stories I was told by families who came forward, and stunned that the police, social workers and local councillors had received multiple reports of what had happened. When I say mass rape, in some cases we are talking about individual girls being raped by hundreds of men over a period of time. Something genuinely shocking had happened.
In the intervening years, we have had the Jay report, the Casey report, attempts by Home Secretaries and current attempts to find out the truth about what has gone on. While a handful of people have been held to account, the truth is that the vast majority have not. I was surprised that during 14 years of Conservative Government, we did not have a proper judicial inquiry with the necessary powers. I have done my best to encourage the current Prime Minister to do the same, but sadly to no avail.
There are two things that it strikes me would be helpful. First, we ought to get published, with redacted names, all the reports of police and social services over the past 40 years, across the whole country, as a public record that everybody can read. But the thing that really surprises me is the reluctance of Members of Parliament to realise their own powers. We are in the Palace of Westminster, in this remarkable historic building, and we are all privileged to be here. We have enormous powers. They were last effectively used back in 2011 by the Public Accounts Committee, which in the wake of the global financial collapse of 2008 used the powers of this Palace to turn Committees into courts. That means that they have powers of subpoena; it means that people can be brought into Committee Rooms like this, under oath, and could face charges of perjury if they do not tell the truth.
My suggestion is this: rather than waiting for this Home Secretary or the next one, who may come soon—who knows?—to act with full judicial power and the ability to subpoena, why don’t we, as Members of Parliament, forget party affiliation, recognise the upset, concern and fear of our constituents that we are increasingly living in a two-tier justice system in this country, come together and force the Government to have a powerful Committee in this place? Let us call the heads of social services, let us call senior police officers and let us call former or serving councillors, or even former or serving MPs, and get to the truth.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion. At the heart of this issue are exploited children and predatory men. Sexual exploitation of children continues to occur across the country. It is not exclusive to a particular skin tone, an individual culture or religion, but leaders and those in authority must acknowledge and address patterns. Who are any of us to deny the testimonies of the victims, as were so heavily laid out by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)? Those with responsibility must feel empowered to act in defence of women and girls, without fear of persecution or judgment or of prosecution under the Equality Act.
It should not take a humanist to recognise that various interpretations of the Quran, the hadiths, the Torah and the biblical Old Testament continue to validate varying degrees of female subjugation. Malala Yousafzai was shot by religious fundamentalists in Pakistan for daring to advocate for girls’ education. Therefore, where exploitation has taken place by groups that entirely comprised men of Pakistani heritage, there can be no pretence that culture did not factor in their subjugation of those women and girls.
I am proud that the UK leads much of the world in our elevation of women. I am equally proud of the enrichment that cultural diversity has brought to our own. But why pretend that integration is frictionless or that any two cultures are perfectly compatible? The rational among us would want integration to take place, so let us not take it for granted. Where there is incompatibility between cultures in this country, no inch should ever be given that would undermine the rights of women and girls.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
This issue is very real. Very close to here, a fun run organised by Tower Hamlets council did not allow women over 13 to join in. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but let us be clear: it is happening, it is happening frequently and it is happening very close to where we are having this debate.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have to say that I am not entirely familiar with the specific instance that he has laid out, but certainly it is ongoing today and across the country.
The reasonable among us must not avoid these uncomfortable societal issues. We must never leave the floor open and unchallenged to racists and white supremacists who unfairly denigrate demographics at large for the crimes of a few. In the absence of reasonable voices, this issue has been weaponised by the far right and deployed by its propagandists to sow racial, cultural and religious division.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
As has been raised, why were those women and girls never believed? I have a constituent whose sister was a victim of grooming gangs and tragically died from HIV contracted as a result of that abuse. Another constituent wanted me to be here today because all too often this conversation is dominated by men. The women who were sexually abused and exploited as children by grooming gangs deserve to have their voices heard.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Ms Spencer, I appreciate that you are very new to this House, and it is great that you are at this debate. I note that you will be making a speech later, and there will be time, but what you are doing at the moment is making an intervention, so it needs to be really brief.
Hannah Spencer
Thank you, Dame Siobhain; I was just coming to my question. Sowing division will not keep children safe. Does the hon. Member agree that the next steps must be guided by listening to survivors and by fostering a culture in which women and girls are believed?
Cameron Thomas
I fully endorse the hon. Member’s comments. I often feel self-conscious about bringing this issue forward as a man, when really we should be listening to the voices of women and girls, particularly those who have been victims of these crimes.
Victims of domestic and sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking deserve to be treated with compassion and sincerity. Their tragedies should not be a foundation over which clamber opportunistic and ambitious politicians desperate to score political points over their opponents, as did the Conservative party in January 2025. It is a continuing tragedy that these cases are most vociferously contested by thugs who attack police and defile our national emblems, by political opportunists and by hostile foreign commentators who call for civil war and violent uprisings against the elected Government. They rarely, if ever, consider the victims. Social media commentators periodically ask me, “What are you doing about grooming gangs?”; they never ask me what I am doing for the victims.
Elon Musk’s interest in the 2024 summer riots and the unimaginable crimes that they followed was not in the protection of women and girls. Rather, it was based upon his apartheid-nostalgic white supremacism. Musk’s concern for women and girls extends only to his own attempt to exploit them, as evidenced through his reluctantly public exchanges with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. That brings me to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth—again, I feel self-conscious for delivering this from behind him. Despite Musk’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth continues to publicly court him. Last year, he was paid £40,000 by Elon Musk through his platform X, the same platform over which Musk provoked the riots in 2024.
In closing, let us bring forward this motion, and let the evidence show that I am sure most sexual abuse of this kind does occur within the family—but let the evidence show where it does not, and let us act upon it as one.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; the lead petitioner, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); and the many campaigners who have fought tirelessly, and continue to fight, for justice for the victims of child sexual exploitation.
The petition is asking for
“a statutory requirement on councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and all other related institutions to collect, record and publish the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders, including gang based crime”,
and rightly so. It believes that to properly protect children and prevent the mistakes of the past, it is essential to collect and record all that information. I agree with the petition, which states that data would
“protect children and inform public policy…allow for better understanding of offender demographics, ensure transparency, and support targeted safeguarding strategies.”
It also states:
“Without this information, critical patterns may be missed, weakening efforts to prevent abuse and protect vulnerable children.”
I agree with this narrative, and I join the over 260,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition.
Although I appreciate that the petition covers several areas, I would like to start by focusing on the importance of the retention of data in cases of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation. In her audit published in June last year, Baroness Casey rightly recommended a full national inquiry into grooming gangs. As part of her recommendations, as is set out clearly on page 151, Baroness Casey rightly said that it should be mandated that all local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies retain all relevant records. Any evidence or data that could help the national grooming gangs inquiry should be retained, and the Government should be mandated to inform that retention.
After much back and forth with various Home Office officials, the previous permanent secretary at the Home Office, the previous Safeguarding Minister and the previous and current Home Secretary, I learned that it took the Home Office 212 days to issue that direction to our police forces and other key Home Office agencies instructing them to preserve those records after Baroness Casey’s report was published in June last year. That is nearly seven months after publication. I then learned that it took eight months for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to local authorities with the same instruction. That is a staggering failure at the heart of this Government to address a key recommendation from Baroness Casey.
My first question to the Minister is “Why such a delay?” Secondly, what kind of records are likely to have been lost, or potentially destroyed, in the seven months that it took the Home Office to issue the specific instruction to police forces and the eight months that it took MHCLG to issue the same instruction to local authorities? That question is worth asking, because the reality is that many local authorities up and down the country resisted more openness and transparency on this issue for years—for decades—including Bradford council, whose area my constituency is in.
Another key issue in cases of organised child grooming gangs is not only the lack of data, but the lack of certain types of data. In her audit, Baroness Casey stated:
“The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years. Child sexual exploitation is horrendous whoever commits it, but there have been enough convictions across the country of groups of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds to have warranted closer examination.”
I have seen that for myself in my Keighley constituency, within the Bradford district, where the vast majority of convictions have been of men of Asian ethnic background, whose offences were predominantly against white young girls.
We have to be sensible when talking about this issue because, as Baroness Casey rightly found in her audit, only 37% of suspects had their ethnicity data recorded. That is simply not good enough, and addressing it is a key recommendation by Baroness Casey. I welcome the recommendation that the Government mandate the collection of ethnicity and nationality data on all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases; I only wish that it had come sooner. In my view, the very same approach should apply to the immigration status and religion not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator, so that we can get to grips with the complexity of this issue.
A national inquiry is now taking place. The areas subject to local investigations will be announced by 13 July. Why on earth is that taking so long? I commend the work done by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, but is the information collected by his inquiry being fed into the national grooming gangs inquiry led by Baroness Longfield? It is crucial that that information is considered.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. I met the panel of the rape gang inquiry just a few months ago. I asked that information from the inquiry of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) be passed on to that panel, and they agreed on that.
Rupert Lowe
The hon. Member has made a very good point. We have been in touch with the Government and Baroness Longfield and have said that we will help them, but so far nobody has actually made contact with me.
Robbie Moore
The point is that all hon. Members in this place have a duty to represent our constituents and to feed any information that we have to Baroness Longfield, as the chair of the national grooming gangs inquiry, so that we can make sure, now that the terms of references have been set, that the local inquiries that form part of that national inquiry take place in the right areas.
That brings me to my key point. Keighley and the wider Bradford district is an area where people have been ignored and abandoned, at a local and national level, for far too long. For years people there have fought hard for our area to be included but they have been ignored. Since I was first elected to this place to represent the people of Keighley and Ilkley, I have stood alongside victims and survivors such as Fiona Goddard and alongside leading child abuse lawyers such as David Greenwood to call for one simple thing: a full independent inquiry should take place across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. These heinous crimes did happen and are happening right now. For decades, child sexual exploitation and gang-related grooming have haunted communities that I represent. Lives have been shattered. Trust has been broken. Far too often, those crying out for justice have been met with silence.
My second question for the Minister is: will she announce in this debate that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included as part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? If the Government were confident enough in January 2025 to announce that Oldham would be included, why on earth are they not confident enough today to announce that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included? As I have said many times before, I fear that the scale of the issue across the Bradford district will dwarf that in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, where previous inquiries took place. Bradford has been referenced a lot in relation to child sexual exploitation, and many victims and survivors have unfortunately been trafficked through the city. I would therefore like to hear a positive response from the Minister.
My final point is about the cost of the national grooming gangs inquiry. The Government have allocated £65 million to that inquiry, but we are yet to understand which local areas will form part of it. My third question to the Minister is: will the Government expand the allocation of funds to the national grooming gangs inquiry if the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Longfield, deems that more money is needed because more areas need to be looked at as part of the inquiry?
Sir Julian Smith
I pay tribute to the amazing work that my constituency neighbour has done over many years on this issue. The issue of taxi networks in the north of England, particularly those operating in Bradford and Keighley and in my area of Skipton and Ripon, is an example of the fact that analysing broader issues properly will require more funding.
Robbie Moore
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend. I do not want the Government’s independent inquiry to be restricted by the amount of funds that it has been allocated. We need to make sure that the inquiry is robust, transparent and open, and that no stone is left unturned.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of gathering data, but something that has not really come out in this debate is an acknowledgment of the significant cuts to public services over the past decade, including cuts to youth services. I was a youth worker in Norfolk for many years, where I was the lead for child protection. Our services were decimated by cuts, and it is youth workers who very often spot signs of abuse and stop it. The hon. Gentleman is calling for additional funding; would he support money for youth work in hotspot areas so that we can protect children?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely concur with the hon. Member’s point. Youth services are a key indicator. Many of those who work for local authorities engage with victims and survivors, and of course they have a safeguarding responsibility and an ability to spot the signs of abuse. If youth services are one of those mechanisms, and if certain local authorities say that funding is an issue, then yes, of course—if that results in the right outcomes.
My final point is that there is always much focus on the national grooming gangs inquiry, but it seems that there is less focus on the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was an excellent piece of work by Professor Alexis Jay. It made 22 recommendations, but here we are, 22 months into this Government, and only six of those recommendations have been acted on. I fully acknowledge that the report came out in 2022 and that the previous Administration did not make enough progress on the recommendations in the 20 months that they had to act on them before the general election, but we are now 22 months into the new Government. My fourth question is: what additional progress are the Government making on implementing all 22 IICSA recommendations? I acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made.
Robbie Moore
The Crime and Policing Act did not go anywhere near far enough to provide the safeguarding mechanisms to protect vulnerable victims and survivors who have experienced heinous crimes of child sexual exploitation. I will not vote for poor, badly thought-through legislation introduced by this Government.
Beyond the six that have been acted on already, what additional progress will be made on the 22 recommendations? I conclude by advocating that the Minister include Bradford and Keighley in the national grooming gangs inquiry.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The petition calls on councils, the police and the CPS to publish their child sexual offender data on nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that in making sure that the victim’s voice is heard.
I would like to use an historical example from the Sikh community in my constituency, who came forward when the child rape gang scandal was in the news. So many of my Sikh constituents came to me in tears, publicly. They said, “We came forward saying that our girls were being raped and targeted in schools. We were trying to protect them, but we were told by the police, politicians and the media that it was an Asian problem and that we needed to just deal with it within our own community.” They were ignored—no one wanted to listen to them, because it was Pakistani Muslims who were attacking their girls. They were trying to do things to protect them, and they have historically been ignored and told it was an Asian problem that they could deal with themselves.
I was not the MP at the time, but I have dealt with cases, including historical cases, that have come to me. It would be remiss of me not to say that I believe it is vital that the religion, immigration status, ethnicity and nationality are mentioned in reporting, because how can we target specific areas of criminality if we do not know those key details?
Another historical example that occurred before I was an MP involved a girl who was abducted, raped and killed in an area for which I was a councillor. The person who committed those crimes was from an eastern European country that was exporting its criminals. It would let them out of prison, and they could either go to the UK or go back to prison—those were their choices, so we were getting a huge number of sexual offenders and murderers coming to the UK. Without recording ethnicity data in the police stations in areas where crimes were being committed, we could not link those things together. If Interpol did not release that information, we were not aware of that crime, which is why it is essential that we publish that information.
When we look at mass rape gangs and the protection of group-based child sexual exploitation, which is a very specific kind of exploitation—the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) spoke about the horrific, sadistic abuse and torture that these girls have endured—no one wants to hear these things out loud. It is disgusting; it is an abomination; it is a shame and a blight on our country.
It would be remiss of us not to do everything in our power to uphold the rule of law and ensure that any ethnic or religious groups that were targeting those girls are brought to justice. If this was a Catholic rape gang, or a Protestant rape gang, or something like that, we would be shouting from the rooftops that something needed to be done. We need to be honest about what is happening, where and why these abuses are taking place, and what ethnic and religious groups are targeting our young women.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that although the public perception seems to be that these crimes are a northern towns issue, there are also young girls who have historically been abused in London? It is disgraceful that people in authority in London are still in denial that these crimes are happening here, in our capital city.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; London has had horrific abuses. I worked with a girl who the Children’s Society intervened on. She had been gang-raped and exploited. She had been moved from local authority to local authority, and it had been covered up. We are not addressing these things, because we have been drowning in a sea of political correctness and we are afraid to call out the truth.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I know that everybody here, and the nearly 500 people from my constituency who signed this petition, will be struck by the gravity of the terrible crimes that are being committed up and down the country. Does the hon. Lady agree that, when justice is delivered only years or even decades later, we should all be asking uncomfortable questions about what might be happening on the streets today in our own constituencies, however difficult that is?
Joy Morrissey
We do need to ask those questions, and we need to be unafraid to stand up for the girls who have been raped, exploited and lied to—who have been let down by the local authority and let down by political correctness gone mad. We have forgotten who we are here to protect—the victims, the girls. No matter how unpleasant this truth is, we need to face it. Whether it is Pakistani gangs or other ethnic groups, we need to face it in the broad light of day, and we need to make sure that the victims’ voices are heard.
[Martin Vickers in the Chair]
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the lead petitioner, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), for helping to organise the debate.
Thousands of young girls had their childhoods stolen from them in the most evil way imaginable. These are obscene crimes, and it is hard to think of more depraved acts than those committed by the men involved. I have struggled at times, as many have, to read the court transcripts that have been put into the public domain. Every time, my mind has turned to my own girls, as I have thought about them and what could have happened to any of the children we know and love. It is truly hard to comprehend. This is also not in the past tense; it is almost certainly still happening in communities across our country.
I would like to praise, thank and honour those girls—those women—who have chosen to speak out as whistleblowers and to campaign, and who have done so to this very day. They will never get their childhoods back, and the scars will never fully heal, if at all, but their bravery is truly extraordinary.
I would like to pay tribute to those Members of Parliament who have raised this issue. Many would say it is too few, and many would say it is too late, but there have been Members of Parliament on all sides of the House who have done so—including the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as well as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who was here a few moments ago. In each of those cases, they were often attacked, insulted, denigrated and accused of being xenophobic or racist, when they were actually right. They were doing what is our duty as Members of Parliament: shining a light on the great social injustices facing our country.
I would like to pay tribute to Adam Wren, who is the director of Open Justice. He is campaigning for transparency in our legal system, and his work to uncover and publish court transcripts propelled this issue back into the national conversation last year. It was only when many people read extracts from those court transcripts that they really understood what had actually happened, and that “grooming gangs” was a euphemism that did not come close to capturing what was really going on and the appalling crimes that were happening.
Of course, I would like to thank all those who signed the petition, including those in my Newark constituency. That has led to this debate and, given the unanimous view expressed by Members in the House today, I hope it leads to action by the Government, which would be supported by everybody across this Chamber.
In March 2024, I tabled new clause 39 to the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have mandated that an annual report be laid before Parliament on the nationality and visa or asylum status of every offender convicted in England and Wales in the previous 12 months. It attracted cross-party support, but the then Conservative Government opposed it. Last year, I tabled a similar provision, again with cross-party support, but it too failed, this time because of opposition from the present Government. I hope that this petition can be the catalyst to make it third time lucky, and that we ensure that this issue is settled once and for all. The statutory requirement suggested in this instance relates specifically to child sexual offenders and gang-based crime. Naturally, I support it, and I see no good reason why it should not be applied to all crimes.
As the petition argues, once the Government routinely publish the data, it will show offender demographics, which will allow policies that target the right people. It should give people the confidence to talk about these appalling crimes without fearing the backlash from spurious accusations of racism or xenophobia—accusations that so many have faced.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
No person of any colour, creed, religion or community, or in any position of power, should be allowed to get away with heinous crimes and using sex as a weapon. When the right hon. Member talks about there being nowhere to hide, does he stretch that out to anyone in a position of power, no matter who they are, not being allowed to get away with these things, and to nobody turning a blind eye to anybody using sex as a weapon?
Robert Jenrick
Of course. I want equality before the law. No one, from the most exalted figure in this land to the lowest, should be free from scrutiny, accountability and, ultimately, the full force of the law.
Above all, we should publish this data because it would give the Government of the day incontrovertible evidence and the rationale to make the necessary changes. That would include our immigration system, because, at its heart, our immigration system should have one abiding objective above all others, whether economic or social: it should put the safety of the British people first. If the data shows that men from certain countries are disproportionately likely to commit sexual crimes against young girls here in our country, any responsible Government would suspend visas immediately and design a different system that protects women and girls in this country.
Right now, as we have heard throughout the debate, there is an unwillingness across councils, the police and prosecutions to report and act upon the truth. The facts about crime are covered up because of a toxic combination of bureaucratic inertia and weak leaders who pussyfoot around the truth. They refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their illusion of Britain as a harmonious, well-integrated country or that confounds their glib statements that diversity is our strength. It is not always the case, as we have seen.
In 2012, an audit by the Children’s Commissioner on grooming found that ethnicity was recorded in 79% of cases. By 2025, Baroness Casey found that ethnicity data was recorded in only a third of cases. More broadly, Ministry of Justice data shows that the police and courts are collecting less data on the ethnicity of criminals, including those who commit child sex abuse, than at any time in the past 15 years, so the problem is getting worse—much worse.
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), ordered officials to publish the nationalities of foreign offenders awaiting deportation. That is obviously welcome, but it is a tiny proportion of the issue, and even that we are still awaiting. The only solution to guarantee transparency is to make public authorities duty-bound by the law of the land to report the truth. So of course we should all support the petition.
But I want to go further. First, we must release the court transcripts—unredacted—and change the entire climate in our criminal justice system, so that court transcripts of any case are easily available to everyone, from journalists to Members of Parliament to campaigners. The current system is unsustainable and completely absurd in an age of AI, when these transcripts could be made available in an affordable way.
Secondly, we need to release every email, memo and record held by central Government, local councils and police forces relating to grooming gangs as soon as possible. How ridiculous that everything being released today—the WhatsApp messages, text messages and so on, which are admittedly about serious errors of judgment and are related to appalling crimes in and of themselves— about the paedophile friend, Peter Mandelson, is attracting this extraordinary furore in the House of Commons Chamber and the media, yet these documents, relating to thousands and thousands of girls in each and every one of our constituencies, are being withheld. Let us get them into the public domain and use transparency to drive change.
Thirdly, we should increase the funding of the National Crime Agency to go after the perpetrators and the public officials who are obviously complicit. Fourthly, we should lock up the perpetrators, with mandatory whole-life sentences. The current sentences handed down to some of these perpetrators are insults to the victims. This is not a new thing, and it is not the fault of this Government; it is a long-standing failure of our criminal justice system. I started, perhaps too late, to pay an interest in this a year or so ago and was stunned at the pathetic short sentences being handed down by judges.
Let me give one example that I came across in Bradford Crown court. A judge handed out a six-and-a-half-year sentence to a man who drugged a 13-year-old girl and then raped her at least twice, queuing up with other men to rape her. The young girl obviously lives with the scars today; in fact, she later became addicted to drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism. Six and a half years for that! Imagine if that was your daughter—or anyone, frankly, in this country. He would probably have been out on licence in four years had the sentence not been increased after I and others referred it to the Attorney General and ultimately the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. Let us change the law and make these individuals—these vile perpetrators—serve the rest of their lives in prison. That is the least the victims deserve.
Lastly, we should strip citizenship from dual citizens and deport them—deport them far away from these shores. If countries will not take them back, as some do not wish to, why on earth are our constituents paying millions of pounds in foreign aid to those countries? Why on earth is the Home Office issuing thousands of visas to them so that their citizens can come here for business, as students or for pleasure? No! We should use every lever of the British state to get these vile individuals out of our country and protect our women and girls.
None of those things will be enough for the victims, whose childhoods were stolen from them and for whom the scarring will never fade. What possibly could be? But this proposal will move us a step closer to correcting this injustice and, above all, to preventing future ones.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have listened carefully to the debate. Child sexual abuse is one of the most despicable crimes. We absolutely need to pay attention to the victims; I pay tribute to those of you sitting in the Public Gallery today who are victims and thank you for attending. I understand that what you have heard today may well have triggered you to re-experience the things you suffered as children, and some of you, perhaps, as adults. We Liberal Democrats will support any measure that goes some way to deliver justice for the victims and prevent these horrific acts from occurring again in the future.
I was one of the seven cross-party MPs who approached Theresa May after being elected in 2010 and who spent time trying to persuade her of the merits of having the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It took a long time to persuade her, and then it took further time to persuade her not to use the chairs she had chosen, because they were, or might have been perceived as, part of the infrastructure of the very problem we were trying to face, and that there was institutional abuse across many of our accepted centres of power.
I want to accentuate the fact that child sexual abuse is all about the abuse of power and that relationships are absolutely catastrophic when someone removes the power from an individual. There are a number of ways of removing power, and I will move straight to asking the Minister whether she would consider using some of the academic research in this field. Amnesty International has leaned quite hard on something called Biderman’s framework of coercion—Biderman spoke about it in 1957 and Amnesty International released it in 1975—which talks about the use and abuse of power and of coercive control in particular, and about the isolation of victims, the monopolisation of perspectives, the induced debility and exhaustion that victims suffer, the threats they are subject to, the occasional indulgences, or treats, that make them feel they might be special, the business of abusers—perpetrators—demonstrating omnipotence, the degradation of victims, and very often the enforcement of trivial demands just to absolutely enforce the power of the perpetrator over the victim. The perpetrators are always responsible. There is no one under the age of 16 who can consent, and many over the age of 16 cannot either. The word “rape” itself suggests there should be no consent, but no one under the age of 16 can consent anyway.
My party and I agree absolutely that we should collect data on nationality and ethnicity, and share it where it is appropriate to do so, but I draw Members’ attention to the fact that that has started to happen. I certainly have some evidence in front of me that reflects that that data is being collected. Whether it is being shared or not, I do not know, but we certainly need to make sure that the CPS, judges, magistrates, teachers and lecturers, schools generally, health staff, council staff—particularly those in adult social care and children’s social care, and housing officers—as well as the police, are absolutely required to collect data and share it. There should be compulsory training for all those in the positions that I have just listed.
Coercive control should not be viewed as something that applies only in a situation of domestic abuse. Victims of coercive control need to be heard. We need to recognise the signs of coercion and people need to be trained to recognise them.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
A few moments ago, my hon. Friend mentioned data. The House of Commons Library has compiled some information from 2021 to 2025, which shows that the single largest ethnic group of perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom was white British men, who were responsible for 58.35% of all such incidents. I do not say that to reinforce points that have already been made; I do so to emphasise the second most prominent category of ethnicity, which is simply “Unknown”. That data shadow is shameful. It fails the victims of child sexual exploitation, but it also creates the space in which speculation and distrust have been allowed to flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need not only to gather better data, but to robustly and systematically analyse it, in order to finally allow the truth about child sexual exploitation to be brought out into the light?
Tessa Munt
Absolutely. Earlier, somebody said that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and I agree absolutely.
I have here the ethnicity figures for those who have had proceedings brought against them. As I understand it, in the last five years, 989 offenders were of Asian background, which is 8% of offenders. That compares with 12,157 people of white British origin who had proceedings brought against them. Those of white British origin who were sentenced numbered 8,730; that figure was 622 for those of Asian origin.
I am not in any way decrying what has happened to anyone who has been abused, but I speak from personal experience: I declared quite openly in a previous Parliament that I was a victim of child sex abuse. It happened to me between the ages of 12 and 17. I am very lucky, because I had an enormous amount of support, both from counsellors and from my family. I am not over it, but there are ways that you can survive and thrive, and I came here in 2010 with that in the back of my head. I wanted to make sure that it came to the fore in that Parliament, and it did, but I am not finished, and that is why I am back here now.
Lee Anderson
The hon. Lady has come out with quite a few interesting bits of data. I wonder if she has any data on how many white British working-class girls have been systematically raped.
Tessa Munt
I have not, but I was looking in particular at ethnicity, which is what—[Interruption.] Forgive me; I was referring to the petition of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) presented today on his behalf. I think it is a very good thing that the hon. Member created the petition, and I salute him for doing so, because anything that brings information into the public domain is a good thing. I feel terribly strongly about that, as people probably will have seen from previous contributions I have made in Parliament.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for her bravery and for being an example for survivors. I pay tribute to her and all those who have experienced this abuse. There is hope, and they should reach out and have faith, but we need to make sure that the authorities listen to their voices and take them seriously.
Tessa Munt
This is absolutely not about me. All I would say is that I am an example of how you can come through and do something, but my God I have been frustrated watching the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which eventually turned into Professor Jay’s recommendations, about which absolutely nothing was done for some time. We need to proceed and make sure that all 20 of those recommendations, and Baroness Casey’s recommendations, are implemented. I am aware that the Government are doing stuff, but they are never fast enough, and this just needs to happen.
I feel very strongly that we need to train all the people I mentioned, including the judges, the teachers and the police—crikey, the police!—so that they understand what coercive control is. They also need to recognise what can be done to challenge what is colloquially referred to as the “manosphere”. Two or three weeks ago, I met a young woman and two of her friends, and she complained about the fact that boys in her school—she was young—had said to her that she could not tell them what to do because she was a girl. This has to stop, because it just feeds this whole thing. Women have been down-trodden for many, many years. Now we are brave enough to speak out, and we have to make sure that those who are in authority have the ability to tell us because they understand, not ask us because we do. I want to make certain that we have that compulsory training in place. We need to challenge toxic masculinity. I recognise that it is triggering to everybody when this stuff comes up, but I hope above all hopes that you are able to sleep with a little more peace tonight.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members not to address the Public Gallery, but to speak through the Chair.
Tessa Munt
I am sorry. I hope that the members of the public who have suffered are able to sleep a little more peacefully, but we need data collection and sharing. We just need to bring some rigour and force to what we are doing. Lots of people have looked at this over a period of years.
If I have time to make one more small point, I want to bring in the subject of religion. I am particularly interested in religion because, as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism for collecting data on belief systems, faith systems or whatever. We have only to look at the census of 2011, when, certainly in my neck of the woods, we had masses of people refer to themselves as Jedi. What people choose to call themselves in religious terms is absolutely up to interpretation, and I am not entirely sure that there is a way of making that data clean.
Experience tells me that, if we bring religion into this, in the near past we would have been looking at the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, where some of the most appalling things happened to people, and at the fact that that power was vested in people who had positions in the Church, as they do in youth movements and other places. I do not know whether it is possible to hold religious data or whether there is a real purpose to that. I am not sure that we can get anywhere with that, but I recognise that nationality and ethnicity data is useful and helpful.
On immigration status data, I know that the Home Secretary has the power to remove people, so that data may look a bit squiff if people are being deported, as they are. There are several ways in which the Home Secretary can remove people in different situations, so we may find that those figures are going down. They may not be useful or show the whole picture, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
The Liberal Democrats will support anything that improves the situation for victims. We have to remember the victims in all this, and we have to protect children into the future. As I said, I hope that victims can sleep a little better every time they hear a debate like this—something will happen.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I begin by thanking all Members who contributed to the debate, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for bringing forward this important petition, and the more than 260,000 people who signed it. I pay tribute to those victims who have lived through some of the most horrific issues and incidents and are bravely doing so much to support others and prevent this from happening to others.
The scale of support for the petition demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue across the country. Child sexual exploitation and abuse are among the most horrific crimes that can be committed. The offenders are the most vile, sick and evil individuals among us; their actions leave lasting scars on victims and destroy young lives. Our first duty, as legislators and as a society, is to do everything possible to prevent these crimes and bring perpetrators to justice.
For many people who signed the petition, this debate is inseparable from the grooming gangs scandal that has scarred towns and communities the length of this country. We saw not only despicable actions by offenders, but the failure of institutions. Vulnerable children were abused while too many warning signs were missed, too many concerns were ignored, and too many difficult questions went unasked. That failure remains one of the darkest chapters in this country’s history. The crimes themselves were horrific, but what makes this even more shocking is that, in too many cases, victims were failed by the very institutions that existed to protect them. If we are serious about ensuring that such failures are never repeated, we must be willing to gather the evidence, confront the facts and learn the lessons, however uncomfortable they may be for some.
At its heart, this petition asks whether we are collecting enough information about those who commit these crimes to properly understand who they are and stop them. The truth is that we need to know who is committing the crimes. The more accurate information we have, the better informed this House, this Government, the police and safeguarding agencies will be when deciding how to prevent them.
Sarah Champion
Does the hon. Member share my frustration that the petition did not include victims and survivors? I know from my experience that the vast majority are white British girls, but a particular sect of Sikh girls is also being very aggressively targeted. It would be good to include them so that the police can do more protection work.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Lady is entirely right. As many people have said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to be more transparent and know who the victims and perpetrators are so that we can seek solutions and give victims the support they require.
As Baroness Casey’s recent audit highlighted, there have been significant shortcomings in the collection of data relating to perpetrators of group-based child sexual exploitation. I welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted her recommendation that ethnicity and nationality data be collected more consistently. However, accepting the principle is only the beginning. The real question is whether, how and when that commitment will be delivered in practice.
This is not a new issue. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Act, I and colleagues tabled amendments that would have required greater transparency around the collection and publication of ethnicity data relating to sexual offenders and grooming gangs. The purpose was simple: to ensure that collection of this information did not depend on changing priorities or varying practices between police forces. Those proposals were resisted by the Government. I therefore welcome their change of position, but I wish it had come sooner.
We need to confront the failings now and not wait for another report, another scandal or another public outcry. For too long, a lack of proper data has meant that legitimate concerns were dismissed and public confidence was undermined. A striking feature of this debate is that independent researchers have often been able to identify trends and patterns that official systems have struggled to capture. It cannot be right that academics can sometimes build a clearer picture of offending patterns than the institutions responsible for recording and responding to the crimes. The state should know what is happening within its own criminal justice system.
This debate is not about stigmatising communities, but about protecting victims and confronting the facts, wherever the evidence leads. Baroness Casey’s audit contained one particularly troubling example. She described finding a children’s case file in which the word “Pakistani” had literally been Tipp-Exed out. Whatever the reason for that, it is not how safeguarding should operate. We cannot protect children if information is ignored, obscured or left unrecorded. As Becky Riggs, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigation, has acknowledged, this data helps police to understand risks, vulnerabilities and where resources should be targeted, which is why improving its quality and completeness matters so much.
The Government have accepted the principle; the question now is how quickly, comprehensively and consistently it will be delivered across every police force in the country. The public need to be confident that the authorities are prepared to ask difficult questions, collect evidence rigorously and publish findings honestly.
I welcome the Minister to her place, and I would be grateful if she addressed three specific points. First, what discussions have the Government had with chief constables and police leaders about improving the collection of ethnicity, nationality and other relevant data relating to group-based child sexual exploitation? Secondly, how will progress be measured? What expectations will be placed upon forces, and how will compliance be monitored? Thirdly, when will Parliament next receive an update on progress so that we can assess whether the commitments that were made following Baroness Casey’s review are actually being delivered on?
Better data alone will not solve the problem—we also need effective policing, strong safeguarding, successful prosecutions and proper support for victims and survivors—but it is an essential part of the solution. The lesson from every review, every inquiry and every survivor testimony is the same: difficult facts do not disappear because institutions choose not to record them. The failures of previous generations of authorities to tackle child sexual exploitation are a stain on this country’s record. We owe it to survivors to do better. That means putting safeguarding before institutional reputation, putting evidence before ideology, and being prepared to follow the facts, wherever they lead.
The victims of these appalling crimes deserve justice, truth and confidence that every possible lesson has been learned. For that reason, I welcome this debate and thank the petitioners for bringing the issue before Parliament. I hope that the Government will now ensure that the commitments they have made on transparency and data collection are fully and consistently delivered. Let us deliver justice for victims, hold perpetrators to account and do everything we can to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Natalie Fleet)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this most important issue. I am also grateful to all Members who have contributed with such passion, sensitivity and care for the victims—those brave women—who are with us today, as well as those who are not. At the heart of this debate has been the theme that when women and girls come forward, we must absolutely believe them, and I thank hon. Members for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who provided a clear and balanced account of the petition’s main arguments. I also thank the petitioners for the role that they have played in bringing us together—including the 598 signatories from Bolsover—and in allowing us to have this cross-party debate with so much consensus.
This is my first opportunity to respond to a debate as Minister for Safeguarding, and it is absolutely one of the most important issues that we face as a Parliament. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her tireless work in supporting victims of these heinous crimes. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history. Every time I meet one of the survivors, I hear the same story. Not only were the girls abused by these predators, but they were ignored, belittled and even blamed. Too many endured years of being told that the crimes against them did not matter, and therefore, they did not matter either. And now, as women seeking truth and justice, there are still those who seek to exploit them with lies and misinformation, spread daily by people claiming to represent the victims’ best interests. We keep seeing too many people who are not interested in victims, but only in themselves. Their lies do nothing but undermine the hard work happening to uncover the answers that survivors have long searched for.
I am so proud to be a Minister in the Government who are fighting to get and deliver those answers. My policy responsibilities are broad, but they are connected by a single, sacred thread: the state’s responsibility to keep the most vulnerable in our society safe. There has been a lot of talk about data and evidence, and I will come to that shortly, but first, I will say a word for the victims and survivors of all the different types of abuse that we have been talking about. The testimony that we have heard has been absolutely horrendous, and I thank every Member who has brought it and every victim and survivor who has shared it. We will never forget the terrible suffering that you have endured. That is why I will be part of a team and a Government who will strive relentlessly to prevent others from going through what you have. That will be my focus every single day in this role as we drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. To meet that goal, we must tackle all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation while taking every possible step to protect children from harm.
Let me turn to the crux of this debate and the specific points that have been raised. As Members are aware—this has been mentioned often—in February 2025, the Prime Minister and the then Home Secretary commissioned Baroness Louise Casey of Blackstock to evaluate the scale, nature and drivers of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government immediately accepted the 12 recommendations from Baroness Casey’s audit. That included making it a requirement for police to collect the ethnicity and nationality data of individuals suspected of being members of grooming gangs or perpetrators of other group-based sexual exploitation.
Sarah Champion
Can the Minister give clarity on whether the Government will also accept the 20 recommendations made by the IICSA inquiry?
Natalie Fleet
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I absolutely will come to that as part of this speech.
Let me assert once more the Government’s unwavering commitment to delivering all the recommendations set out in Baroness Casey’s national audit, which exposed more than a decade of institutional failure. This was, without question, one of the darkest episodes in our country’s history, and every part of the state bears a responsibility to ensure that this is never repeated.
Baroness Casey was rightly clear that the collection of suspect ethnicity data in grooming gang cases is poor. We agree and we are acting. That is why in July last year, the then Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables setting out the expectation that ethnicity data should be collected from all suspects in child sexual exploitation cases, and to urge them to make sure that they are fulfilling that obligation. We continue to work with policing colleagues to improve data collection and analysis. But incredibly importantly, we are legislating to give the Home Secretary the power to mandate the collection of ethnicity data by police officers. The police reform White Paper, published in January, set out our intention to put data standards for policing, including in this area, on a statutory footing.
I say clearly to all those who signed the petition: the Government will legislate to ensure that we fix this issue. Baroness Casey was clear that given the evidence available in some local areas, we need better ethnicity and nationality data at a national level to strengthen understanding and accountability. We will follow that evidence without fear or favour, and we will not let cultural sensitivities stand in our way. The Home Secretary said it best last December:
“We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 179.]
Members will be aware that the Government set up the independent inquiry into grooming gangs earlier this year. I am proud to be part of a Government who are delivering on this incredibly important work to uncover the truth. The inquiry has begun its crucial work to give survivors of these horrific crimes long-awaited answers. It will have a laser focus on grooming gangs, including the role that ethnicity, religion and culture played in these terrible crimes. It has a budget of £65 million, and the chair has confirmed that the funding is sufficient to deliver the inquiry. The inquiry has been designed to be time-limited for three years. That is long enough to go deep into where it matters the most, with a definitive end date to get the answers that victims and survivors need.
Separately, the Government are also making sure that everything we do is underpinned by evidence. I welcome Members sending me any additional research and information they have in this area. If the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), could send me that it would be fantastic.
Natalie Fleet
Thank you.
We will look at research, including on the role that ethnicity, culture and religion play in group-based offending so that our response can lead to lasting, systemic change that everybody in this House, including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is right to call for today.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
There is a worrying tendency to view these issues as historical. A few months ago I pressed the Home Secretary on the question of whether the national inquiry will be able to look at evidence of crimes that might currently be being committed and refer them to the relevant agencies. Does the Minister agree that is absolutely necessary if we are to deal with these crimes today?
Tessa Munt
I cannot remember whether I mentioned this—my notes have gone, although I did not follow them anyway. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to small religious groups, which is the terminology I use to describe what most of us would probably call “cults”. We should make sure that is a focus of some attention in the inquiry, because children of both genders and vulnerable adults are forced into situations over which they have very little control. It is that power dynamic.
Natalie Fleet
I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan).
Ayoub Khan
I welcome the £65 million additional support for getting to the facts of what happened up and down this country. Youth centres have been mentioned, and in Birmingham we have lost 38. Will the Minister consider looking at further investment in youth centres, which could capture a lot of data that might be useful?
Natalie Fleet
We have all seen the impact of 14 years of cuts to services. There are lots of things that need improving, so I cannot speak specifically to that point.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the inquiry will look at any current offending. As raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), from the moment the inquiry was announced in June 2025 organisations already had legal obligations to protect relevant information. A letter from the Government was not required to make that case.
Robbie Moore
If that was the case, why did Baroness Casey feel strongly enough to include this issue as part of a recommendation in the report?
Natalie Fleet
It also made sense to wait until a draft term of reference, setting out the scope of the inquiry, was developed and published in December ’25. At that point, the chair of the inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, and the Home Office wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Home Office-sponsored arm’s length bodies in January 2026 to emphasise the importance of retaining documents.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The Government have set out a clear plan for how we will deliver against the IICSA recommendations. That includes reforms to the Disclosure and Barring Service, a new mandatory reporting duty, a removal of the limitation period for child sexual abuse civil claims, establishing a new child protection authority, and rolling out the child house model across England to improve support for victims and survivors, with £50 million additional funding. Where we have been able to move quickly, we have. However, many of the recommendations require systemic and legislative change. We are moving as quickly as due process allows, and we have recently introduced a tranche of measures in the Crime and Policing Act. Where we are not currently taking forward recommendations, we have been clear about the reasons for that.
The hon. Member also made the case for including Bradford and Keighley in the independent inquiry. It is not for me to decide that, as set out at length to him by the chair of the inquiry on 19 May at the Home Affairs Committee. The inquiry will shortly set out its plans.
On the funding of the inquiry, the chair has been clear that they are determined to deliver on time and budget, and that the inquiry believes that is achievable.
Robbie Moore
Will the Minister answer two questions? If the Government were confident enough to announce Oldham more than 18 months ago, why are they not confident enough to announce that Bradford and Keighley will be part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? On the £65 million cost, are the Government challenging the independent chair of the inquiry, Baroness Longfield? Last week she stated to me, in front of the Home Affairs Committee, that she felt that £65 million was about right, yet she has not announced which local areas, or how many local areas, the inquiry will look at.
Natalie Fleet
It is absolutely right that it is an independent inquiry, and it is not for me to decide where the local investigations will be. The hon. Member will find out shortly whether his area will be included.
Before wrapping up, I will make some further general points. First, I reiterate that we are working closely with police forces to strengthen how suspect ethnicity data is collected, to identify gaps and to drive improvement so that our evidence base is clearer, more consistent and better supports action. We are strengthening how safeguarding agencies and key institutions work together to identify, disrupt and prosecute group-based child sexual exploitation. That includes bringing together police, local authorities, children’s services, schools and health partners to share intelligence, spot patterns and act faster. We are also reinforcing our expectation that all agencies play their full part so that the national police response and the statutory inquiry draw on the fullest possible evidence and are supported by a co-ordinated, intelligence-led system that leaves no gaps for offenders to exploit.
Regarding the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), we have committed to legislate through the police reform Bill. Measures for tracking and enforcement will be introduced as part of that process.
On rape gang inquiries, I again want to pay tribute to victims and survivors who have shared their experiences. I recognise how difficult and how personal that is. Their courage in speaking out is absolutely extraordinary and these issues cannot and will not be ignored. The independent inquiry into grooming gangs is an official statutory inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005.
The inquiry has a clear mandate to uncover the truth and to deliver justice for victims and survivors. I want to be clear that if the rape gang inquiry encounters any evidence of criminal conduct as part of its work, that evidence should be passed on to law enforcement. I welcome the previous commitment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to work constructively with the statutory inquiry.
I again thank the petitioners and all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. There is no doubt that this is an important subject. It is right that we expose it to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Like my predecessor as Minister, I will not shy away from having tough conversations. We have had them in this debate, and we will no doubt have more. I welcome them all. I have always been guided by an unshakeable belief that the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, especially of children, is one of the state’s most vital responsibilities. Where that duty has not been upheld, the consequences are devastating. This Government are taking action to ensure that the failings of the past are never repeated.
Lee Anderson
I have spoken to several rape gang victims. Many of them tell me that they are fed up of hearing politicians call them brave. They want bravery from politicians; they want real action. Does the Minister agree that any British national who is convicted of a sex offence against children should be locked up for life, and any foreign offender should be deported?
Natalie Fleet
This is something that we can absolutely agree on: where an offence is committed, the perpetrator should face the full force of the law. On victims not wanting to be called “brave” and on politicians being called “brave” when they speak out—I am sure the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills has experienced that—no victim wants to be called brave. Instead, we want justice, and to see a Government and a Parliament that act. That is what we are getting to today.
There has been much talk about transparency. Let me state again firmly that we recognise the need to expose the worst examples of human behaviour to the sharp glare of scrutiny. In our mission to protect children and vulnerable people from harm, we will never shy away from the truth, regardless of what is found. We will work to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice, and that victims and survivors receive the support that they absolutely deserve so that no child is overlooked, no warning signs are ignored and every child is better protected in every community in the future. Ultimately, this issue is about trust: trust that the system will act, that the victims will be heard and that these injustices will never be allowed to happen again.
Jamie Stone
The hour grows late. The people in the Public Gallery, who I must not mention, have sat patiently and listened. We know how many people signed the petition. That is an indication of how important it is out there. We have hon. Members from all over the UK in this debate—from Wales, my colleagues from Scotland, from all parts of England, and from Northern Ireland—because this issue matters in the body politic. We should all remind ourselves that petition debates have some of the highest viewing figures of anything that happens in this place—they are up there with Prime Minister’s questions—so an awful lot of people out there will be watching this debate. The key is that we have had a full and proper discussion: we have aired the issue, but it all depends on what happens next. I rest my case with that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 730605 relating to collection and publication of child sexual offender data.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Business and Trade
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
[Official Report, 21 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 683.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald):
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced 10 new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
Written Statements
EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Business Readiness
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Further to the written statement of 9 March 2026, I am today updating the House on the Government’s work to support business preparation for a future sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. Negotiations continue with the European Union and are set to conclude this summer. It is our intent that businesses be ready for, and benefit from, the deal from mid-2027.
The deal will apply to businesses in agrifood and related sectors, including producers, manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, hauliers and logistics providers, irrespective of whether they export to, or import from, the European Union. It will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood goods, including plants, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market.
As previously set out, the Government are seeking an agreement that will make it easier, cheaper and quicker to move food, plants, animals and related goods across our borders. Unnecessary costs, burdens and delays currently faced by British businesses throughout the agrifood sector and related sectors will be reduced.
The SPS agreement will deliver significant benefits for UK businesses trading with the EU, our closest partner and largest agrifood market. The agreement is expected to increase UK exports of key agricultural commodities to the EU. It could add up to £5.1 billion annually to the UK economy by 2040, while reducing red tape and lowering costs for businesses and consumers.
The Government will work proactively to reach an estimated 500,000 businesses that may be affected by the changes. This includes a communications campaign, alongside detailed, sector-specific information that is now available on www.gov.uk and will be developed as negotiations progress. In addition, we are undertaking targeted engagement activity to ensure that businesses understand what is required and how to prepare.
Businesses have told us that they want early clarity to support their preparations, and we have listened. Government are committed to transparency, and to providing clarity, where we can, at the earliest opportunity. As part of the commitment we have made to UK business, we are now providing sector-specific information that sets out the broad nature of the changes that may be required.
Some of the detail is still subject to negotiations. Depending on the final negotiated outcome, businesses may need to consider changes in areas including production and processing requirements, certification, labelling, IT systems, and wider compliance activity. We know that some businesses will need to adjust to the new arrangements, and we will work with those businesses to make sure they have the detail required to be ready. We will provide more information once negotiations conclude. Any changes requiring legislation will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.
As part of our business engagement, we have established a new SPS Readiness Business Advisory Council, which has met for the first time and is comprised of representatives from across the agrifood supply chain, including producers, manufacturers, retailers, logistics providers and trade bodies. We are collaborating with them to ensure that we hear from, and understand more about, what businesses need and how they can best prepare themselves to benefit from upcoming changes. Responses received to the Government’s call for information, launched in March, which totalled 489 responses, will also be used to co-design and deliver support and guidance through to mid-2027.
Businesses can engage with trade bodies, sign up for alerts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and explore how potential changes may affect their operations. By preparing now, businesses can put themselves in the best possible position to benefit from day one.
This SPS agreement recognises our shared interests, common challenges, commitment and co-operation to resetting our relationship with the EU. It will deliver real benefits for British business. We will actively support UK businesses to seize those opportunities and drive growth. The Government will continue to engage closely with businesses, trade bodies and other stakeholders, as negotiations soon conclude, and I will continue to update the House.
[HCWS71]
Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework Consultation
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am pleased to announce that we have now concluded our consultation on the community pharmacy contractual framework for 2026-27. We have agreed with Community Pharmacy England that in 2026-27 the CPCF will increase to £3,636 million, an increase of £340 million—or 10% —compared with 2025-26 budgets.
This investment will enable us to roll out independent prescribing—a Government manifesto commitment—which will allow us to improve access to primary care and better use the skills of pharmacy teams to keep people well in their communities.
This funding will include an increase in the retained medicine margin to further support the supply of medication. The medicine margin allowance will be £1.1 billion in 2026-27, an increase of £200 million from 2025-26. In addition, we have agreed to write off up to £239 million of historical net contract overspend—driven by over-delivery of medicines margin. This will bring more certainty of funding for contractors and support pharmacies in purchasing the medication prescribed for patients.
This agreement with CPE will provide much-needed investment, further building on last year’s uplift in stabilising the community pharmacy sector. We are also committing to work with the sector on reforms that improve sector sustainability, ensuring that community pharmacies are able to continue to deliver for patients.
I would like to thank CPE’s committee and am grateful to them for working constructively and at pace with officials to agree how best to use this significant new investment to support the sector, so that community pharmacies can continue to provide services to patients across the country.
This announcement follows record investment over the last two years and a range of measures to deliver more services to patients, including:
making emergency contraception available free of charge at pharmacies on the NHS;
offering patients suffering from depression convenient support at pharmacies when they are prescribed antidepressants, to boost mental health support in the community;
cutting red tape and bureaucracy to give patients easier access to consultations, with more of the pharmacy team able to deliver a wider number of services; and
boosting funding for medicine supply so that patients have better access to the medicines prescribed for them.
I am therefore very pleased to share this announcement and look forward to continued collaborative working with Community Pharmacy England and the wider sector as we build on what we have announced today and deliver what we all want for community pharmacy: a service fit for the future.
[HCWS73]
Support Hub for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Terrorist attacks leave a profound and enduring impact on individuals, families and communities. Beyond the immediate tragedy, the effects are often long-lasting and complex—shaping lives in ways that are not always visible, and requiring careful, sustained support over time. It is essential that our response matches the scale and nature of that harm.
Today, the Government are taking an important step to strengthen that response through the launch of a new, dedicated support hub for victims and survivors of terrorism.
This national service has been established to ensure that those affected by terrorism can access clear, consistent and trauma-informed support, when they need it and for as long as they need it. It is designed to bring greater co-ordination and clarity to the support available, while complementing the vital work already delivered across the system.
The hub is fully funded by Pool Re, demonstrating the shared commitment of Government and industry to improving outcomes for victims and survivors of terrorism. The support hub will be delivered by a partnership of three highly experienced organisations:
Victim Support, as lead provider, bringing decades of experience supporting victims of crime and terrorism;
West London NHS Trust, a nationally recognised leader in specialist mental health care, with particular expertise in supporting individuals affected by complex trauma and psychological recovery following major incidents;
Peace Collective, a community organisation with deep expertise in trauma-informed support and recovery.
Together, they combine clinical expertise, practical support and lived-experience insight to deliver a service that is both specialist and responsive to individual needs.
Launching today, the hub will provide a single, accessible point of contact for those affected by terrorism. It will offer timely emotional and practical support and access to specialist psychological care, where needed. Support will be tailored to individuals, and will include dedicated provision for children and young people and advice on financial, legal and media-related issues. Crucially, it will provide continuity over time, recognising that recovery is often non-linear, and that needs can evolve significantly in the months and years following an attack.
The service will be available to anyone in the UK affected by terrorism, including those who are bereaved, injured, witnesses, first responders, carers, or otherwise impacted. This includes those affected by past attacks, as well as individuals affected by incidents overseas who return to the UK.
This new support hub reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that victims and survivors are not left to navigate their recovery alone. Its model has been designed through a combination of professional expertise and, importantly, the experiences and voices of those it is there to support. At its heart, this support hub is about ensuring that those whose lives are changed by terrorism are met with the lasting support, recognition and care they deserve.
[HCWS69]
Online Safety Act 2023 Codes of Practice on Illegal Content
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Non-consensual intimate image abuse can have devastating and long-lasting impacts on victims and disproportionately affects women and girls. Delivering stronger protections against this harm is a key Government priority. The Prime Minister committed earlier this year to strengthen protections for victims and ensure platforms take a more proactive role tackling this horrendous abuse.
Today marks a further important step in strengthening protections online, as I lay before Parliament an amendment to Ofcom’s codes of practice for the illegal content duties, bringing in hash matching to strengthen protections against non-consensual intimate image abuse.
The Online Safety Act 2023 puts a range of duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety on their platforms. These include duties to put in place systems and processes for tackling illegal content and activity. Ofcom, as the independent regulator for this regime, is required to set out steps in codes of practice that providers should take to ensure they fulfil these duties.
Ofcom issued its first codes of practice for the illegal content duties following parliamentary scrutiny. Those codes came into force in March 2025. They introduced a framework of measures, and required services to take a proactive, systems-based approach to tackling illegal harms.
This amendment introduces a targeted additional measure to strengthen protections against non-consensual intimate image abuse. It sets a clear legal expectation that relevant services will use perceptual hash-matching technologies, or demonstrably equivalent tools, to identify and prevent the re-uploading and circulation of known non-consensual intimate images, including intimate image deepfakes. In practice, this will require services at risk of hosting such content to deploy proactive detection systems, capable of preventing repeat uploads at scale, rather than relying on case-by-case takedown, following user reports. This approach meaningfully supports victims, and ensures that once content is identified, it is effectively prevented from reappearing.
Ofcom has now submitted an amendment to its codes of practice for the illegal content duties. I am laying this before Parliament for scrutiny. If neither House objects to the amendment, Ofcom must issue the amended codes, and the updated measures will apply from 21 calendar days after they are issued.
Once in force, these updated measures will further strengthen the existing framework, ensuring that service providers put in place effective systems and processes to prevent the spread of illegal intimate image abuse content, including through the use of proactive technologies.
The amendment represents a further step in implementing the Online Safety Act and strengthening protections for users, particularly in tackling some of the most harmful forms of online abuse against women and girls. Ofcom will continue to build on this framework and keep its codes under review to address emerging harms.
[HCWS70]
Govia Thameslink Railway Services: Transfer to Public Ownership
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am confirming to the House that on Sunday 31 May, Govia Thameslink Railway’s services, operating as Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern and Gatwick Express, became the fifth to transfer into public ownership under the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act.
Operations are now run by a new public sector operator—Thameslink Southern Great Northern Limited (TSGNL)—a subsidiary of public corporation DfT Operator Limited (DFTO).
The new operator will commit to deliver a range of measures to help improve performance and passengers’ experience, including:
doubling the number of Gatwick Express trains each hour between Gatwick Airport and London Victoria from December, as well as more early morning services on Saturdays and Mondays over the busy summer period;
providing additional Great Northern off-peak services from Moorgate from December;
recruiting an additional 75 drivers on Thameslink and Great Northern this year, helping to reduce cancellations;
enabling passengers to get support from staff directly via WhatsApp if there is disruption to services;
improving all 115 Class 700 units on Thameslink by carrying out deep cleaning and repairing minor damage, as well as refreshing and resurfacing all toilets to help combat graffiti;
providing a total of 110 Travel Safe Officers on Thameslink services; and
completing the Automatic Train Operation training programme by December 2026, which will support improvements in punctuality, particularly in recovering delays during disruption.
Nine of the 14 train operators delivering passenger services under contract with the Department for Transport are now in public ownership.
Chiltern Railways’ services will be the next to transfer on 20 September 2026, followed by Great Western Railway’s services on 13 December 2026. The rail public ownership programme is on track to be completed by the end of 2027.
Public ownership is already putting passengers back at the heart of the railway, but it is not in itself a guarantee of improved services. To truly fix the structural issues that have long plagued our railways, we need systemic reform. The Railways Bill continues its passage through Parliament and will establish GBR, a new nationalised rail company, that will integrate the management of track and trains for passengers and freight use every day. It will also create a strengthened passenger watchdog.
Once established, GBR will maintain and improve the railways and be accountable to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers. GBR will be empowered to build a railway that not only puts passengers and customers first but also supports the Government’s missions to drive economic growth and opportunity, by improving connectivity and unlocking jobs and housing.
The Government are already making improvements for passengers, with the first regulated rail fares freeze in 30 years as well as rolling out Pay As You Go more widely.
Economic growth is a key priority for the Government. Reforming our railways is central to achieving this. Improved performance will bring more people back to rail—generating greater revenue and reducing costs.
[HCWS72]
Historical Personal Independence Payment Claims
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
On 28 May 2026, DWP published statistics about two exercises which reviewed historical personal independence payment claims for people affected by the MM Supreme Court judgment or the LB upper tribunal decision.
MM judgment
The MM judgment was handed down in July 2019 and related to daily living activity 9 of the PIP assessment. It found that prompting should be considered social support when it is provided by a person trained or otherwise experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. It also found that DWP should take account of social support given before and after a social situation, not just at the time of the interaction itself, depending on the needs of the claimant. DWP updated the guidance for new claims from 17 September 2020 to reflect the judgment.
On 20 September 2021, DWP launched an exercise to review historical claims from 6 April 2016 to 16 September 2020 that may have been affected by the MM judgment. DWP looked at cases where people with a psychiatric condition had previously been assessed as needing prompting and cases not previously awarded points for daily living activity 9 because of the timing of any support. A progress update on this exercise was previously published at: PIP administrative exercise for MM: progress report to 31 August 2023 - GOV.UK.
This exercise concluded on 17 November. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 350,000 cases and made 48,000 payments in arrears, totalling £270 million.
LB upper tribunal decision
The LB upper tribunal decision was handed down in November 2016 and related to daily living activity 3 of the PIP assessment. It changed how managing therapy or monitoring a health condition should be interpreted. The upper tribunal found that a combination of time spent supervising, prompting and assisting with medication and monitoring a health condition must be considered as therapy. The tribunal also made comments on when paying attention to the timing and nature of food and drink constitutes diet as therapy.
DWP updated guidance for new claims from 17 June 2019 to reflect the decision.
On 15 October 2019, the Department launched an exercise to review historical claims made between 28 November 2016 and 16 June 2019 that may have been affected by the LB decision. DWP looked at cases of people with diabetes and another condition, such as a learning disability or severe visual impairment.
The exercise concluded on 31 January 2024. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 44,000 cases and made fewer than 100 payments in arrears, totalling £188,000.
All reviews have been carried out by a case manager within the Department and no one should have seen their PIP reduced because of these exercises.
Although DWP has completed both exercises, claimants can still ask the Department to conduct a review of their case if they think they are affected.
[HCWS68]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Death of a Member: Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, on Thursday 28 May. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Sovereign AI Fund
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what strategy they have to ensure that the Sovereign AI Fund will support sovereign AI infrastructure and reduce public sector dependence on foreign hyperscale cloud providers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The sovereign AI fund will support early-stage British start-ups at strategically important parts of the AI value chain, including AI infrastructure and compute. It is not designed to replace foreign cloud providers or achieve total UK self-sufficiency. Instead, the fund seeks to reduce our strategic dependence and ensure that the UK has a stake in a world economy transformed by AI.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State has said that Britain
“must be an AI maker, not an AI taker”,—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/26; col. 55WS.]
and the sovereign AI unit’s own chair has promised British start-ups a guaranteed route to government contracts. But even the AI Minister, Mr Narayan, has admitted that procurement is too hard for British start-ups across government. So when will public procurement, in particular the G-Cloud framework, be reformed to match that promise? Will “sovereign AI” not remain just a slogan without that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Public procurement through G-Cloud must deliver value for money, security, and effective public services. Suppliers are not selected or excluded purely on the basis of nationality where they meet operational security and value for money obligations. The commercialisation of the sovereign AI fund to make the Government an early customer for strategically important UK start-ups is ongoing across technical, commercial and government leads to ensure that a robust, flexible, and scalable option is available.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I could highlight that the biggest challenge I see is not just initial funding. We welcome what the sovereign AI fund will do to provide compute and help commercialisation at a start-up moment for British AI companies, but the tragedy that we are seeing right now is losing those companies to international funders and overseas platforms. Once they reach a point for scaling, what will the fund or the Government do to help retain them, so they remain headquartered in the UK and continue to succeed commercially here?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. Our ambition is to make the UK the best place to start, to scale and to stay. That is not just for the AI sovereign fund, important though that is, but for the ecosystem. That is why we are investing in public compute, so that firms here will be able to access it, why we have our ambition for UK procurement and why we are looking at measures such as AI growth zones: to make this country one of the most attractive, as we can see from the amount of foreign direct investment that is already coming into the UK.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, France, Germany, South Korea, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada and Ukraine are all investing in their own sovereign AI models, for a variety of reasons, including data control, data protection and, most importantly, economic competitiveness. What consideration are the Government giving to using the sovereign AI fund to invest in the UK’s own sovereign AI model?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I mentioned just now, the sovereign AI fund is one of the components of how we think about UK strength. With it, we are looking at where we can have a UK strategic advantage. The five main priority areas that we have outlined are compute efficiency and sovereign architecture, next-generation AI labs and model development, AI for health and life sciences, AI for scientific discovery, and AI for trust, integrity and assurance.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I commend the Government for their sovereign AI development, particularly the Isambard-AI project at Bristol University, which has one of the world’s fastest processors. My question relates to parallel development. Do the Government still have a plan for the parallel development of the cloud, to assist in both digitisation and health research data for the NHS?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s welcome, as it were, for the developments happening here in the UK. It is true that the UK has a lot to offer. On cloud discussions and the provision of data, the National Data Library is advancing and we have gone through our period of discovery, with five areas of kick-starters, so we can provide UK public data to those who can benefit from it. Separately, we are using the sovereign AI fund to develop the domestic technology sector, so that it can provide one of the options for government procurement in the future.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority has expressed concerns that AI may entrench the market power of a small number of cloud providers. If the sovereign AI fund is not designed to increase the UK’s strategic authority in the cloud space, what are the Government’s plans to do so?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to refer to the independent Competition and Markets Authority. It has conducted a major, 22-month investigation into the cloud market and is now acting. It has announced a package of actions to strengthen competition in business software and cloud services. It will be launching a strategic market status designation investigation into Microsoft’s business software system in May that will allow the CMA to examine cloud licensing and actions from Microsoft and Amazon on improving cloud interoperability and reducing egress fees. In terms of the role the AI sovereign fund might play, it is at a relatively early stage of development. Infrastructure is one of its priority areas, and we will see what opportunities come in the near future.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Berger listed a number of countries that have decided to go down another path in terms of developing sovereign AI. Can the Minister outline to us why the UK is not choosing to take that path and rather may be relying, as some of us fear, far too much on the powerful tech bros of America to supply the needs of this country?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK benefits from access to many international service providers, whether from America or elsewhere. The way we think about sovereignty is in ensuring that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs to ensure that the technologies that will shape our economy do so in the interests of the UK. The reason we have focused on the areas I mentioned before for the AI sovereign fund is to increase our economic resilience and reduce strategic dependency by building areas where the UK can realistically develop a comparative advantage.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Representatives of the sovereign AI unit have repeatedly said that the companies it funds or supports with compute must comply with “applicable UK law”, including when copyright law applies to their training activity. However, they have been unwilling to say whether they will fund or support companies that scrape UK copyrighted material overseas without a licence. Will the Minister confirm that the UK sovereign AI fund will not use taxpayers’ money to support companies that train on copyrighted work without a licence, irrespective of where that training happens, whether in the UK or elsewhere? If she is unable to answer categorically, will she undertake to write with a complete answer?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct to highlight that we have been clear that copyright rules should be respected and the use of copyright works to train AI in the UK requires a licence unless an exception applies. Companies supported by the sovereign AI fund are expected to comply with applicable UK law, including copyright. When we are talking about compliance in relation to grant-funded compute allocations, they equally must comply with copyright law while undertaking that funded activity.
Lord Walney (CB)
Is the Minister open-minded about the huge potential that the UK embracing an open-source AI model alongside allies may accrue to the country to put us back in the premier league rather than needing to be reliant on America and overseas?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It is not an area on which I feel I can definitively give an opinion on the view of the Government. I know from the cyber security point of view that there are many merits and disbenefits of open-weight models in terms of their cyber security credentials, and that is something that we are working on very carefully.
For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government which government departments have not yet fully implemented the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling that the noble Lord’s Question refers to brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and to seek legal advice where necessary, and that includes government departments. Departments have been reviewing and updating their policies and guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. This includes the new internal Civil Service guidance that has been shared with departments. We will ensure that any policies and guidance are consistent with the draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations that was laid in Parliament before the Recess.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Over the last year, Government Ministers have repeatedly told this House that all service providers must get on with implementing last year’s Supreme Court ruling, but it seems that the NHS did not get the memo. The cases of Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses show that the NHS still expects female nurses to undress in front of males. Will the new Health Secretary be any better than the previous one at getting the NHS to obey the law?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course it is the case that the NHS should be obeying the law, in terms of both the provision of goods and services, which this code covers, and employment practices, on which further guidance will come from the EHRC. On the provision of the services that the NHS is responsible for, it is of course thinking carefully about both the ruling and the guidance, and it will be coming forward with more guidance in the near future.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I remember Meta Ramsay as an outstanding public servant who was as kind as she was courageous.
After numerous Lords Questions and a year-long review, we are left with the controversial code essentially unchanged. I ask, in sympathy with those who feel adversely affected and those who must implement it, how is a local GP surgery or a village hall to navigate proportionality, when three recent court decisions seem to point in different directions? Is this practically possible, or is it time to legislate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I believe it is practically possible. One of the reasons for taking the time, both in government and in the EHRC, is to make sure that the code that has now been published provides practical and sensible examples about how the law can be implemented. If providers take the time to look at the code, they will see exactly that type of supportive and common-sense advice about how to implement what is and has been the law and was simply clarified by the Supreme Court ruling.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, now that the Minister has agreed that government departments need to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, will she be able to tell the House what amount of public funds has been expended since the Forstater judgment of 2021 on religion and belief by government departments in litigation and settlements that deal with civil servants bringing cases against government departments? If she does not have that figure to hand, could she write to me telling me what it is?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Minister back to the noble Lord’s original Question, which was about which government departments are not complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Collins, twice in this House to confirm that all government departments were fully complying with the Supreme Court judgment, and he confirmed twice that, absolutely, they all were doing so. Is the Minister able to confirm that and provide the evidence that supports that statement?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course it is the case that government departments need to comply with the law, and they are working to ensure that they are complying with the law.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has been clear, and I have been clear. The noble Lord might want to suggest that we have not been, but I am afraid I think that we have.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do to restore the legitimate expectation of those who obtain gender recognition certificates? Section 9 of the 2004 Act says that a person’s gender
“becomes for all purposes the acquired gender”
in law, an expectation which has been smashed by the proposed guidance.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the particular issue he identifies was the subject of the ruling in the For Women Scotland judgment. That was an interpretation of the law as it had always stood; it is clear, and the code is now enabling providers to deliver on the basis of that. But it is also the case, of course, and in that ruling it was made clear, that the safeguards for people in the Equality Act on the basis of gender reassignment remain, and discrimination and harassment against people on that basis remain unlawful. The code makes that clear, in fact, and is helpful in delivering it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, given that the Government’s own impact assessment on the guidance notes the real-world problems that will still impact some women and trans individuals, by what measures will the Government be evaluating the impact of these challenges and whether the guidance actually meets its aims and ambitions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Given the number of questions and the debate there is about this issue, I do not think there is anybody who does not think that some difficult and contested issues have had to be dealt with along the way. But the publication of the code, and the work of the EHRC to deliver it, provide, as the commission has said it attempted to, some more exemplification about how providers can abide by the law. Most importantly, it can ensure that everybody’s rights under the Equality Act, including their dignity and their ability to access services, are upheld.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, alongside other faith leaders, I am increasingly coming across trans people—men and women, often young and quite fragile—who are increasingly frightened. They are frightened about participating in public life and about being challenged. Some are even frightened about going to the doctor. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the mental health of trans people, and how will they support them with these changes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, we have consistently recognised that there has been concern among the trans community about the way in which the ruling and the code will be implemented. I hope that recognising, as the ruling does, that the rights of trans people remain unaffected under the Equality Act through that ruling, along with the code itself spelling out the ways in which trans people need to maintain their access to services, and setting out some quite sensible examples of how that should happen, would provide some reassurance.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, this morning the Health Secretary told the “Today” programme that the Supreme Court ruling was clear and that single-sex spaces must be protected, but UNISON has called parts of the new guidance “completely unworkable” and Sir Ed Davey has said that it is “not fit for purpose”. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever pressure Ministers may be under from unions, MPs or anybody else, they will stand firm on protecting single-sex spaces—yes or no?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This Government have always protected the right of women to have single-sex spaces. They always have; some of us have quite a long history of doing it and we will continue to do that.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, the code, read alongside the building regulations, creates conditions in which anyone may feel entitled to challenge anyone in a single-sex facility whose appearance does not satisfy them. Can the Minister point to any evidence that trans people in public toilets represent a significant risk to others, and does she accept that the more likely consequence of this framework is the harassment of gender non-conforming women who are not trans at all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope when my noble friend has a chance to look at the code in detail she will recognise that the code now makes it clear that determining somebody’s sex on the basis of their physical appearance would not necessarily be straightforward or appropriate. I think that is an important statement. On the point about challenging and enforcement, most of us in this country for many years have lived in a way that enables people to access public services, including toilets, without any policing. That is not the British way we do things—nor do I think it should be in future. There are common-sense ways in which the code identifies how we can ensure both that the ruling is complied with and that all people—particularly trans people who may be worried about it—can get access to the facilities they need and deserve.
Business Hiring
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current business hiring intentions and their implications for the wider economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The UK labour market and economy remain resilient despite geopolitical uncertainties. The UK had the fastest growing-economy in the G7 in Q1 2026. On the labour market, ONS data shows that there are 416,000 more people in work than a year ago. Its business insights survey shows that over 80% of businesses intend to either maintain or increase their staff levels in June 2026.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I greatly regret to tell the House that the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of young people not in training, education or employment has exceeded 1 million. I believe we are heading to figures for 18 to 24 year-olds which have not been seen since 2008 when, under the previous Labour Government, the future looked very grim. Recent measures were introduced by the Government, including the business-busting Employment Rights Act, the national insurance contributions—the list is endless, and if noble Lords would like to read them all, they are in the report of the unemployment adviser, Mr Alan Milburn, or the essay published by the previous Prime Minister. Will the Minister wake up and do something about this?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I do not accept the characterisation presented. We recognise there is a crisis of participation, and Alan Milburn’s interim report clearly laid out many of the contributing factors in health and education, which have been there for many years. Under the previous Government between 2021 and 2024, the number of young NEETs increased by 250,000. This is an issue that we are tackling. As I mentioned, in Q1 of 2026 the economy was one of the fastest-growing in the G7. We are taking actions on youth employment, supporting young people to get into work, supporting them with work experience, training and apprenticeships. This is exactly what we need to do in these circumstances.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, in a slightly calmer vein than the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can I ask whether the Minister is aware that the ONS Labour Force Survey flash figures for April show a 100,000 reduction in payroll numbers? Does she think that this indicates that, as the year goes on, there will be an increase in unemployment, or does she think—as is so often the case—the ONS has got it wrong?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I do not know that my commenting on forecasts will necessarily add to the discussion. I am happy to talk about the actions we are taking to support the economy and young people especially to increase activity and get the experience they need to secure good jobs today and for the future. That is why we set out our modern industrial strategy and why we are supporting young people getting into training and apprenticeships. We have reformed the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy to make it more attuned to the needs of business so that those young people can get jobs today.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I talk to a number of businesses and work in very major businesses, and I see the issues that they are having about employing young people just now. When will the Government accept that, in addition to technology changes, the raft of legislation that makes it more expensive, more difficult and more risky to recruit young people is an issue? At what point will the Government look back and say, “We want growth, we want to employ young people and we want to give them a chance, so we will have another look at our legislation because we got it wrong”?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Where I can agree is that we want to create an economy where people feel confident to employ young people. I draw some figures and analysis to this House’s attention: under the last Government, between 2021 and 2024, the number of young NEETs increased by 250,000. I mention that because the noble Lord drew attention to measures that have happened subsequently, thus putting his analysis into question. Businesses are able to employ NICs reliefs for those under 21 and under-25 apprenticeships. I highlight those changes on NICs. Obviously, the NICs changes that came in last year do not apply to young people, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s analysis. I highlight to the House the measures we are taking to support young people and give them opportunities so that they get experience of work—employers mention that young people should have good experience of work in order to get their employability up.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, all the analysis of NEETs shows that the resilience of young people is an absolutely critical aspect of getting them into the modern labour market and labour force and keeping them working. The previous Government stopped, through austerity, many of the early evidence-based programmes that would build the resilience and the ability of young people to continue through difficulties. Any young person today will have huge difficulties, and we therefore have to make sure that we have those early intervention programmes to build the resilience of young people.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to draw attention to the importance of many different contributors to the employability, ability and capabilities of young people. That is indeed around skills and training, which is why we are investing in further education and in matching skills with the modern industrial strategy, working with employers. It is also why we are paying attention to changes in provision on mental health and in early years, such as the expansion of free school meals, to provide all children with the best start in life.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House exactly which part of the Employment Rights Act will create jobs and encourage employment?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Employment Rights Act will benefit 18 million workers. Having secure employment where you know that you have the right to sick pay and that you can take leave when you have a family is an attribute of a modern functioning labour market.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister did not remind the Opposition that youth unemployment was 1.25 million in 1984. They are keeping quiet about that. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility that a freeze or a reversal of the state pension age could release jobs for younger adults?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
That is a question that I personally have not put my mind to. I am happy to discuss it with my colleagues.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, 42 years on, I remind the House of my noble friend’s statistic that there are over 1 million NEETs at the moment. How depressing is that?
To follow on from my noble friend’s question, retail and hospitality are often young people’s first chance to enter the labour market, yet these are the sectors being hit hardest by the Government’s own policies. In April this year, the BRC, UKHospitality and the Food and Drink Federation, among others, sent a joint letter to Peter Kyle warning him that an inflexible guaranteed hours regime could mean an end to flexible roles altogether. They urged the Government to raise the reference period from 12 weeks to at least six months and to set the low-hours contract to eight hours. Will the Minister commit to listening to business and making these changes?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We committed during the passage of the Employment Rights Act to consult trade unions, businesses and all those affected as we take forward the other measures there, including the measures to which the noble Lord refers. At the appropriate time, we will put that out to consultation, which will be open to everyone to respond to.
On hospitality and retail, it is recognised that this is a very important first step, and that is one reason why we are expanding opportunities through the new foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail, launching a level 2 administrative assistance apprenticeship from August and introducing the £2,000 hiring payment for employers that recruit young apprentices.
Devolved Public Services: Funding
Lord Wigley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the newly elected Government of Wales regarding the funding of devolved public services.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, on 18 May the Secretary of State for Wales held her first call with the new First Minister of Wales. The Secretary of State made clear the benefit of the UK and Welsh Governments working together on shared priorities around public services and economic growth. That follows on from a call held between the Prime Minister and the new First Minister, during which the Prime Minister offered to meet in person in June to discuss shared issues and priorities.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the huge controversy in Wales arising from the UK Government’s refusal to provide Barnett consequentials for capital rail projects such as HS2 and the Oxford to Cambridge rail link, on the spurious pretext that such south-east of England schemes are of direct benefit to Wales? To open a new chapter on major project funding, will the Government please consider co-funding two urgent capital road projects of direct benefit to both Wales and England: namely, the tackling of the M4 bottleneck at Newport, which affects the strategic road link between London, southern Wales and Ireland; and secondly, the need for a new road bridge across the Menai Straits to cope with the additional traffic associated with the Wylfa nuclear project? Will the Government be open to discussing those matters?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, the Government are always open to having constructive dialogue with the Welsh Government about new projects—and, indeed, to considering any requests from the Welsh Government. The noble Lord’s question ignores the fact that the UK Government recently agreed a £14 billion plan for the future of Welsh rail, which is far more than the Welsh Government would have received had HS2 or any heavy rail project been developed. I should point out that work is already under way, with nearly half a billion pounds having been secured in the year’s spending review, which will deliver new stations for the Welsh railway network and faster journeys and better services for passengers, connecting people to jobs and unlocking 12,000 jobs in Wales. However, we will of course continue to discuss future capital projects with Welsh Government.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, as a former chief adviser to the previous First Minister, I encourage Ministers to take a positive attitude towards the new Government in Wales, even if it is not of the colour I would have wanted, and to continue those talks. While endorsing everything the Minister has said about the efforts made for greater rail investment under this Labour Government following the 2024 general election, I am unclear just what the new First Minister of Wales is asking for in relation to the M4 relief road. When interviewed recently at this year’s Eisteddfod, he said, “Something must be done”, but I was not sure whether he was actually asking for the M4 relief road to be built. Through the Prime Minister, will the Minister find out from the First Minister of Wales what exactly he means by that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that we have cause to meet requests from the Welsh Government—we need to receive them properly, understand them and have clarity about what they want. We will continue to work constructively with this Welsh Government, as we worked constructively with the previous Welsh Government, but we need to understand what exactly they wish to see happen, rather than just saying, as my noble friend pointed out, that something needs to be done.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his party’s success in the Senedd elections. I also acknowledge the success of Welsh Labour’s D’Hondt system in achieving the most proportionate result in Senedd elections to date. In contrast, the 2024 UK general election, held under first past the post, saw Labour take 63% of parliamentary seats on a 33.7% vote share. I ask the Minister: when will the rest of the UK catch up with the devolved nations and introduce a fair voting system which reflects the proportion of votes cast?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I wondered how quickly we might divert away from the question relating to Wales. I salute the noble Baroness’s ingenuity in talking about proportional representation. We have other devolved settlements with mayoral authorities to introduce more proportional ways of voting, but I point out that not that long ago, we had a national referendum on moving to a more proportional way of voting for general elections and an alternative to first past the post—I see some close observers of electoral systems are dissenting from my observations, so I will say “moving away from” first past the post—and that was resoundingly rejected by the British public.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, Lord Barnett was an outstanding public servant as a Manchester Member of Parliament and a Treasury Minister under the Callaghan Government, and he was given the task to come up with this formula in 1978 to placate the Scottish nationalists. I had the good fortune to spend some time on trains from Manchester to Parliament, and I remember that about 10 or 15 years ago he expressed his surprise that that formula was still in place with his name on it. He said that it was past its sell-by date, was unfair to British taxpayers and should be abolished or reformed. What plans do this Government have in mind to reform the Barnett formula now that we have a nationalist Government in Wales?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that just because something has been in existence for a long time does not mean that one necessarily has to think about reforming it as a matter of course. I inform the noble Lord, though, that the fiscal framework that has already been agreed between the UK and the Welsh Government added a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula to ensure that Wales receives fairer funding. As a result, the Welsh Government are receiving over 20% more per person than equivalent UK Government spending across the rest of the UK. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, no less, suggests that moving towards a different system, such as a needs-based system, could see the Welsh Government losing out on funding.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Will the Minister be able to outline the steps that are being taken by the Government to review the intergovernmental structures for co-operation between Cardiff, Westminster, Edinburgh and Belfast, and to ensure that these are strengthened over the next few months?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We continue to work in close partnership with the devolved Governments and with the English regions through agreed structures. The Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is also Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, regularly engage with the heads of devolved Governments and their deputies through the top-tier intergovernmental relations meeting and the Interministerial Standing Committee. They will now also regularly attend the mayoral council. As I said in my initial Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the Prime Minister is undertaking to meet the First Minister of Wales, the First Minister of Scotland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in the very near future.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the outcome of the recent Welsh elections should worry unionists across this House, but the Government’s much-vaunted Council of the Nations and Regions last met over a year ago, despite a commitment to meet twice a year. What role will the council play in strengthening the union, if indeed it ever meets again? Can the Minister rule out any real-terms cuts in funding for Wales?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I just said in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, we are absolutely committed to talking to the devolved Governments and we will convene the Council of the Nations and Regions on a case-by-case basis as needed. To be clear, this Government were elected on a mandate to protect the union, as previous UK Governments were, so we will refuse any request to go down any path that would break it up. We are clear about this and want to work with all types of structures to strengthen the union. On the second question that the noble Baroness got in at the end, I will not be tempted into talking about future funding promises without Treasury approval.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, we may receive more per head of population, but do the Government recognise that Wales is at or near the bottom of all the indices of deprivation in the UK? So what direct benefit, if any, will we receive from HS2?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley: we are investing a huge amount of money—£14 billion—in the future of Welsh rail. Also, creating more capacity on the west coast main line will in the long term provide great benefits to north Wales through the extension of the main line that already goes up through the west coast main line and serves north Wales.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, apart from a fair rail infrastructure allocation, which is absolutely needed—the Welsh Government are owed £4 billion for HS2 being misnamed as being for England and Wales—the Welsh Government are asking for other things, such as devolution of policing and justice and of the Crown Estate. Where do the Government stand on those issues?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We have created a space on the board of the Crown Estate with special responsibility for Wales; we are clear that a huge amount of investment can be driven UK wide, with the potential to create more than 5,000 jobs and bring £1.4 billion of investment into the UK economy, and we will not do anything to jeopardise that. Our policing reforms remove police and crime commissioners and bring policing closer to communities, which means we can spend more money on bobbies on the beat, which I think is what people in England and Wales want to see.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, before inviting the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to ask his Private Notice Question about the funding of political parties, I remind the House that no direct reference should be made to the criminal case currently before the Scottish courts of His Majesty’s Advocate v Peter Murrell. Noble Lords are of course free to discuss the general issue, but the specific case remains sub judice as sentencing is due to take place on 23 June.
Donations to Political Parties
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to tighten the rules regarding donations to political parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, foreign interference is a threat to our democracy. That is why we are currently legislating to tighten the rules on who can make political donations and strengthening checks on and the transparency of those donations. We are also acting on the recommendations of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into foreign financial interference. We are capping donations from overseas electors and bringing forward a moratorium on crypto asset donations. We will issue a full response to the Rycroft report in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that really helpful Answer. I agree with everything that she has said. However, will she now consider tightening the rules on the expenditure of Short money which is allocated specifically to opposition parties at Westminster? If there is any misspending of that money, who is responsible for dealing with it? Is it the Public Accounts Committee or the Government? Does she agree with me that whoever it is should be dealing with it as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is important that any money spent from the public purse is spent in a way that commands the confidence of the public. It is critical that processes are in place to monitor that spending and to make sure that it is used for the purposes it is there for. It is critical that it is properly and legally audited, so that we can all be assured of that. One of the big problems we have in the political world is an undermining of confidence in the political system. That is not helped when people do not have confidence in the financial systems that surround it. Those things are really important, and we continue to keep them under review.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
If the Government consider making any changes to Short money, will the Minister make them retrospective for the last 10 years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The allocation of Short money is beyond my ministerial brief, but all parties must think when they are in government about the proposals around Short money.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, under the Government’s current plans, Donald Trump could split ownership of a UK company between himself and his family members, keeping each individual share below the threshold that would trigger the significant control test in the Representation of the People Bill that is coming our way. That would then enable the company to legally donate to UK politicians or political parties, and indeed any foreign dictator or billionaire with family members could do exactly the same. Does the Minister agree that that is a dangerous and unwelcome loophole that needs to be closed?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not want to comment on such donations, particularly from the President of the United States’s family. However, we are taking immediate steps to implement Philip Rycroft’s recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors. We will implement that through the Representation of the People Bill which is currently before Parliament—it is at Report stage in the Commons at the moment. We are committed to upholding and strengthening our democracy by protecting against this kind of foreign interference, improving political transparency and adding tougher checks for donations. However, it is the responsibility of receiving parties as well to carry out the necessary checks involved. I hope that all responsible parties will take their part in doing so.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, if we are concerned about preventing foreign interference and plugging loopholes, as I think we all are, will my noble friend the Minister consider personal donations—small change such as £5 million to a particular Member of Parliament, for example—and foreign money to UK think tanks that are really quite political in their activities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
With any donations, it is for those receiving them to make sure they are clear about where those donations come from and what they are for. There are investigations currently going on by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as we know, so it is probably best that I do not comment specifically on those. Everyone must stop and think about how these donations are used and donated. We need to make sure that the rules that are set for political donations apply to everybody involved in political life, and that there are no exemptions for anybody.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, while the independent Rycroft review consulted political parties on political donations, the Government have singularly failed to do so. Why did Ministers fail to consult the Parliamentary Parties Panel on these measures?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that there was extensive consultation with political parties during the course of the drawing up of the Bill. The Bill is being debated in Parliament now, and representations can still be made in Parliament. It will be debated in this House in due course.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, how are the Government going to get at the increasingly shadowy area of what the Minister has just called political life, where donations are not specifically to political parties but are being used to support particular causes? It is widely reported, for example, that Elon Musk is using Twitter to promote the Restore candidate in the forthcoming by-election and to support Restore altogether. Is that a political donation? At the Unite the Kingdom rally, Tommy Robinson specifically thanked two US donors who had helped to fund the rally. That is not, within the current terms, a political donation, but it is clearly financial interference in British political life. How are we going to get at that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Lord indicated, this is a complex area, but we must endeavour to make sure that, as we pass the legislation, we close loopholes that allow donations that are not subject to the usual checks and balances—they must be subject to those checks and balances. We intend to commence existing provisions in primary legislation that will require donors to declare any benefits or sources of funding connected to their donation and render them liable to criminal prosecution for false declarations. We need to go that far to make sure that we avoid the kind of circumstances that the noble Lord raised.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my friends in the Liberal Democrats talk about money from America. Unfortunately, we in Northern Ireland have been dealing with money from America for quite some time, which is coming to Sinn Féin through the Irish Republic. Will that be dealt with in the legislation? It gives an unfair advantage to Sinn Féin in elections in Northern Ireland, whether it is standing for the UK Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will probably be more aware than I am, donations from Ireland are permitted in some circumstances. I will take back the issue she raised. It is important that all donations to all political parties are subject to the same legal requirements, and that is what the Representation of the People Bill is seeking to achieve.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the present system has some controls during an election period but then, in a non-election period, there seems to be very little control, with one right-wing individual donating £10 million to one political party. Will the review deal with this issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are still assessing the Rycroft review, which comments extensively on the evolving threat posed by political interference to British democracy. We will publish a full response to the Rycroft review in due course, but we have taken immediate steps in the Bill to implement the recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the light of the various issues that have been raised today, can the Minister say whether the Government would reconsider, and possibly put some amendments to, the Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It would be a very strange Bill that came before this House without any amendments, in my experience. However, we have endeavoured to structure the Bill to deal with many of the issues around donations that have been raised over the past couple of years. I hope that, when it is debated here, Members will take the opportunity to see just how extensive this legislation is and how far it goes. If further issues are thrown up by the Rycroft review, we will endeavour to make sure that they are incorporated as quickly as possible.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the term political donations is misleading. This is really about political corruption. The donors are buying power and influence, subverting public choices, getting government contracts, et cetera. Simply capping it does not end political corruption. The only way forward is to criminalise the receipt and payment of political donations, because no ordinary person can play this game.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have said to my noble friend before that I do not always share his conspiracy-theory approach to life. However, the new legislation will introduce “know your donor” schemes, where recipients of donations over £11,180 will be required to consider the risk of those donations being from illegitimate sources, to prevent the risk of foreign interference. There are serious penalties where those laws are not followed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
I think we have concluded the Private Notice Question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in 2011 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the amount that any organisation, individual or institution can give in political donations should be limited. It is now 15 years later. A few years ago, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said from the Front Bench that, hypothetically, he agreed that there should be some kind of limit on the percentage of funding that one party should be able to get from one individual donor. Will the Government act after all this time?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is exactly what the Representation of the People Bill will attempt to do; it will make sure that we are clear about how donations to political parties should work. We will debate this in due course and, I am sure, at great length in this House. It is important that the public can have confidence in how this system is working.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, immediately prior to the last general election, the then government party decided to increase the maximum expenditure by political parties standing in every seat in Great Britain by 80%, increasing the amount of money that could be spent from around £20 million to £36 million. It did not do it any good. Should we not now reverse that increase, which invites massive donations from sources that political parties find hard to check the origins of?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are introducing tougher rules on political donations to protect UK elections. The limits have changed because circumstances change. That is an important part of the system. We have to strike the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund election campaigns.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that those who make political donations should be criminalised, hundreds of thousands of people in this country subscribe to their political parties because they share their values. Surely that should be encouraged and not criminalised.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—and not for the first time. It is important that people are not only able to donate to a political party if it meets their values, principles and objectives for our country but that they can be absolutely reassured that that money is used in a legitimate way by political parties for their aims and can have confidence in the system that that is the case.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am in favour of the legislation that we will be planning. Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to look at the PPERA and ensure that the rules are strict enough that every party’s accounts are properly audited and are accurate?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am sure that Mr Rycrotft, in his extensive review of the electoral system, took that into account. Having been a member of a political party for a long time, I know that the auditing process is an important part of the system. We all want to make sure that that works properly for political parties, as it should do in all parts of public life.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, suggested that those seeking to influence policy through donations are guilty of some sort of corruption. Does the Minister agree that that is an incorrect characterisation and that the law should apply equally, not just to private individuals and businesses but to unions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The law applies to all those who donate to political parties, and it is right and proper that it does. As I said, I do not agree with my noble friend’s characterisation that all donations are potentially corrupt. However, where they are corrupt, it is important that the system can deal with that effectively and has proper sanctions to make sure that we deter those who would try to use their own personal money to corrupt our democracy.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. That does now conclude the Private Notice Question.
Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text
Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nature’s Rights Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Nature’s Rights Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text
Built Environment Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Middle East: Economic Response
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to return to the House after such a sunny break and to be able to review calmly the Chancellor’s Statement of 21 May.
It was not a major package. It was a collection of small measures, welcomed by some people as far as it went. As far as I know, the Chancellor did not announce the total cost, but except for the short delay in the increase of 5p on petrol, we are told that it will be covered by the changes to corporation tax on overseas investment and the foreign branch exemption. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how much that corporation tax change will cost British businesses and in which tax years.
What investment allowances will be made? As someone who made major investments overseas at Tesco and built up some fine businesses in Korea, Thailand and eastern Europe, I can tell your Lordships that we would not have taken the successful risks we did if early losses had not been allowed against profits at home. How is the Treasury going to avoid this change chilling overseas investment—a beacon of British wealth creation, reputation and strength for centuries?
I read the new list of food, drink, fertiliser and fuel items that will attract zero tariffs until December 2028. I note that they are rightly out for consultation. I have two questions here. First, have the Government had regard to the impact on our aspirations for new trade deals, where the granting of tariff-free access is a major bargaining chip? We know that the new Canada deal seems stuck because it has indicated that there is not much extra we can offer it.
Secondly, while government has tried to avoid lifting tariffs in areas where there is significant UK production in the agricultural sector, many of the items—nuts, fruit and tuna, for example—are substitutes for UK-grown foods and will displace demand for them. Moreover, we have a vibrant and important food manufacturing industry now facing stronger competition in areas such as confectionery, biscuits and processed foods. What is the Government’s estimate of the impact on them and the vital jobs that they support? Is this a further nail in the coffin of our manufacturing industries?
This brings me neatly to the third area of concern, which also affects food manufacturing—the high energy costs in the UK. They have been made worse by the Middle East war, but the main reason for them is the Miliband obsession with a drive to net zero. This obsession is doing very little for climate change, as the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions. The Official Opposition have repeatedly made clear, sometimes with some welcome support from the Minister, that we must make full use of the North Sea—not only with tie-backs but with an early go-ahead for Jackdaw and Rosebank. This becomes more urgent by the day, given that there seems little chance of an early opening of the Strait of Hormuz. When can we expect an announcement on these two licences?
Our high electricity prices are also a cause of wider de-industrialisation. I welcome the support for the ceramics industry. Stoke-on-Trent’s five towns were the Silicon Valley of Britain in their day, and I am an avid collector of Staffordshire pottery. However, something more fundamental is needed on energy to preserve our shrinking industrial base.
Given that the Statement was about the impact of war in the Middle East, I was surprised that it was so light on defence. I ask the Minister again: when will the defence investment plan be published? He used to say “in due course” but in the King’s Speech debate he said “shortly”, which offered more hope.
That brings me on to my final area of concern: the gravity of the wider picture of inadequate and crumbling defence forces because of lack of proper funding or a proper defence investment plan; the country’s finances in a mess; troubling social policies and divisions; and anaemic growth—the lack of that magic which makes governing so much easier. This is not surprising given the avalanche of taxes and business costs that we have experienced—national insurance, minimum wage hikes, the Employment Rights Act, a new visitors’ levy on our hotels, packaging taxes and vicious rates revaluations that, according to the weekend’s papers, risk closing down yet more of our country’s pubs. Further, only today I see that it is proposed to reduce checks on those claiming disability benefits. This would be going in precisely the wrong direction. Is the report correct?
To understand the damage that these policies have caused, we need only look back at the OBR’s March 2024 forecast for 2026. At that point, shortly before we left office, having navigated enormous challenges—not least the unprecedented inflation following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine—the OBR forecast UK GDP growth of 2%, unemployment at 4.2% and inflation at 1.6%. After Labour’s tax rises and spending spree, the OBR now forecasts UK growth at 1.1% in 2026, unemployment at 5.3%—and tragically much more among the young—and inflation of 2.3% for 2026. This is all in the wrong direction over those Labour years.
We face many serious problems in this country, and we on these Benches believe that we need a greater sense of urgency and a much better plan from the Government, especially on growth and productivity, defence, energy and debt reduction. Sadly, the latest package is another bit of unexciting incrementalism, mostly focused on lesser issues and badly managed, as we saw from the outcry of all experts on the proposal to fix supermarket prices. We can do better.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, till sales at UK supermarkets slowed to growth of just 0.2% in the three weeks to mid-May. Families do not know how they will cope with higher fuel costs, higher council tax and expected inflation. I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Government have tried to ease costs on the most vulnerable, and I support those actions. But with no relief in sight from the consequences of Trump’s Iran war, will the Government look seriously at the emergency £2 billion transport relief package proposed by my colleagues, to be funded by the Treasury’s unforecast boost in tax receipts: a cut in fuel duty by 10%, a slash in bus fares to £1, a slash in rail fares by 10% and a cut on VAT on public EV charging to 5%?
Does he also recognise that this is not a short-term crisis? The Government will have to find ways to reverse or offset the national insurance increase to small employers, especially in hospitality and leisure. They must break the link between electricity prices and the oil price, intensify the move to contracts for difference to spur on renewables, provide an effective programme for individuals and small businesses to install energy saving, and overhaul business rates at least to exclude all new business investment in energy saving from business rate consequences. Can he take this series of actions, which would make a significant difference?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, ended her remarks with her usual doom and gloom and talking down the British economy. Unfortunately, she did not mention any of the positive economic news that we have heard in the last few weeks.
She shares with us a belief in the importance of growing the economy and knows that that is our number one objective. She did not mention the fact that last week’s figures confirmed that Britain’s economy was the fastest growing in the G7 for the first quarter of this year. She did not mention that we beat the OBR’s spring forecast, with economic growth at 0.6% in the three months to March. She did not mention the fact that, because of the resilience in our economy, last week the IMF upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year.
She also did not mention the positive news on public finances that borrowing last year was £20 billion lower than in the previous year and is falling in every year of this Parliament. She did not mention the fact that the IMF backed our economic plan, saying that the Government’s fiscal framework strikes
“a good balance between deficit reduction and growth-friendly spending”.
She did not mention any of the things that we are doing to ease the cost of living, including that interest rates have been cut six times since the election, that real wages have continued to rise in every month of this Government and that inflation fell in April faster than expected, making the UK the only G7 economy where inflation fell last month. She did not mention any of those things, and I think that continuing to talk down the economy when we are doing all that we can to help it through this difficult period, with the war in the Middle East, does not benefit anyone.
She talked about the cost of the measures that we are introducing and about the foreign branch profits. I hope she will agree with us that, when a country faces challenges because of higher oil and gas prices, we must ensure that those who benefit from increased prices and volatility pay their fair share.
She will remember that, in our first Budget, the Government extended and increased the energy profits levy, last year we announced a new permanent windfall tax regime for oil and gas price shocks, and last month we increased the electricity generator levy, alongside further action to weaken the link that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned between high gas and electricity prices.
Now, the Government are making specific changes to the taxation of foreign branch profits, changing how companies are taxed in relation to their overseas activities. The noble Baroness will know that, until now, some businesses have structured their affairs with taxable branches to pay little or no corporation tax on UK profits. The change that we are introducing removes the ability to achieve disproportionate relief for overseas costs without UK taxation or future profits. The change, from 1 September 2026, for oil and gas-extracting UK resident companies will ensure that the UK continues to have a robust and effective corporation tax regime in line with international best practice and will ensure the effective taxation of profits attributable to UK activities.
The noble Baroness talked about the cost. She is absolutely right to say that we expect these reforms to raise hundreds of millions of pounds per year and that they will fully fund the package of measures announced by the Chancellor. The costings will be certified by the OBR forecast in the usual way at the next fiscal event.
The noble Baroness talked about zero tariffs and rightly said that they are out for consultation. Obviously, that is the case and I am pleased that she agrees with that. She mentioned the impact on trade deals. These are temporary suspensions to tariffs and so will lapse long before any trade deals are negotiated. So I think we will be able to see immediate improvements in the cost of living, and perhaps over time there will be trade deals that achieve that more permanently.
The noble Baroness talked about high energy costs and blamed them on the drive to net zero. I think we had an Oral Question in this House when the IMF put out its previous forecasts, and she will know that the IMF said that we faced higher energy costs in this country exactly because the previous Government had failed to take action to make the UK more self-sufficient in energy. So blaming the solution to the problem and saying it is the problem itself is a little perverse. The problem for the UK is that we are too exposed to imports of energy and we are, as she knows, taking action as a Government to reverse that.
The noble Baroness knows I agree with her when it comes to oil and gas production from the North Sea and how important and valuable that is. She asked me specifically about two fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank. She will know that the development proposals are a matter for the North Sea Transition Authority and the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning. I am unable to comment on the specifics of any individual project while the regulatory process is under way, or on the investment decisions of individual operators. As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will be making a decision regarding the environmental impact assessments of these projects in the coming months.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness welcomed the support for the ceramics industry. She is right to say that there are far longer-term issues at play in terms of the competitiveness of many of our industries: the foundational sectors so important to the industrial strategy. That is why we have already increased support for our most energy-intensive companies through the British industry competitiveness scheme that we announced a couple of weeks ago.
The noble Baroness asked me about defence spending. As she 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 the plan delivers the outcomes the UK needs for defence and for taxpayers. I shall repeat what I said previously: it will be published shortly.
The noble Baroness asked about supermarkets, finally. As she knows, it is quite right that we have discussions with supermarkets, as we have with fuel retailers and high street banks, to discuss ways we can work together to ease the cost of living on households. But, as I said to her, I think in a previous Private Notice Question, this is not about price caps, as some speculation has suggested; we would never advocate for that, and it is not for us to tell supermarkets how to run their businesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, focused primarily on quite a long shopping list of support that her party would like to see introduced. Obviously, we did introduce some support last week, as the Chancellor set out, but I am not convinced that the funding that the noble Baroness thinks is there for her package of support actually is. Unfunded commitments are not the way to ease the cost of living crisis. We saw exactly that with the Liz Truss Government, and we saw exactly that with the previous Conservative Party Government. Introducing unfunded support now would mean higher inflation and higher interest rates in the long term, meaning that the very people we are trying to help now would pay more for their rent, bills and mortgages in the long term. I do not believe that is a sustainable way to help people with the cost of living crisis.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I have been asked to remind noble Lords that the next 20 minutes are only for Back-Bench questions and not for Front Benches.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will remember—at least I think he will remember—that, after 1945, the best brains of Britain, America and some other countries got together to rebuild the entire financial stability and structure of international institutions on the rubble of the Second World War. Today, nearly all those institutions are in very serious trouble. Is there enough attention being paid by us and other countries to rebuild them in a way that will restore financial stability generally? Without that, all our own efforts are going to be minimised.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not personally remember 1945, although I have read about it. The noble Lord is absolutely right on the importance of international institutions. The G7 has been a very important institution in this crisis and in previous crises, and the Government are fully committed to the G7, in particular, playing its full part and to making sure that the IMF and many of our institutions play their full part in dealing with all international crises.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with AI causing reductions in apprenticeship training and with minimum-wage resistance from employers, why do the Government not look, in addition to the laudable initiatives that they are introducing, at the 1980s community programme? It emphasised environmental improvement, the arts and charities. It took young people off benefits and put them into work in local communities, at a time when dangers from anti-social activities were developing from long-term inactivity and unemployment. Ministers might read the speech of former MP Graham Allen of 29 July 1988 on the Nottingham operation of the programme in his constituency. It is a lesson to be learned from the past.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I will certainly look up the speech and programme that he mentions, and will recommend it to my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions as they work with Alan Milburn on his review. As all noble Lords know, Alan Milburn published the interim report of his review and his final review is coming out in the autumn. The kind of scheme that he mentions is worth looking at and, as I say, I will look up the speech that my noble friend mentioned.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What are the Government doing about small nuclear plants?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Does the noble and learned Baroness mean small nuclear reactors?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The deal to introduce the first of its kind has been signed with Rolls-Royce, and it is going to be located in north Wales. I think this is incredibly exciting technology and we want to see more of it. We want to see more private sector investment in this technology and in advanced nuclear reactors. We absolutely want to see far more investment in nuclear in this country. As I say, we have signed deals for small modular reactors, and we want to see more private and public sector investment in them.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, we do indeed have a great country, as the noble Lord said, and we should not be talking it down. But, that said, we should be having proper policy conversations. GDP growth by itself gets us nowhere. If we want to know about prosperity and real value for our citizens, we need to look at GDP growth per capita. I have raised this question a number of times and it has not been answered, which is disappointing to me. Why is this being ignored when all we want to do is make a political point?
The other point of which I want the House to be aware is about transfer payments, whether to farmers, businesses or whomever. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, they have zero value to GDP if they are true transfer payments. Transfer payments, whether to welfare or to whomever else, are a way to poverty.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but I am slightly mystified by his saying that he has raised it before and that it has not been answered. I think I have addressed it every time he has raised it in this House. He asks me the same question every time, and I think I have answered it every time.
The OBR’s forecast measures GDP per capita. We draw attention to that, and it fell under the last Parliament of the previous Government. That was a big driver of the cost of living crisis. It is currently forecast to rise by 4% in this Parliament. The Government put great score by this, as it is very important that we see GDP per capita rising. I think I have said that to the noble Lord many times, so I agree with him. It is rising in this Parliament and it fell under the previous Government. That is very important. Living standards have risen faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government, so it is something that we are very focused on.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, over three months ago, I was one of the first people to raise in this House the consequences on food security from the war in the Gulf. I declare my interest as somebody involved in the fertiliser industry, which makes me one of the better-informed commentators in this space. All around the world, nation states are taking steps to secure supplies. The EU is modifying its scheme to increase supply and mitigate costs. Other nations are implementing export bans. Ukrainian strikes on Russian production, taken together with the damage in the Gulf, are putting 50% of the world’s nitrogen fertiliser production at risk, and that has not been fully appreciated. Now, of course, sulphur shortages are creating a phosphate catastrophe. In this country, we hardly have tariffs on imported fertiliser, so announcing that as a concession is not going that far. The Government’s response, thus far, has been to propose insane fertiliser taxes that will drive food price inflation to new heights, increasing the price of beer, bread and biscuits. With the Cereals event, where British farmers congregate, next Tuesday and Wednesday—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Will the noble Lord get to the question, please?
Lord Fuller (Con)
With the Cereals event next Tuesday, what good news can the Minister give to farmers who are planning for harvest 2027? When are the Government going to take the impact of this seriously and can these extra charges, which do nothing to reduce carbon emissions globally and increase the importation of the most polluting fertilisers produced from coal fire in China?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the informed comments that he makes. As he said, he is a very informed commentator on these issues. I think that the last time we were discussing the same topic he asked a very similar question, and I shall give him a very similar answer. We convened the supermarkets to talk to them about the cost of food. The Chancellor also convened food producers to talk to them about security of supply and the issues that the noble Lord talks about. He mentioned fertiliser and other incredibly important inputs into the sector. The Government are, of course, in very close contact with the industry and are developing all contingency measures, depending on how the situation develops. I think none of us quite knows how the Iran war will develop and the impacts that it will have, and obviously the severity of the impact will depend on its duration. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take it seriously—I think that was his core question, to make sure that we are taking it seriously—and we are obviously preparing for all eventualities.
Lord Redwood (Con)
The Minister is right that they are taking it seriously. Given the huge pressures from fertiliser prices, energy prices and higher taxes, will the Government as a matter of urgency to tackle food prices cut the taxes on farms and redistribute some of the subsidy to promote food growing, which is what we want?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We are spending billions of pounds on exactly what the noble Lord asks about. I am not sure how he would fund the tax cut that he proposes, but, as I have said before, unfunded tax cuts are certainly not the way to help the cost of living crisis.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as this debate has continued, I have become increasingly concerned that the phrase “Middle East” in the title is referring to somewhere between Nottinghamshire in the north and Northamptonshire in the south. The Middle East to me is a series of countries where war is currently raging and people are suffering incredible consequences—I am thinking, for example, of Afghan refugees in Iran, who are one of the most vulnerable groups there, and many other Iranian citizens, and thinking of some of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Is this not the time, as well as looking after our own people, for the Government and Treasury to think about increasing our overseas aid to mitigate some of the severe harm that is being done to some minority communities or oppressed communities in different parts of the Middle East?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. As he will know, the Government set out their plans for the aid budget in the last spending review. He is absolutely right that the conflict in the Middle East poses very significant challenges to the world economy and to many of the people in the region and beyond. We do not yet know what the full impact of the conflict will be; that will depend on its severity and duration. Likewise, the Government have been very clear that this war is a mistake that will bring significant extra costs to bear, not only on the British people but on people right around the world, as the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, it must be noted that the Government are enjoying and using many of the Brexit dividends that were given to them: that is zero tariffs on anything they please; that is using subsidy—not a mechanism I particularly promote—in various places, notably, in the exchange here this afternoon, on Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramic industry; and the Government are able to do whatever they wish, in whichever field they wish, to promote economic growth. We see that also in the gracious Speech with the potential nationalisation of steel. Can the Minister give some sort of answer to the House as to whether he agrees with some of the Cabinet who wish to see the UK re-enter the single market and a customs union, which would stop most of those economic measures that are currently in the hands of the Government at a stroke? Does he agree with that? Is he at all concerned with the EU reset, which will have many of the same restrictions?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It really does take a Brexit zealot to say that. Cutting tariffs may gain us 0.001% of GDP whereas Brexit itself has cost us a minimum of 4% of GDP, although estimates now say that it ranges from 6% to 8%. We are seeking to mitigate at the margins the huge damage done to the UK economy by Brexit, so the idea that this is some kind of Brexit benefit is absurd. Should we in due course re-enter the European Union? My personal view is that that is an inevitability: of course the UK will at one point re-enter the EU because that is absolutely in our national economic interest. In the meantime we are doing the European reset, and that is incredibly important in helping growth in our economy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a number of the questioners on this Statement have referred to the small scale of many of the measures in the Statement. One of them is that it confirms that bus travel across England will be free for children aged between five and 15 through the month of August. That might be compared to Scotland, where Green Party policy was brought in and continues with free bus travel permanently for all those under 22. Will the Government at least consider extending this measure to a broader age group and over a longer period? The Minister referred to the Milburn review. Young people often need to travel on buses to go to training, to job interviews and indeed to jobs, and free bus travel would be a great help to them.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I find myself having the unusual experience of agreeing with the noble Baroness. Bus use is incredibly important. It is highest among lower-income households for trips outside of London. People in the lowest household income quintile make around 1.7 times as many trips as the average person and 3.7 times as many of those in the highest income quintile, so it is a very progressive policy. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to provide the DfT with over £100 million of additional funding for free bus travel for children aged five to 15 for the month of August. That costs £100 million just for one month, so this is not an inexpensive policy. Clearly, extending it further would be a matter for the next spending review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I wish to raise the issue of the increase in price and the shortage of supply of red diesel and the impact that that is having on farming and food production. Is that something the Government are monitoring, and might they take steps to alleviate the damage being caused to farming communities?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, as she is far more expert in these matters than I am, in order to support farmers and the freight industry we have cut duty on red diesel. Red diesel costs almost doubled at their peak and are now around 50% higher than their pre-crisis levels, so the Government are going further, cutting the duty rate on red diesel by over one-third, reducing the rate to its lowest level for over 20 years. This takes effect from 15 June and remains in place until the end of 2026. The noble Baroness will also know that we have cut regular fuel duty by 5p, and diesel will be 11p per litre cheaper throughout 2026 than it would have been compared to plans inherited from the previous Government.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Minister said that the UK was “too exposed to energy imports”, and he mentioned that he was therefore keen to see the opening of the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. Many of us are encouraged by what he said, but can he now commit to following Norway’s example and commit the Government to going ahead and opening further North Sea oil and gas fields so as to further improve our energy security?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Just to be clear, I said that oil and gas production in the North Sea is an important and valuable resource, and I support its continued use. I did not comment on Jackdaw and Rosebank specifically because I am not able to do so at this point, but the noble Lord will know that we are harnessing our domestic supply by managing existing fields for their entire lifetime, including by allowing tiebacks for those fields to ensure that they remain viable. I believe that when the Chancellor set out those measures in advance of legislation, we published further details on tiebacks, which external analysis has predicted could result in tens of millions more barrels of oil being available for UK supply. The announcement that we made gives industry greater clarity to support investment in these projects and maximise supply from our own existing sites in order to support our energy security, and the Government will legislate in due course to introduce these changes.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, attractions such as zoos and galleries have been campaigning for a long time for a cut in VAT. They argue that such a cut would result in equally high spending, because once people got over the threshold they would spend more in shops and restaurants, and that the Government would get their money. If this is proved to be successful, will the Minister accept that VAT cuts are not just for August?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows that we have introduced a temporary cut in the rate of VAT on summer attractions, from 20% to 5%. Over the summer holidays, from 25 June to 1 September, all children’s menu meals served in a restaurant, and children and family tickets for cinemas, theatres, exhibitions, concerts and shows, will be subject to a reduced 5% rate of VAT. Entrance to attractions such as amusement parks, fairs, museums, wildlife parks and adventure parks will be subject to the reduced rate of VAT for both children’s and adults’ tickets. As I say, those measures apply from 25 June to 1 September, which I suppose will give us a real-world opportunity to examine the points that the noble Baroness makes. Obviously, any extension of that would be a matter for the next spending review.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Second Reading on the Social Housing Bill. I look forward to listening carefully to noble Lords’ contributions from across the House. I am particularly conscious that many in this Chamber bring deep experience of housing, local government, safeguarding and the realities facing communities. I therefore would like to begin by recognising the value that this experience brings to our debate and thanking noble Lords for giving the Bill the attention that it warrants.
Before I turn to the detail, I hope the House will allow me a brief personal reflection, because this Bill is really personal for me. This legislation is not abstract; I grew up in Stevenage in social housing. In those days, before everyone carried a phone in their pocket, before the internet shaped the world—I should add that not even every house had a phone; I am that old—and before cars were widely affordable, community was the bedrock of our lives. Part of the unwritten contract for my parents when they accepted the offer of a job and a home in Britain’s first post-war new town, which is 80 years old this year, was that their parents would be welcome when they retired and that their children could, if they wished, be housed as children of tenants.
One of the great strengths of living in Stevenage was the sense of continuity and belonging that it offered. Families put down roots, your parents could live nearby and, in time, you could imagine your own children building their lives in the same area with the possibility, if they needed it, of a secure, affordable home in the community they knew. That sense of security—that social housing could be there not only for you but for the next generation—is part of what social housing at its best can provide: stability, dignity and the foundation on which people can build a life.
Amidst the complexities of modern life and the cost of living crisis, retaining that sense of community is more important than ever. Yet for too many people, it is no longer something they can rely on. In Stevenage, the housing stock has fallen from around 32,000 homes in the 1980s to around 8,000 today, and many former council homes are now let to those on universal credit, costing the public purse more than double when compared with a council home and leaving over 2,000 families stranded on waiting lists. This is a picture that we see around the country.
Over time, social and affordable homes have become scarce. In many places, homes sold have not been replaced. The result is that families who could once have lived side by side, in the same town and neighbourhood, are now too often separated by necessity and forced to move far from the support networks they depend on. That is one of the reasons I care so deeply about this Bill. It is about restoring a sense of security and fairness for tenants today and for communities tomorrow. Everyone deserves to live somewhere decent, safe, secure and affordable, in a community where they feel at home.
That is why the social housing sector plays such a critical role in our system, providing a home to around 16% of all households in England and supporting many of the most vulnerable, including those on the lowest incomes and those living with long-term illness or disability. Yet, for many, that security is out of reach. Today, more than 1.3 million households are on local authority waiting lists for social housing and over 175,000 children are growing up without a stable home. Families are left with little prospect of secure housing in their community. They are forced instead into the increasingly expensive and insecure private rented sector or into temporary accommodation at significant personal cost and growing expense to the public purse.
This country has not built enough social and affordable housing for decades. While nearly one in three new homes in recent years has been social or affordable, overall delivery remains far below the historic highs of the 1950s and 1960s, when housing was delivered at a far greater scale. This decline reflects a combination of factors over recent years. including lower levels of public investment, constraints on providers’ ability to borrow and invest, and wider economic pressures, such as inflation, which have increased the cost of building and maintaining homes. At the same time, the steady and significant loss of social housing stock, particularly where homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced, has further undermined the ability and confidence of providers to invest in building the new homes that communities so urgently need.
The Government therefore placed social and affordable housing at the heart of our manifesto. We have been clear that addressing these long-standing challenges requires not just incremental change but a sustained programme of renewal, bringing together investment, reform and delivery across the sector. The priority of this Government remains to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The delivery of these commitments is well under way.
In 2025, we set out a clear five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. First, we are delivering the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through the £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme to support social housebuilding at scale. Secondly, we are rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest, supported by a stable 10-year rent settlement. Thirdly, we have established a more effective and stable regulatory regime by updating the decent homes standard, implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards, and the passing of Awaab’s law to drive up the safety and quality of homes for tenants. Fourthly, we are reinvigorating council housebuilding, which this Bill directly supports, recognising the central role of councils in social housing delivery. Fifthly and finally, we are strengthening our partnership with providers and investors to unlock capacity and accelerate delivery, and with tenants themselves to guide our reforms—including addressing the social housing stigma that tenants highlight as a key priority.
This Bill forms one targeted part of this wider programme of renewal, making the necessary legislative changes to underpin our reforms. We have already given social housing providers the long-term certainty and stability they need to dial up their housebuilding ambitions, through grant funding, long-term certainty about their incomes, clear and final quality standards, and specialised support for councils. We now need to deliver the parts of our decade of renewal plan which require primary legislation. The Bill will protect the number of social homes available to those in need and, in doing so, incentivise the building of more social rented homes. It will create a fairer system, with stronger protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clarify the statute book so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.
Taking each of these objectives in turn, I turn first to protecting homes and enabling new supply. Right to buy has long provided an important route into home ownership, helping many social housing tenants achieve greater security and a tangible stake in their community. Since its introduction, it has supported more than 2 million households to buy their homes and realise the benefits of home ownership. But—and this a very big “but”—too often the homes sold have not been replaced. This has led to a steady loss of social housing stock, reduced the availability of genuinely affordable homes, and weakened councils’ confidence and capacity to invest in new supply, particularly where homes are sold and do not return to the sector.
It cannot make sense for a council to invest in building a new home and then for a qualifying right-to-buy tenant to move in and purchase that home for significantly less than it cost to build. The Bill therefore builds on the existing tranche of reforms that the Government have already made to the right-to-buy scheme. The measures will continue the mission to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, one that continues to support long-standing tenants to buy while ensuring that councils can replace what is sold and better protect existing social homes to meet future housing need. We will increase the eligibility period from three years of tenancy to 10 years, which better reflects current practice and ensures that the scheme is targeted at those with a long-standing connection to their home. We will also better align discounts with cash caps and introduce a 35-year exemption for new-build homes, protecting new supply and giving councils the confidence to invest in homes for the long term.
Alongside this, the Bill introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify their local authority and other potential buyers before selling a home. This will maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector. Taken together, these reforms will shift the trajectory of the system from one where stock has been gradually depleted to one where it is protected and can begin to grow again. These measures are not about undermining aspiration but about ensuring that it is delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and sustainable, so that future generations have the same opportunities as those before them. They are designed to ensure that the sector is larger in the future, not smaller, and more capable of meeting need, not less.
Secondly, on the protection of tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, all tenants deserve safety and stability but those experiencing abuse face acute risks and, too often, must choose between staying in their home and continuing to suffer that abuse, or leaving and risking homelessness. The Bill strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victim’s route to safety and recovery. This sits alongside wider government action to improve quality standards, strengthen tenant voice and ensure that the sector works in the interests of those it serves.
Thirdly, the Bill reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and clarifies the statute book, enabling councils and providers to invest with confidence. It repeals unimplemented and unworkable provisions from previous housing legislation, including requirements to sell high-value homes, impose fixed-term tenancies by default and charge higher rents to higher-income tenants. It also streamlines the outdated consents process so that councils can make more decisions about the management of their social homes without having to get approval first. These changes bring clarity and reduce barriers to delivery, setting up the social housing system for the ambitious future we are working towards.
Social housing is an essential part of a functioning housing system. It provides security for families, supports communities, reduces homelessness pressures and, when done well, represents good value for the taxpayer over the long term. This Bill is a vital part of our reforms, but legislation alone cannot deliver the decade of renewal we want to see across the quality and supply of social housing. As I have said, this Bill is one targeted part of a comprehensive and ambitious plan that the Government are already delivering through record investment into new social housing; through new modern and robust standards to improve housing quality and safety and to strengthen tenant engagement and landlord accountability; and through working with the regulator and the sector to ensure that the system is stable and investible. Ultimately, the Bill is grounded in the everyday reality of families who need secure homes, in the practical requirements of councils and providers that need certainty to build so that future tenants can access social homes, and in the principle that the state has a responsibility to ensure that safe, secure and affordable housing is available to those who need it.
In the course of this debate, I know that noble Lords will rightly scrutinise the detail—how reforms are implemented, how we safeguard fairness and how we ensure that the sector can deliver—and I welcome that scrutiny. But I hope that the House will also recognise the central purpose of this Bill: to strengthen tenant protections for victims of domestic abuse, to clear away barriers that prevent investment and delivery, and to protect and grow the social housing available across the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association for Local Councils.
The Social Housing Bill attempts to address an important issue across many local authorities: namely, that we are not building enough social housing. Yet this Bill goes about this issue in completely the wrong way. There are, of course, some measures that we welcome. In particular, we welcome the Government’s efforts to give landlords and the courts more powers to protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It is absolutely crucial that victims do not fall through the cracks of the system, and we will support efforts to strengthen the Bill in this regard.
However, for the most part, this Bill’s focus is not on the development of new social housing; it merely moves the goalposts on the existing housing stock. This Government came to power on specific promises in their manifesto to
“prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock by reviewing the increased right to buy discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly-built social housing”.
The first part of that pledge promises to prioritise the building of new socially rented homes, yet this is not what is prioritised in the Bill before us. Instead, the Bill goes into tweaking overdrive on the right-to-buy scheme. While we recognise the Government’s promise to review the discounts introduced in 2012, other provisions in the Bill represent an all-out attack on the right-to-buy scheme: a key Conservative legacy that has helped so many own their own home and has transformed social mobility across this country. Indeed, I heard the Minister describe the right-to-buy scheme as a “leaky bucket”. For a council that fails to build enough social housing, this may indeed be its point of view, but that is not whose side we are on. We on these Benches are not on the side of failing councils; we are on the side of hard-working families who do not want to be dependent on the state forever.
To be clear, we do not dispute that we need more social housing. Our population has grown rapidly, and development has not kept up with that demand. Under this Government, more landlords are exiting the market; unemployment is on the rise, especially for young people; and more and more people may be forced to look for social housing. But what do they find? They find the First Lady of Sierra Leone, who otherwise occupies a presidential palace. They find that social housing is being taken up by non-UK nationals, as was highlighted in the “Alternative King’s Speech”. Approximately 33,000 new social tenancies each year are going to households where the lead tenant is a non-UK national. At the same time, the Government invest around £4 billion annually to deliver roughly 30,000 new social homes. That is neither sustainable nor fair for British citizens.
According to the 2021 census for England and Wales, 72% of those who identified as Somalis live in social housing in the UK. That is an example of a dependency culture right before our eyes. This is not why the British taxpayer pays tax. This is not a functioning safety net, nor is it a welfare state working for its own citizens. Moreover, it is evidently not the right-to-buy scheme that is the problem here. We Conservatives know the solution. We need to build more new social homes for local people, not restrict their opportunities for home ownership.
We need the opportunity of right to buy, but at least one new home must be built with the money from the right-to-buy sale. If you do this, it is a win-win outcome. We need an honest and mature conversation about whom social housing is for and what the state can afford. We need to recognise that it is a finite resource and should be reserved for those who truly need it, without needlessly trapping people into welfare indefinitely and with no way out. We also believe that councils should have the powers to decide who to prioritise, such as those with existing connections to their local area, or veterans who have done so much for our country.
Reacting to the King’s Speech at the start of this Session, one Labour MP summed it up perfectly: “This is incrementalism”. That is exactly what we are seeing with this Bill before us now: tweaking with a successful scheme in order to weaken a proud Conservative legacy, rather than solving the problems the country faces today. This is red meat to appease Labour Back-Benchers in the other place, who—let us be honest—would rather see the right-to-buy scheme abolished altogether.
This is not serious policy direction, let alone a vision. This House and the British people deserve better. I repeat that there are measures in this Bill that we welcome, particularly to protect victims, and there are certain measures that we, of course, recognise as manifesto commitments. But we have serious concerns about significant aspects of this Bill: its implementation and commencement, the powers being handed over to the Secretary of State and all that is currently absent from the Bill to properly and adequately address the problems we face.
Where are the measures to keep larger social housing providers accountable to their local communities, for example? How can we make shared ownership schemes more workable in practice? How can we enable councils to have more choice over what works best for their residents? I look forward to hearing the contributions and insights of other noble Lords across this House on how we can make this a better Bill for the other place, and I look forward to engaging constructively with the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, my Lords, that has started the debate on this important Bill in a rather polarised way. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who used some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities, when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing. I hope that we can do the reverse and think about people who need social housing rather than who they might be.
I have both a practical and a direct interest in this Bill, as a councillor serving on Kirklees council, dare I say? I concur with much of what the Minister said in her introduction to this Second Reading; I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity, stability and quality of a council home.
Liberal Democrats largely welcome this Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. That is not to give it a complete stamp of approval but rather to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing—at social rents, I emphasise—is long overdue. The provision of good-quality housing at a rent that is affordable—not affordable rents—is a basic human right that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years. There is a direct link between quality of housing, educational outcomes and long-term health needs. It is in the interests of society as well as of individual families to provide good-quality housing that is available at a cost that everyone can afford.
The Liberal Democrats’ solution is the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. That is likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping and wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.
The Government’s estimate is that, for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait to be rehoused can be as much as 18 years and that 28% of new lets are for families who are statutorily homeless. In my council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1,700. Some 2.4 million council houses have been sold under right to buy. In Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980; now, there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build using the income from sales. The result is the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families.
The Bill begins to address the lack of supply of social housing. First, it introduces a 35-year exemption for new builds, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable, as the capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period. Increasing the qualifying period for the right to buy to 10 years will further protect the much-reduced stock that remains. Those are positive changes in our view, but what the Bill fails to do is substantially increase the supply of social housing.
The Government will point to the £39 billion allocated for the construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector. However, the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, when the need is so great. Measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family. The lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town a two-bedroom back-to-back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month—I know noble Lords who live in London think that that is peanuts, but where I live it is a lot of money—whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two-bed property is under £650 a month. There is a gap of £100 a month for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics.
There is also an impact on the cost to government, which the Minister pointed to. This year, spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion. The provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing.
The other good thing in the Bill is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house, in Clause 6, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing. An additional benefit of this clause will be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent, having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords. Often, these private landlords are distant—with some living in South Africa, in my experience—and in these situations do not provide the same support and management as that provided by council housing providers and registered social landlords.
There are other important changes in the Bill—for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal to streamline housing consents. There is therefore much to support. However, the gaping hole in the Bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely affordable housing at a social rent—not affordable housing, which is very different and often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens. Against the magnitude of the need, the Bill provides important first steps but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is a greater supply of social housing.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, as we embark on the Back-Bench speeches, I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes. If we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones, and we can achieve a reasonable finish time. I would be grateful for your Lordships’ co-operation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I declare my housing interests as in the register.
I commend the Bill, which introduces a number of legislative changes to enhance the quantity and quality of desperately needed affordable and social housing. I particularly welcome its provisions for constraining the right to buy, for the repeal of the awful and never-enacted measures to enforce sales of the best social housing, for the next steps in the endless story of the Grenfell tragedy, and for greater security for domestic abuse victims. Together, this whole package of measures will make an important difference.
In Committee, I will be bringing forward some modest but important amendments on points of detail, but for this Second Reading debate perhaps I could set the Social Housing Bill in its wider context. The Government have been taking significant steps to increase the output of councils and housing associations. The social housing sector’s subsidy settlement via Homes England, at £39 billion for the next 10 years, is the best since 2010. The national housing bank looks promising, and the agreement for rents to be increased by CPI plus 1% annually for a decade should ensure ongoing management and maintenance costs are properly funded. Other government measures aim to streamline planning consents and get the reluctant housebuilders to allocate a proper proportion of their new homes for social housing. That is all good stuff which will, I hope, produce around 50,000 new affordable homes per annum, more than half at social rents.
However, it is worth remembering that total investment in the social sector is a fraction of its level in times past. The proportion of the nation’s homes represented by council and housing association accommodation has fallen from its peak of 32% to just 17% today, partly due to the more than 2 million sales under the right to buy. The Bill seeks to address this problem of running the bath with the plug out, which should encourage councils to build once again.
Nevertheless, there is one serious omission in the Government’s support for the social housing sector: there is virtually no funding or strategy for the upgrading of hopelessly outdated current housing stock. That includes the leftover 1960s and 1970s prefabricated estates and tower blocks that now need renewing or replacing; the flats over shops in half-abandoned high streets; and the unfit privately rented pre-1919 properties that are long past their sell-by dates. While the Government’s emphasis on adding 1.5 million extra homes over the life of this Parliament is to be greatly applauded—particularly with the emphasis on social housing—it is a serious hole in the Government’s strategy that existing outdated housing is largely ignored. While I welcome the special help for particularly deprived neighbourhoods in the form of the Government’s Pride in Place initiative, this new funding does not stretch to improving existing accommodation. Sadly, the current absolute priority for new building is leaving tens of thousands of tenants in the sort of conditions that led to the untimely death from cold and mould of little Awaab Ishak in Rochdale.
Investment in housing-led regeneration has its own paybacks, with beneficial side-effects that are not always so apparent from the building of new homes: the most hard-hit local economies get a boost; much-needed opportunities emerge for training and apprenticeships for the growing number of NEETs; communities can see and engage with the renewal of their local environments; health and well-being can improve for populations with the worst health records; and hope and aspiration, after years of neglect, can be restored. The Renew project, representing the social housing providers in the northern regions, shows what can be done using devolved powers and funding for pilot schemes. In Greater Manchester, mayoral development corporations—MDCs—with wide powers are busy with major regeneration projects.
In relation to private sector properties in urgent need of upgrading, Blackpool Council, for example, is putting pressure on the worst landlords and taking direct action of its own through a local housing company. Elsewhere, community-based housing organisations are acquiring and modernising the poorest-quality private rented housing. So much more could be done to improve neglected estates and neighbourhoods if regeneration were mainstreamed once again. Maybe the Government’s overdue long-term housing strategy will address this omission. Perhaps the shift in powers to the mayors and combined authorities will lead to greater priority for regeneration activity. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister when the promised national housing strategy can now be expected.
Finally, I will comment on the state of the housing association sector. Mergers and takeovers have led to fewer and much larger organisations, which has brought some downsides. This trend has obvious financial advantages—lower borrowing costs and economies of scale in procurement and employment—but it has meant that some housing associations are geographically widely dispersed and decision-making is distant from those affected. Some of the sector’s broader, housing-related, place-shaping activity—local employment schemes, partnerships with local homelessness charities, civic engagement of staff in local affairs, et cetera—has unfortunately been lost. In return for the help that the Government are now providing and the extra support from this Bill, I hope more of the housing associations will behave like the best in class and increase their sensitivity to their tenants and communities at the local level, regaining the trust and confidence that this sector needs and deserves.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, on a matter to do with housing. I begin by declaring my interest: I am the chair of the Church Housing Association, a recently formed, not-for-profit social housing provider that we are seeking to build, literally and metaphorically, on the five core values that were set out in the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s commission on housing, Coming Home, which was debated in your Lordships’ House a few years ago. Those values—that social housing should be safe, secure, sustainable, sociable and satisfying—provide a set of tests against which any proposed legislation could be measured, hence I warmly welcome the Bill. It will make social housing better.
Housing is a fundamental human right. It is a foundation for other core rights, including things such as health, dignity, sanitation and sometimes the right to life itself. The Bill rightly addresses the concern that there is not enough stock in this country to house those in need.
We have heard some facts—I will offer one or two more. In June 2025, more than 172,000 children in England alone were living in temporary accommodation. For the last six years, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor to the deaths of at least 74 children. Those are all government figures.
Lack of secure housing, moreover, is damaging our children’s ability to learn. I speak to secondary school heads in Manchester who are having to make special provision for study for children who have no permanent home, who sometimes arrive at school in the morning not knowing where a taxi will take them home to in the evening. We cannot allow this to continue.
Protecting and increasing our housing stock is an essential step to reduce the waiting list. That is why I welcome the Bill’s commitment to exempt newly built homes from the right-to-buy scheme and to streamline processes that will incentivise local councils to build more homes. Indeed, I applaud what is already happening, such as the increased investment in building housing for social rent that Manchester City Council has made in the last couple of years, supported by the Manchester Social Housing Commission, which it has been my privilege to chair. Yet, while building new homes and reducing leakage from the social housing sector are important, it is clear that the condition of our existing housing—as has already been mentioned—poses a very real threat to the health, well-being and lives of many social housing tenants. Here I turn, as others have, to concerns not adequately addressed by the Bill.
The measures introduced in Awaab’s law, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to, were a direct response to the death of a young child in my diocese. These measures hold social housing providers to account for addressing the root causes of damp and mould, not just blaming them on the lifestyle of the tenants. Among those living in these conditions, the proportion with an occupant suffering from a health condition has now increased to 47%. Almost half of those living in those conditions have a health condition.
Alongside mould and damp, we are approaching a decade on from the Grenfell tragedy, yet too many people are still living in homes that do not provide adequate protection against fire. Some 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding have not yet even begun remediation works. These are official figures. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Best, by inviting the Minister to set out for us how the Government intend to prioritise the safety and condition of existing homes alongside the delivery of new housing.
I turn from stock condition to poverty. We are all created equal. We should all be afforded equal opportunities. For children growing up in poverty, their aspirations for the future are overshadowed by the constant burden their families face in making ends meet, confronting food insecurity or being unable to afford to heat the home properly. I have had to address this House too many times on the growth of food banks. If the Government do not prioritise making social homes more affordable—genuinely affordable does not mean 80% of market rent, and when we define it like that we are not only insulting Britain’s households; we are abusing the Oxford English Dictionary—and if we do not address this problem, the cycle of poor life outcomes for today’s children, tomorrow’s adults, will only continue.
Poverty is a problem not only for social renters but for those in the private sector. Currently, more than 45% of private renters are living in unaffordable housing, according to IPPR research. Might the Government consider introducing double-lock rent caps in private sector housing, not only to slow the growing number of private renters who are falling into poverty but to free up social housing stock by making this sector more accessible to low-income families?
Sometimes, over time, the unintended side-effects of what was a well-intended piece of legislation—it might have done some good in its time—can come to outweigh the merits of the policy behind it. Some 40% of properties acquired through right to buy appear in the private rented sector within 10 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded us, they do so at much higher rents and often much poorer standards, both of physical maintenance and support for the tenants in them. That was not the intention of right to buy but that has been the outcome.
At the same time, it is now beyond any remaining doubt that subsidies to enable first-time buyers to get on to the housing market have done little more than further inflate property values. That is all they have done; there was a report on it in just the last week or so. The real beneficiaries have been the volume builders and those with significant capital already in property. Money that could and should have been spent building more social housing or keeping rents lower has been wasted on pointless political posturing. Can we be assured that that era is now over?
This housing crisis is not just a question of supply but of dignity, health and justice. The Church of which I am proud to be a part is committed to its long-standing role in building communities and supporting social cohesion. But families cannot participate in community life when their most basic needs are not being met. This Bill will be judged not only by the number of homes it delivers but by whether those homes enable renters to feel safe and secure, plan for their futures and nurture their communities.
Back in 1990, as a young parish priest, inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Best—he was not a Lord then but he was a great campaigner for housing—I wrote to my then bishop. I warned him that the crisis of unemployment that had plagued the 1980s was about to be superseded by a crisis in social housing. Some 25 years on, that crisis is still with us. This Bill can be a big step towards addressing it. I look forward to its progress.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who has consistently championed the social housing sector.
Social housing is a vital national asset built to provide families on low incomes with a safe, secure, affordable place to live. After decades of marginalisation and underfunding, the tragic reality is that thousands of families still lack a safe and affordable home. Over 170,000 children currently live in temporary accommodation. I am proud that after a regrettable period of decline and marginalisation under successive Conservative Governments, this Government are once again asserting the value and importance of social housing. The Social Housing Bill is an important pillar of this work.
My noble friend has emphasised the targeted aims of the Bill. I welcome its narrow drafting. It is clear and precise. It aims to achieve three clear and laudable objectives: protect existing social housing stock, protect victims of domestic abuse living in social housing, and clarify the statute book.
With 1.3 million households on social housing wait lists, all social housing sold off under the right to buy should have been replaced, like for like. That has just not happened under the present system. In its current form, right to buy has unsustainably depleted the stock of social homes and restricted confidence to build and invest, depriving so many families of a vital resource.
Of course, social housing residents’ ability to buy their own home has an important role to play, but this must be done sustainably, protecting social housing stock where necessary and with clear safeguards against misuse. Measures in the Bill to increase the qualifying period to 10 years, reform discounts, and introduce a 35-year exemption for newly built social housing will help to ensure that the policy is more sustainable and offers better value for taxpayers’ money.
These reforms will also give councils greater confidence to invest in new supply, which is essential if we are to begin reversing decades of lost stock. This is particularly important in rural areas, where pressures are especially acute. Research from English Rural found that while 17% of the population live in rural communities, they receive just 7% of new affordable homes. Over 306,000 people are currently on rural waiting lists, and at current building rates it would take nearly 90 years to clear that backlog.
Rural development is always more challenging due to the availability of land, amenities and resources, but low replacement rates against right-to-buy sales have exacerbated these challenges further. I therefore strongly support the provisions in Clause 7 to disapply right to buy in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. These changes will help safeguard vital social homes and better reflect the realities of constrained rural housing markets.
Among the most important protections are those contained in Part 2 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill, which confer new protections on victims of domestic abuse who live in social housing. We know that housing plays an important role in cases of domestic abuse, where housing uncertainty can be used by perpetrators to exert control. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people who are experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Social landlords are well placed to identify domestic abuse and prevent escalation through offering support and guidance to survivors of domestic abuse, but the present legal framework does not always allow them to respond effectively, particularly in cases involving joint tenancies.
That is why the National Housing Federation has said that it strongly supports measures in this legislation which allow survivors to apply to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy, giving the survivors greater housing security and the ability to remain safely in their homes where appropriate. This is a significant and welcome step forward. It is, however, a highly complex and sensitive area in practice. It will be critical to work closely with social housing providers on the implementation of these changes. We need to ensure that staff are fully equipped to protect victims and support them in rebuilding their lives. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit more about the Government’s plans to support the implementation of these changes?
Finally, I turn to the topic of social homes being sold—referred to as “disposals” in the sector. We know that England has some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Many properties are ageing, require significant investment or no longer meet modern standards or regulatory requirements. It is understandable that there are concerns about any social homes being sold in this context. However, it is important to note that disposals act as a standard part of responsible asset management. Crucially, proceeds from these sales are reinvested to build new, higher-quality homes and improve housing stock. In some cases, a single sale can fund the building of more than one home, supporting the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes this Parliament.
The number of social homes owned by housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26,000 per year for the last three years. The sale of housing association homes out of the social rented sector has therefore not resulted in any net loss of social homes. For some properties, regeneration could be a desirable alternative to disposals. The noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised this point very effectively. I suggest that the Government could support housing associations and councils in increasing the rate of regeneration by introducing greater flexibility on net additionality rules in the social and affordable homes programme and providing other forms of assistance.
The Government’s plan to put in place the foundations for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing can deliver lasting change and finally turn the tide on the housing crisis. The package of long-term investment announced at the spending review last year was the first step towards doing so. This legislation is another. I echo the National Housing Federation in saying that this legislation
“demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting the supply of social housing for future generations”.
I hope that the social housing sector continues to work in partnership with government to deliver a decade of renewal for social housing and ultimately to build the homes that our country so desperately needs.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will develop part of the argument she adduced—that there is sometimes a case for disposing of social housing.
I want to address the ongoing controversy whereby the right-to-buy policy led directly to the shortage of social housing. I voted for the 1980 Housing Act; more relevant is that I was a junior Minister under Michael Heseltine and was responsible for implementing it and then defending it. That brought me into conflict with the late Baroness Hollis—then Councillor Hollis and chairman of the housing committee in Norwich—who refused to implement the policy. I had to put in the commissioners and suspend her. We met again 30 years later, when I joined your Lordships’ House. She was emollient, if unrepentant, and we became good friends.
I understand the argument that all the receipts should have been reinvested in social housing. But suppose I had gone to Geoffrey Howe, the Chancellor at that time, and put that argument to him. He would have said, “George, that is not how it works. When we privatise Heathrow and Gatwick, we don’t build more airports. When we privatise the docks, we don’t build more docks. What happens is that the money goes into a pot, along with North Sea oil, income tax and everything else, and there is then a collective decision about how to spend it. You, George, have inherited from the outgoing Labour Government very generous provision for social housing and you’re telling me you want to keep the billions from right-to-buy receipts all to yourself, not just for this year but for every subsequent year. That would be wholly unfair to the Secretary of State for Health, who cannot sell the hospitals and add to his baseline, and to the Secretary of State for Defence, who cannot sell the nuclear deterrent”. I would have come up against the policy that dare not speak its name in the Treasury—namely, hypothecation.
Under hypothecation, all the fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would go to transport and be spent on potholes, and health would have to survive on parking charges and prescription charges. So there are very good reasons why all the capital receipts did not automatically go back to the department that generated them. I see a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, smiling—if not nodding.
Even if I had won that argument and all the receipts had been kept by my department, it would have made no sense in housing policy terms to allow each local authority to spend 100% of the receipts on housing. In the 1980s, all the receipts stacked up in the shire districts, where there were houses with gardens and the housing pressure was much less, and there were relatively few receipts in the inner cities, where the predominant stock was flats. The policy of requiring the local authority to reduce its debt by 80% of the receipts enabled the department to recycle the receipts. We would say to South Bucks, for example, “You’ve got to use all the receipts to reduce your debt”, and to Islington or Tower Hamlets or Southwark, “You can increase your debt by the corresponding amount in order to invest in housing”. It was a progressive policy, which annoyed a lot of Conservative councillors, but which should be supported by the other side.
Right to buy brought additional benefits in addition to being popular—so popular that no one has ever repealed it. All the evidence that I saw at the time showed that those households that exercised their right to buy looked after their property better than the cash-strapped local authority they had bought it from—they had a real incentive to do that as home owners—so the nation’s housing stock benefited. Also, the newly enfranchised residents on the estates joined forces with existing tenants’ associations, or in some cases set up new ones, to campaign for improved conditions on the estates, and everyone benefited from that.
I would also argue that there were wider social benefits in that the predominantly single-tenure estates became pepper-potted with owner-occupiers, leading to more diverse and less polarised communities. On some estates there are now third-generation owner-occupiers—a continuity that the Minister herself commended in her opening speech.
However, I have to concede that there was one consequence of the policy that we did not foresee and which has done much to discredit it. Once the properties had changed from tenancy to owner-occupation, we assumed that the owners would stay there. The whole thrust of Conservative policy was to promote owner-occupation. We did not envisage, nor did I personally want, properties then to be bought by landlords charging market rents, often underpinned by housing benefit. For the first decade or so, that was not actually an issue; it became an issue after 1996, when buy-to-let mortgages were introduced.
This is not the right time to argue whether it makes sense for the nation’s savings to be spent buying existing assets—pushing up the price—or to be invested in government stock and then in infrastructure, or in stocks and shares and then in industry, providing wealth and jobs. That imbalance is now being slowly put right by making ISAs more attractive than buy to let and encouraging institutional investment in new build.
In conclusion, what basically happened is that the right-to-buy receipts went into the pot. No homes were lost; the tenure simply changed. The pot was then spent on schools, hospitals, aircraft carriers and the rest, from which everyone benefited. The decision not to spend enough on social housing after 1980 was a collective decision by successive Governments after considering all the other demands on the public purse, as the Minister said in opening. I end where I started. The right-to-buy policy was not inevitably going to lead to the loss of social housing. The consequence of enfranchising millions of tenants has been a bonus. The lack of social housing, as I said, is a reflection on successive priorities by successive Governments.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and although I may not agree with all his points, I certainly respect his experience and views. I start by declaring that I work for the Local Government Association. I support the Bill, not only as a Member of this House but as someone who has spent years working at the coalface of housing need as a councillor who led on regeneration and planning for eight years, becoming one of London’s largest housebuilders. I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the importance and value of regeneration.
I welcome the Bill and other measures that the Government have implemented to speed up housebuilding to address the housing crisis, including the £39 billion for social housing. Social housing is a foundation on which people build lives. It is where children grow up and go to school; it is where families such as mine put down roots and where communities are built. When we allow social housing stock to erode, we are not simply making a balance sheet error, we are narrowing life chances. As mentioned by my noble friend the Minister, the numbers are stark. It is a source of shame that more than 175,000 children are in temporary accommodation. More than 1.3 million households across England are currently on waiting lists for a social home. We simply do not have enough homes.
The temporary accommodation bill alone should give us pause for concern. Government figures show that council spending on temporary accommodation reached £2.8 billion in 2024-25. This is not just a housing argument; it is a fiscal one. Research by the National Housing Federation and Shelter found that the government funding needed to build the social homes we require would be fully paid back within 11 years through savings on housing benefit, NHS costs and homelessness expenditure, and additional tax receipts from construction employment.
If the case is so clear, why have we not built? I know from direct experience why councils find this so difficult. Barriers such as the state of the housing revenue account, the cost of public borrowing and workforce shortages have all been challenges to councils which want to build, and I welcome the steps the Government have taken to start to address these. Then there is right to buy, which the Bill rightly addresses. Right to buy was introduced in 1980, and today there are more than 131,000 fewer affordable homes than there were at the start, driven largely by the failure to replace homes under that scheme. The measures in the Bill to extend eligibility to 10 years, exempt newly built stock for 35 years, and provide a perpetual right for first refusal on resale are genuine improvements and I welcome them wholeheartedly.
There is, of course, a rich irony in the fact that those on the opposite Benches who argue most loudly for the right for every family to own their own home have, at the local level, spent years frustrating the very development that would give families somewhere to live in the first place. We have all watched the pattern: support for housing in principle but objection to housing in practice—a planning application in a leafy ward that somehow never quite gets backed. The former Government removed mandatory housing targets and saw new approvals collapse accordingly in precisely those areas where housing need was greatest.
We on this side of the House believe that you cannot claim to support housebuilding while blocking homes at every planning meeting. This Bill is for those who are willing to follow this through. Addressing supply must meet demand. I offer two suggestions. The first concerns a replacement ratio. Parliamentary scrutiny has previously found that the system should ensure that any home sold via right to buy is replaced like for like, with local authorities retaining all receipts to enable them to do so. A one-for-one replacement principle could be built into the framework, even implemented flexibly over a defined period, to give councils and communities the assurance that every sale is matched by a new beginning.
The second concerns the flexibility of right-to-buy receipts. I raise this as someone who has seen at first hand how the current rules interact with the real complexity of delivering housing at scale. A major regeneration scheme—the kind that generally transforms a community, delivering hundreds of homes alongside schools, green spaces and new streets—may take five, seven or even 10 years from conception to completion. Planning processes can be lengthy and viability assessments contested. Development timelines are not solely within a council’s control. Restrictions on the use of right-to-buy receipts have been identified as a key barrier to council housebuilding and, although temporary flexibilities have been introduced at various points, they have not provided the certainty or permanence that councils need to plan with confidence.
When receipts must be spent within fixed timelines or face clawback, councils are pushed to smaller, faster projects that may not represent the best long-term value, rather than larger, more complex schemes that transform communities. Allowing councils permanent flexibility to combine right-to-buy receipts with other government grants and to spend receipts at a timescale that reflects local development realities, particularly when councils can demonstrate that receipts are committed to a named scheme, could be a way forward.
This is a good Bill. It is overdue and it is needed. But good housing policy is not made in this Chamber alone; it is made when legislation is matched by resources, by long-term partnership between central and local government, and by a shared willingness at every level—local, national, urban, suburban and rural—to say yes to the homes that our country needs. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 homes a year are needed to meet demand. This Bill is another step which this Government are taking. Every measure that we take in this House to bring those homes a little closer is a measure worth taking. I look forward to engaging with this Bill and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I am no expert in housing, as many people in the Chamber are; if some of my questions and comments appear naive, it is because I am reflecting what many of the general public think and understand about social housing.
It is 30 years since I was on the board of a housing association, which was in inner east London. I joined because of my realisation of the importance of housing to the general health of the population, which was more my direct concern. I have never forgotten the enthusiasm and commitment of my colleagues on the housing association board, and I have never doubted that we will always need some kind of social subsidised housing. I am going to keep saying “subsidised”, because it is most important we remember that the taxpayer is funding the majority of this social housing. The population at large do not understand the terms “social housing” and “affordable housing”. It is really confusing to get to grips with what they mean these days. Who is paying? Who is responsible? Do the general public know what they are?
I should declare that I was a beneficiary when the right to buy was introduced. We were renting a flat in the Barbican tower block—indeed, I still live there. In those days, the City of London Corporation rented them out at economic market rents. We were council tenants, of course, and we benefited phenomenally from this extraordinary policy. If the private rented sector had been able to use the receipts, or if receipts had been collected from right to buy and then spent on other social housing or on private rental markets that would produce better quality housing, all would have been fine, but that never happened, because of the very reasonable political reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Young—and I understand the hypothecation problem. We have lost so much housing stock, which has been pretty catastrophic. It has left an extraordinary number of people without any hope of being able to afford a home of their own, either rented or purchased.
I welcome the narrow focus of this Bill and shall certainly support it, although I wonder whether the years of eligibility as a criteria for purchase should be even longer than is being suggested. I am also concerned about the quality of new homes, both private and social rented, but I was reassured when the Minister waved her somewhat daunting spreadsheet of quality improvement work at us Cross-Benchers at a meeting. I shall say no more about that at the moment but to wish her luck in getting all those brown ticks done.
We can debate the other provisions of the Bill in greater detail in Committee, but a huge number of rental properties remain empty. What are the Government doing about that when they are proposing that we should have a lot more social homes and are thinking about where they should be built? We have already heard about the somewhat catastrophic loss in rural areas, where people have had to move away. I wonder whether we have the balance right, and I am particularly concerned about empty homes.
Like many people, I wonder whether the Government should examine more closely why such a high proportion of our population lives in social rented housing compared to the rest of Europe. The Netherlands is higher still, at 20% of housing provision, and we are, as we heard, running at about 16%. Are the Government giving any thought to this issue? I understand that the reasons are historical and, sadly, ideological, but I question whether it is necessary or desirable. It seems to me that people staying in social rented accommodation long after they can afford to move out is an imposition on other taxpayers. I remember that the Cameron Government tried to introduce legislation to change this, and it failed for practical reasons and because of disincentives in the system. But when you are struggling to finance a steep mortgage, it comes as a bit of a shock to discover that the relatively well-off neighbours have such a public benefit. Security of tenure is one thing—giving people security to know where they are going to live is good—but retention of the financial benefits for many years over those which are necessary is quite another.
If the Government want to ensure that social housing policy is fair for all people, they must surely tackle homes left empty and question who is occupying those that are available. I repeat that I shall support this narrow Bill, so let us get it done.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, as an adviser to development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cheshire and the Thames Valley, and as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation.
I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, because she made a number of interesting points, one of which I want to add to, if I may. I was pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who said many things that will help to inform our debate and get us beyond what might otherwise be an unhelpful polarisation between those of us who believe from experience that the right to buy is a successful policy that should be continued and those who for other, perhaps ideological, reasons want to restrict the right to buy.
There is a practical point about how right to buy should be managed. For example, if the Government wanted to reduce the discount and chose to do so, there would be an unwelcome practical implication for those who had legitimate expectations that they would be able, after a number of years, to exercise the right to buy. I think they should, at the very least, be able to continue to exercise the right to buy on the understanding that they would continue to occupy the house for a long period, and that if they cannot commit to that, or to the right of repurchase by the local authority, they should not be able to exercise the right to buy. There are ways in which we should be able to support right to buy, rather than simply restrict it.
The point I want to come back to, which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, helpfully made, is the distinction between affordable and social housing. I hope that where we are at the moment in the debate on this Bill and associated issues is looking at increasing the supply of homes for social rent. I am afraid we are very far from where we need to be. From my work in development forums, I know that many developers are unable to secure purchases by housing associations and registered providers of contracts for the supply of affordable housing. That is impinging on the number of homes that are available for social rent. Roughly one-quarter of what they are providing is for social rent, so that is probably 30,000 affordable homes coming through the Section 106 route, of which probably no more than 7,000 are homes for social rent.
Homes England is, correctly, pursuing an increased social and affordable housing programme, but, even if that achieves the 60% social rent composition that Homes England is aiming for, that would mean a maximum of 18,000 homes for social rent a year, and I will be very surprised if it manages to reach that figure. We are probably looking at no more than about 25,000 homes for social rent in total, but the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, who is not presently in her place, was talking about housing federations and the like looking for up to 90,000 additional homes for social rent. I do not know how we can possibly reach that figure.
However, I say to the Minister that if it is not even necessarily part of the scope of this Bill, it is important for us to look at additional ways in which we can generate capital to support investment in additional, affordable and, in particular, social housing. I suggest that she has a look at the Legal & General report, published in April this year, which looked at the possibility of, as it were, energising the latent value in the social housing stock for the purposes of reinvestment into new social housing. That is what many noble Lords on all sides of the House are looking for. The report essentially proposes that housing associations—and the same principle could be applied to council housing stock, where it exists—take the latent value and say, “Let’s transfer this as a large-scale transfer into a partnership provider”, where the partnership is with institutional investors who are looking for long-term investments with an index-linked source of income, which, of course, is what we now have by virtue of the CPI plus-1% increase in rents.
So there is the possibility of generating additional capital that can then be reinvested back, directly through the housing associations, into additional affordable housing. Legal & General’s estimate is that, if this were done for about one-third of the total housing stock in housing associations, it could lead to as many as 8,000 additional social homes per year, representing roughly one-third of the total of affordable homes that could be funded as a consequence of such a major project. Time does not permit me to talk more about this but I hope that Ministers will look actively at it. I would be pleased if they were able, with officials, to engage with this report and its possibilities, and with the housing associations and the local authority sector, to see whether we can create a new programme that would deliver that degree of value, because at the moment we have housing revenue accounts that are cash constrained and housing registered providers who are cash constrained with all the costs of maintenance, building and so on. We have to find ways in which we can realise their asset value in order to overcome their present cash constraints.
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak at the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Even if we may not agree on everything, there was much in his remarks that I agree with.
I strongly support this Bill, both its broad intention and its specific provisions. Like my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, my support is rooted in my own experience and that of many of the people I served as a local councillor. When I was growing up and my family needed social housing, we were able to move into a decent-quality flat in south London near to where we had lived before, shortly before I took my GCSEs. Frankly, I dread to think what it would have meant for me and my studies, for my parents and their work and for my brother and his medical care if we had had to move much further afield to poor-quality housing. In my time as a local councillor, I met many families living in conditions that clearly were not suitable for them. They were desperate for an opportunity, like I had in the late 1990s, to get into decent social housing where they could thrive.
I begin with that because I think it is important, in discussing social housing, to put people at the centre and to keep in mind health and the wider implications of where you live. As other noble Lords have touched on, the home is one of the most important determinants of the health of people of all ages. We know that, for children in particular, staying in low-quality temporary accommodation can mean disrupted access to primary care, delays in accessing developmental support, poorer mental health outcomes and reduced educational attainment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also mentioned—and that is before we get to elevated risks of respiratory illnesses and other conditions. The breadth of the health impacts that we see in families living in inappropriate accommodation is substantial and accumulates, and it deserves to be named here. I ask noble Lords to keep those health impacts in mind throughout this debate.
I recognise that increasing the supply of social homes is not the only route to addressing those harms—many noble Lords have mentioned the conditions of housing—but the context we are in gives us good reason to do what we can with this Bill to increase and protect the supply of social homes.
Before I discuss the Bill itself, I acknowledge, as others have highlighted, that it is properly understood as part of a much wider programme. The 10-year rent resettlement, the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme and the mechanisms to lower borrowing costs for social housing providers, both private and public, are serious measures, and I gladly welcome them.
Turning to the Bill itself, the reforms to right to buy are comprehensive and strike the right balance. The increase in the eligibility threshold from three to 10 years, the reforms to discounts, extending the right of first refusal on the onward sale of formal right to buy properties, and the exemption of newly built social homes from right to buy for 35 years represent proportionate steps that address some of the aspects of right to buy that have proved most damaging to maintaining levels of social housing stock, while maintaining what I agree is a valued route to home ownership for long-standing tenants.
I welcome the provisions protecting social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. During my time as a local councillor, I saw the profound dilemma that current laws can put victims in, forced to choose between living in danger or losing their home. I am really encouraged that the Bill stands to help to address those problems, and I know it has been welcomed across your Lordships’ House.
Taking these and other provisions of the Bill together, I share the hopes of my noble friend the Minister that they will ultimately increase the supply of much-needed social housing across the country. However, I want to speak to an issue that several noble Lords have mentioned. Shelter’s 2024 report on the need for social housing, Brick by Brick, drawing on data from MHCLG, estimates that 260 social homes were lost over the decade prior. In that context, the Government’s wider programme currently indicates an ambition to support the building of at least 180,000 social rent homes over the next decade, but it seems that these plans would not even take us back to where we were. I recognise that the Government’s programme is ambitious, particularly by recent standards, but the scale of need raises the question of what the Government’s success measures are for the Bill and whether their plans are sufficient to give us the social housing we need, according to the Government’s own estimates.
I turn to more of the detail of the Bill, although I note that this is not the time to do too much of that. I welcome the requirement for private registered providers to notify local authorities and other known social housing providers in the area before they dispose of social housing. This may be a misunderstanding on my part, but could my noble friend the Minister explain why the Bill does not seek to introduce a right of pre-emption here, as exists with formal right to buy homes? The same supply impact on our social housing stock applies in both circumstances, and a four-week notice window seems quite tight for giving social housing providers enough time to decide and then act on the opportunity to secure a social home.
In conclusion, I look forward to seeing the Bill return in Committee and to better understanding the success measures against which it will be judged. Most importantly, I look forward to seeing the necessary steps being taken to achieve marked improvements in the supply of decent social housing in this country, and to the health benefits that will follow from that for individuals and families who are so desperately in need of it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I empathise totally with the Minister because I too grew up in a council home. It was in Moulsecoomb, Brighton, and was part of the “Homes for Heroes” development in 1925. My parents moved into it probably 25 years later. The welcome feeling of stability, security and community—of having shops close by and a garden—and being able to plan for the future was amazing. I still remember it incredibly fondly, so I welcome the Bill because any measure that strengthens social housing, protects tenants and begins to repair decades of neglect is a step in the right direction. For example, the reforms to right to buy are long overdue, while stronger protections for survivors of domestic abuse are important and necessary. I also welcome the Government’s continued recognition that social housing must be part of the solution to the housing crisis we are in, but, while I welcome the Bill, it does not match the scale of the problem.
I am going to repeat figures that have already been mentioned, but they bear repeating because they are so shocking. We are facing a housing emergency—not in the future, but an emergency happening now that is already devastating lives across the country. More than 1.3 million households sit on social housing waiting lists. Councils are spending billions of pounds every year on temporary accommodation. Families are raising children in cramped rooms with no security or stability, and young people are of course finding themselves locked out of affordable housing altogether. One in 50 Londoners is homeless and living in temporary accommodation. Among children, it is one in 21. How have we got to those figures when we live in one of the wealthiest countries—and wealthiest cities—in the world?
The Government describe this Bill as the next step in the housing renewal programme but the steps are simply too small. The private sector has never built enough houses, and Thatcher’s right to buy has cost the taxpayer millions. The Government’s housing benefit bill has gone up and as social housebuilding has collapsed to historically low levels, instead of the taxpayer building and owning, the taxpayer now provides a subsidy for private landlords.
We need to build council housing that people can be proud to call a home and that is warm in winter, cool in summer, free of damp and at a reasonable rent. In an age of billionaires, it is big corporations and investors which have driven up the price of homes that they call assets. The housing market is broken and the corporate investors have broken it. We cannot solve the housing crisis by slowly reducing the rate at which we lose social housing stock. We have to start providing homes at scale again, both through new homes in the right places and by supporting councils to bring back what is already available. Obviously, history shows us that this can be done. After the Second World War, more than 150,000 social homes were built every year. Councils were supported to build them, finance was provided and housing was treated as the essential national infrastructure that it should be. We need that same ambition now.
The Government’s reforms to right to buy are welcome but should have happened years ago. I also welcome the Bill’s provisions relating to survivors of domestic abuse: the principle that victims should not be forced to lose their home because of someone else’s abuse is absolutely right. However, I am concerned that some of these measures might not work in practice. They rely heavily on outcomes in a criminal justice system that too often fails victims of domestic abuse. Many survivors never see a conviction; many never even see a prosecution. We need to hear from the Government what alternative forms of evidence and protection can be used so that survivors are not excluded.
Then there is the question of affordability. A survivor may obtain sole tenancy rights, but what happens if they cannot actually meet the rent on a single income? We must also remember that removing a perpetrator from a property does not automatically make a survivor safe. Post-separation abuse is a reality experienced by thousands of women, so they will probably need some support for these tenancy changes. Young people experiencing homelessness, leaving care or escaping unsafe homes also need access to social housing, yet the stock available to them continues to shrink. The reforms in this Bill alone will not change that reality.
The Bill contains worthwhile measures and I will support its progress, obviously while offering helpful advice and ideas at the same time, but we should not pretend that it meets the scale of the problem in the housing emergency that faces this country. What frustrates me most is that the Government have seen that there is a problem but are not doing enough to actually fix it. This should have been the Bill that launched a new generation of council housing by committing to new build and the refurbishment of older housing stock at a rate we need. Instead, it feels like an opportunity only half taken.
The housing emergency demands urgency and ambition. Millions of people cannot afford for us to settle for anything less. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, the Government will listen carefully and find ways to strengthen it, because the country needs more than baby steps to reform a broken system. It needs a social housing revolution, and this Government must be braver.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot to welcome in this Bill but I must admit that after Clauses 1 to 4 and Clause 6, I then start to find it concerning. I say that because I am all for trying to make sure that when people buy a home for which they have been paying rent, there are good reasons for that to happen. I cannot explain it any better than my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham did earlier, but there is no doubt that being freed from whatever rules and restrictions the council or housing provider have—and being able to do what you want in your own home—was a big liberation for people. As a consequence, I am concerned about the changes that are being brought in.
I start with Clause 5 and the discount being reduced to 5%, but going up to a maximum of 15%. It is my understanding that when the discount was introduced—I think it was under the Conservatives—it was 32%. It was a Labour Government in 2004 who put it up to 35% and then there were consequential increases. I really wonder why it feels as if the Government are doing everything possible in the Bill, apart from removing the right to buy, to make it difficult for people to do that. This will backfire on them, or perhaps a future Government who are not a Labour Government, when they start to realise what will happen if people are still in that social housing once they are no longer earning and have become pensioners: a lot more money will need to be paid out in housing benefit to allow people to stay in that home.
One of the reasons why it seems as if young people have given up on being able to buy a home is when they know they are paying more in rent than a mortgage would cost them. It is about getting that deposit, and the whole point of getting on to the ladder from social housing is that you have, in effect, already been helped to get on that first rung.
When I was in government in DWP, I did some work with MHCLG on a particular policy. MHCLG was never very enthusiastic about it, but it was about how we can turn what gets paid in housing benefit into, effectively, mortgage payments. It is a question of what we can do when we are already helping people to live in a particular house or flat. How can we genuinely make sure that, in effect, it becomes something that has to be done for only 30 years instead of, potentially, 60 to 70? That is why there is a real economic challenge in aspects of this Bill.
On other missing aspects, I am concerned about the blocking of rural areas. It would be useful to understand whether the Government have considered what somewhere that is not an AONB today, but is in the future, would mean to existing rights. That has happened, as we have seen an expansion of AONBs in recent years and more national parks are intended. There is also nothing to restrict the housing association or council from selling the house in question. This happened in the constituency I used to represent in Suffolk—in Orford and Aldeburgh—and the money was not being used to rebuild homes locally. It was being used to build homes up to 100 miles away. Meanwhile in local communities, no social housing was going to be left for the children of those in that housing and who wanted to stay in the area, because it was being sold off.
I recall that one of the houses was quite large and had a large garden. That is no surprise, as post World War II a lot of social houses were built with large gardens so that people would be encouraged to grow their own food. But now this particular site could easily become the site of at least two, if not three, new houses under modern designs. The only answer was, “We are putting it up for auction”. That housing association provider—I am not a big fan of Flagship and New Tide—arranged it that so that you could buy a very nice housing plot in this particular rural area, which was an AONB, if you had enough cash; the way they did the auction was that it was only available to those who could pay cash, not those who could get access to a mortgage.
If the Government are intent on stopping the right to buy on rural houses for tenants, I do not think they are going quite so far as to require councils or other housing providers to replace them—I think they are enabling it, but they have always been able to do that. But I do not think it is right, in effect, to take that out of the housing market to address the needs of people in rural areas.
Another issue here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, picked up on, is the number of empty homes. I believe that there is an annual requirement, but it is not very specific about where the empty homes are. I came across this when the new homes bonus was in place. The bonus was given to councils which built homes, but it was offset by the number of empty homes. We discovered that, in that bit of Suffolk at the time, there were over 100 empty housing association homes. It is absolutely paramount that we have more transparency on this and that, frankly, housing associations and councils are held to account. They actually decided to demolish about 30 homes so they did not count anymore. I am pleased that they did rebuild some homes there, which were well-adapted, but these are the sorts of things happening locally.
What is missing is that, if a housing association sells a house, the first dibs should go to the council, another housing provider or indeed the tenant. It should also be required that the housing association or provider replaces it locally, which means within 10 miles—we are not talking about 100 miles, as is happening with some of the housing associations and providers today.
While there are aspects I welcome, there is a lot that I do not welcome and which I think that the Government will come to regret in the future. It is no surprise that the social housing list is so high; having a subsidised rent is always very attractive, and the unfortunate break-up of families has also had an effect, as indeed have aspects of immigration. I am sure this Bill will get the careful scrutiny it needs. I will not be here for day 2 of Committee, but I reserve the right potentially to bring amendments for the first time on Report.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare my registered interests in property and as a past chair of three housing associations. I am fully supportive of this Bill. It is very rare that you find a Bill that you are so enthusiastic about, but I am because it supports my current thinking.
I certainly appreciated the intellectual arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the right to buy is not itself responsible for the diminution of our public housing stock; I accept that. But the fact is that it has led to a huge decline in public housing stock as politicians did not use the money that should have been used, and now we see the big social need for more social and public housing. It has also had unintended consequences. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, did hint at those. There is a housing estate in Winchester, in Hampshire, where I live, which is now dominated by student rented accommodation, because 40% of the stock is now back in the private rented sector. That actually makes it more difficult to keep the appearance and the pride of the estate as they should be. So, it has had unintended consequences.
I also support the extra protection for victims of abuse in this Bill; that is long overdue.
One has to see this Bill in the context of the Government’s Delivering a Decade of Renewal for Social and Affordable Housing document. The first thing that is of benefit in that is the recognition that it is a 10-year plan. Five-year plans barely get off the ground before the five years are over. I think that is important, although it puts into question whether the Government are going to achieve 1.5 million homes in five years—I do not believe they will. A 10-year plan is much more sensible. Secondly, securing a firm, stable rental income increase policy to encourage investment is very important. I supported the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that. It provides the opportunity for alternative capital sources. Thirdly, the Government’s boost to housing numbers is not enough yet but, given the financial constraints, it is a start. The other important thing in the Government’s policy is the recognition that, to get housing numbers up, you need a big contribution from the public sector and from housing associations.
In the limited time I have, I want to concentrate on three issues, which I think are important in social housing and what is needed now in the social housing sector. The first thing is to recognise that the housing market is in the doldrums, and the Government’s policy depends on half the social houses coming through the work of developers. But there is the current state of the market; in London in the last financial year, only 6,325 homes were completed. They need over 80,000. Everywhere there are unviable housing schemes because of the big increase in housing costs, the uncertainty in the market and the dominance of the six major developers, whose business models still depend on house prices rising. It is not surprising the housing market is in the doldrums.
Are the Government looking at a contingency plan if the doldrums continue? Will they be prepared to step in and buy houses from the private sector if any of the private sector builders go into administration? Would they be prepared to accelerate investment? This does not necessarily mean the total spending over 10 years but, to get the housing market moving, they may need to accelerate the investment in social housing in the short term.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who cautioned against concentrating solely on new build; improving stock is just as important. We have to remember that the tenants are actually helping to fund investment in the associations and through the council housing revenue accounts through their rents. They need to see some benefit in the stock they are living in, and we need to make sure that resources are going into this. What plans do the Government have for keeping housing providers up to the mark in improving their stock?
One final issue I would like to comment on, which is a concern to me, is the well-being of tenants and the sense of pride of community. Anyone who has been canvassing in social housing stock in recent years knows that they are also part of the alienated electorate. That is the strongest feeling you get when you go around social housing. Why is that? It is not surprising that a lot of these people are struggling to make ends meet. They are the most vulnerable in the jobs market and they are cynical of the management they experience. I have spent time in housing associations countering the view “It’s good enough for them”; it is not. They have to have the best quality of repair work and the best environment on their estates, which private estates could look up to. They also need some help and service: encouragement, through housing associations, with job training and training on IT and the use of facilities. That would actually help their housing management as well.
There is a danger in our social housing that alienation leads to non-participation and to people wanting to vote Reform. Regeneration is absolutely critical in some of these estates. So investment in improving estates must be made to show that the housing managers care. This can be done through improving landscaping, sorting out parking and reinstating support services, all of which we have accepted in the private sector but are not in public housing.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am just finishing. What plans will the Government bring forward to improve sink estates generally and restore the confidence, commitment and involvement of social tenants?
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak on the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill. I will share a story about Carla and Chloe. Some time ago, Carla became homeless following a relationship breakdown. The traumatic aftermath of this personal tragedy is hard for many of us to imagine. Two decades of homelessness ensued, with Carla searching night after night for a safe spot to sleep on London streets. She would often pick a place near to a restaurant with outdoor heaters, in a desperate attempt to find some kind of warmth in an otherwise cold world. We need this Bill for Carla and many like her.
We have rightly heard from noble colleagues about the scale of our housing crisis: 4.2 million citizens in need of social housing; 1.3 million stuck on waiting lists; and, more worrying still, 175,000 children who will go to bed again tonight in temporary accommodation. Jon Kuhrt from Hope into Action says that it is surely right to say that
“housing injustice is perhaps the greatest social policy challenge we face”.
There are communities across this country where a lack of adequate social housing is the prime reason that families are trapped in poverty and communities are struggling to thrive. By increasing the qualifying period for right to buy and introducing a 35-year exemption for newly built social homes, the Government are protecting housing stock and giving confidence to councils to build more social housing.
Also to be welcomed, as many noble Lords have mentioned, are the strengthened protections for those suffering domestic abuse. This will finally prevent victims from being forced to choose between their personal safety and the place they call home. In all this, the Bill offers a timely response to a deeply human problem.
However, there is another lesson to be learned from Carla’s story, and that is where Chloe enters. Carla’s problems went beyond matters of bricks and mortar. Although housing is an essential part of the solution that she is looking for, the most decisive need for her was pastoral care and practical support. At this point, Chloe comes in. As a caseworker for the Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields, just down the road, Chloe built a relationship with Clara. She earned her trust, helped her to access a wide range of support and services, and ultimately helped her to secure a room in a women-only hostel. The combination of a safe place to stay, if only temporarily, and someone she could depend upon has been life-changing for Carla.
In the words of Bonnie Williams, the CEO of Housing Justice,
“a home is sustained not only through tenancy law, but through relationship, trust, community and belonging”.
Complex human problems require deeply relational solutions. Alongside the Connection, the charity that helped Carla, St Martin-in-the-Fields runs the Frontline Network—the UK’s largest network of professionals and volunteers working with the vulnerably housed. The Frontline Network is generously supported by public donations to the BBC Radio 4 Christmas appeal, the world’s oldest fundraising media campaign. A recent survey of those working with people who are homeless showed that 80% of them believe that homelessness is getting worse, 50% say that they themselves are at risk of burnout, 51% say that the immense challenge they have in supporting clients is having a negative impact on their well-being, and 34% are struggling to pay their bills due to the salaries they receive not covering their cost of living.
To maximise the social and economic return on the investment outlined in this Bill, it is vital that His Majesty’s Government increase funding to those in housing associations, local authorities, charities and faith communities who provide the essential human infrastructure that will enable this legislation to change lives. It is not only flats and houses that we need. The Government should not wholly rely on charitable giving and the good will of charities to provide the decisive human interventions for those in the greatest need. Committing just a fraction of the overall budget to the human support that brilliant caseworkers such as Chloe provide would radically increase the number of sustainable tenancies while radically reducing the number of individuals and families who find housing only later to find themselves homeless all over again. This tragic back and forth comes at a crippling cost to the state and does untold damage to the lives of individuals and families. Miriam Morris of the Church Homeless Charity points out that, by investing in innovative local interventions and human-to-human support for people, we deliver much better outcomes and radically reduce our costs, both economically and socially.
Carla needs this legislation to pass. For now, Chloe is continuing to support Carla in temporary accommodation and hopes shortly to help her move into a safe and warm home of her own. She will then no doubt continue to support Carla as she sustains that tenancy. Few of us in your Lordships’ House have shared Carla’s experiences, but all of us know what it is to go through difficult times in our lives and to find someone we can truly rely upon.
I am wholly supportive of the Government’s attempts to deal with the social housing crisis through the legislation put before this House. In doing so, I look forward to hearing how we will help people like Carla by backing workers like Chloe. Alongside bricks and mortar, how will we invest in those wonderful front-line workers who provide a beautifully relational solution to a deeply human problem? If we can do that, this legislation will change many lives. What is more, we will join heroes like Chloe and play our part in helping Carla and many others both to find a house and to turn that house into a home.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly support this Bill, which will help with the operation of the right-to-buy scheme. I was doubtful about right to buy when it first came in, but I do not now support its abolition in any sense, although I recognise that in Wales and Scotland they have found it necessary to do so. But it needs to be subject to some additional measures.
I support the provisions in this Bill. I have long thought that the qualification of the length of time that a person has to be a tenant of the council before they have the right to buy has been too short, and we are addressing that. I recognise that the Bill provides that new build is not subject to the immediate right to buy for 35 years. I strongly support the provisions in this Bill relating to people suffering domestic abuse. I also recognise what others have said: it is a question not simply of giving the tenancy to the abused spouse or partner but of making sure that she—it is normally she but sometimes he—does not suffer additional abuse by finding an alternative safer location for them. These measures are important for making right to buy operate more easily and to protect existing tenants.
However, I cannot help but feel a little disappointment that the Social Housing Bill that I saw in the initial list of provision for this Session of Parliament is so limited. We have a situation in which the market in every form of tenure of housing in this country is in total crisis, and particularly the social housing element is in crisis. Thousands of people cannot ever envisage being given any social housing. We have councils that do not provide any social housing and we have numbers of people who are stuck in property that requires new input to bring it up to the safe standards that are required. We see the health of our children being endangered by the dampness and unhealthy conditions in some of our social housing. All those things need addressing, but they all need money.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said at the beginning, we need to have a guarantee that money goes back into the social housing sector. I understand the clear exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Young, as to why the need to recycle the money was not followed by successive Governments, whether it was in the hands of the Treasury or the local authorities, and we deplore that. But from now on should we not, by some mechanism or another—the Treasury, after all, has mechanisms for ensuring that departments and local authorities spend money in many different directions—establish the principle that the money received for the disposal of right-to-buy homes goes back to create greater and more improved social housing? If that is not done, we will again go through the process that the noble Lord, Lord Young, described, and end up with the fact that social housing for those who really need it is not available.
I hope that, if we require a broader housing Bill, which I hope the Minister will be able to produce in the coming months, or at least in the next Session of Parliament, there is a new approach to social housing. I do mean social housing, not the broad definition of affordable housing; the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, was absolutely right to say that that confuses the issue. We mean social housing, and we need to ensure that resources are directed to people who can deliver social housing. That requires a lot of things to happen: it requires changes in planning laws, and changes to ensure that the construction industry itself is capable of doing this, which probably requires tackling the oligopoly of big housebuilders and developers, which tend to dominate and persuade local authorities that social housing is actually not a good idea because they cannot make enough money out of it. We need to make an approach on lots of different fronts to get the new social housing delivered, but we should start from the premise that what goes out of the social housing sector should go back in. There must be an obligation on local authorities and the department to produce a new form of legislation and new mechanisms to ensure that happens.
I hope my noble friend the Minister can give me the assurance that at some time in the foreseeable future we will see another Bill to ensure that the level of social housing is kept up and that therefore we see an end to the terrible situation whereby the lack of social housing at present creates misery. A failure in housing policy for many years needs to be addressed by this Government, and I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that will indeed happen.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, that I was a previous leader and councillor for the London Borough of Bexley and vice-president of London Councils, and that I have had involvement in the Local Government Association.
I must admit that when I heard the title of this Bill, I was really quite intrigued, as in my opinion there are so many avenues it could have gone down. But for a Government who say that they want to solve the housing crisis, I was so disappointed when I read that the main focus seemed to be about the right to buy. To put that into context, I grew up on a council estate in Lewisham, in the very early days of the right-to-buy scheme. I recall the aspirational conversations of my parents and their peers that this was their opportunity to own their own homes. That discussion was not about making profits; they fully intended to remain in those homes in which they were raising their families. None of them was high earning, but they were prepared for mortgages and taking responsibility for their home and improving it.
I am sure that many from that time will recall that the first thing the majority of those people did was to change the front door—and did we not all recognise that when canvassing, years later? But it was not just the front doors, as they also had a sense of pride in their surroundings and put many hours into helping with the maintenance of the area, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referenced earlier. The other thing it did was to give them independence, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referenced, so that as they got older and circumstances changed, there were options and the possibility of moving to more appropriate accommodation to ensure that they could continue to live independent lives. That probably saved a lot in social care support that we will never recognise.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I am a supporter of the right-to-buy policy. For every story you will hear of people making profits and being greedy, we should not forget the reality of the majority of people who remained in the property, and intended to continue to do so. However, given that the Bill is supposed to be about delivering on the Government’s manifesto to prioritise the building of new social rented houses and to better protect existing stock, there seem to be a number of important aspects missing, as my noble friend Lady Scott referenced earlier.
The first one, from my perspective, is about making sure that social housing is being used by those for whom it was intended. I vividly recall a conversation with a local housing association when we were embarking on a large regeneration scheme in Bexley, when I asked how it could be sure that the people living in the properties were who they thought they were. I am afraid that digital communications and electronic banking have ended the days of the rent man calling regularly and seeing the tenants, which has meant that the system is open to abuse; the “key job”, where social housing can be sublet, is a very real risk. The man from the local housing association looked at me as if I had two heads at the time, but once the work started in earnest to establish decant need, he admitted that I was right and he was amazed at what they found.
The second aspect is the council waiting list, which has been referenced here many times this afternoon. It appears that the size of waiting lists is sometimes championed in the same way as “My dad is bigger than your dad”. However, if those lists are not regularly revisited, they will not only continue to grow but become inaccurate and lead people into a false sense of security. A regularly refreshed list means that the right priorities are used when nominations are being considered. More accurate information could also ensure that the right people are getting the nominations. Probably most importantly of all, it would mean that those on the list will have a more accurate view of the possibility of housing becoming available.
The next issue is whether tenancy of social housing should be assumed to be lifelong. The Bill seeks to repeal addressing the lifetime tenancy that was introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Is it right that high-income earners remain in subsidised housing that the less fortunate cannot access due to unavailability? While the Government suggest that addressing high-income tenants could bring about disincentives, do they really believe that? The viability of increasing the supply of new social housing, whether through new build or regeneration, needs a mature conversation, and we should recognise that regeneration means decanting, which actually makes it even more costly.
Yes, right-to-buy receipts as well as Section 106 and CIL moneys can be used, but is it sufficient? If it is not viable, does there need to be a conversation about the cost of building or the cost of not building? That needs to be a grown-up conversation. If social housing is to be created, why not seek to ensure that good tenants can be rewarded and backfill with new nominations, which could often mean downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family homes?
The cost of creating supported accommodation is not viable, either for the elderly or for others who may need support. That is short-sighted and needs addressing, again because that could free up family accommodation but also because it means pushing costs into other areas such as social care.
The proposal in the Bill that concerns me is around domestic violence. Although I agree that there is a need to address tenancy issues, the suggestion is that the perpetrator has to be convicted, which could take some time to come about, so that needs to be considered, as does whether the person who has been abused needs to move from the area. These are two things that I am sure will come out through the Bill’s passage.
Another issue is the disposal of social housing through sale. I very much agree with this proposal, as we found out that one of our local housing associations was selling ex-council properties as a consequence of seeing them pop up on auction sites. Bearing in mind that Bexley’s social housing stock is held by registered providers—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness wind up, please? She is over time.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
That means that that is actually taxpayers’ money. There are many other things that the Bill could go into. It seems a shame that the Bill presents an opportunity to address some of those issues that really impact people, but I am sure that the Minister will be open to conversations throughout its passage.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I fondly recall the times in London Councils meetings when we would sit around the table and agree on virtually everything—sadly, this will probably not be so today, but it is still a pleasure to speak after her. I am pleased to speak in support of the Social Housing Bill and in particular the restrictions which the Bill introduces on the exercise of the right to buy. In doing so, I declare my interests as non-executive chair of H4Life, in Quoin Partners and as a member of the advisory board of LHG.
There are some policies pursued by Governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic, but they were the answer to the question of a different era. Right to buy is one such policy. That does not mean that Conservatives cannot be proud of that policy, but nor does it mean that it is the right policy for today.
Let us look at the differences between then and now. In 1980, London was a city whose population was declining, down to 6.8 million from 7.5 million the previous decade. Councils had vacant council housing stock and—can noble Lords believe?—hard-to-let properties. The average property price in London was about £22,500; that is £75,000 in today’s money. For this city, the policy of right to buy met a number of challenges—the realistic aspiration which many people had of owning their own home, at a time when property prices were relatively low, and there was surplus housing stock across the capital.
Today the figures are starkly different. London’s population is 9.1 million, having risen from 8.2 million 10 years ago. That is an increase of a third from 1981. Councils have ever-increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation.
There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let; there is a housing shortage. The average property price is £542,000—more than seven times, in real terms, the cost of a home in 1980. Sadly, the aspiration of owning your own home is something which many young people regard as being a wholly unrealistic prospect. Renting their own home, rather than a room, is their property ambition.
It is in this context that we consider the Bill. It is plainly right that local authorities should be allowed to protect their existing stock when it is such a scarce and valuable commodity. I welcome the extension of the qualifying period from three to 10 years—it is clearly right. I was also struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that maybe we should be looking for a longer qualifying period.
I particularly welcome the indefinite right of first refusal, which will be given to local authorities which have had to sell property under the right to buy. Bringing former social housing stock back into use as general needs housing is often a speedy and cost-effective way to increase council housing stock. If it can be used as a way to help regenerate estates and provide more housing for future needs, that must be a good thing.
I am pleased to see the protections given to newly built stock in Clause 18. When I was leader in Southwark and we embarked upon our council housebuilding programme, which was, and remains, the largest programme in the country—a commitment to build 11,000 new homes—we were concerned that we would be building stock which we might lose relatively swiftly to right to buy. The proposed protection of that stock for 35 years will give some reassurance not only to Southwark but to those local authorities across the country which are building new stock, and it will convince them that they are right to build. I think that there is an argument for considering a longer period because quite often the cost of the build has not been repaid after those 35 years; let us look at the real-terms period when those costs will be repaid.
Many problems remain with our ability as a country to deliver the new social housing which we need—not just social housing but housing as a whole. The money spent by local authorities on building new homes is undermined by the amount which we seem content to spend on temporary accommodation and homelessness. But, importantly, with that restriction on right to buy, the Bill protects what we do have, and for that reason it should be hugely welcomed.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the part owner of rented property in West Yorkshire. In my contribution to the King’s Speech debate last month, I referenced how disappointing it was that the Government would bring forward legislation to further curtail property ownership through a diminishing right-to-buy policy. The Social Housing Bill is a narrow-minded piece of legislation which misses huge opportunities to rectify many of the ongoing issues in the social housing sector—issues that this side of the House will seek to rectify in Committee and on Report.
Property ownership is not a bad thing. It gives families a sense of security in life and a stake in society. You cannot make a modern-day case for capitalism if the individual does not own capital. I refer noble Lords to the paper commissioned by the London School of Economics in December 2024, Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy. There are some notable points to consider. The right-to-buy scheme has generated detectable, sizeable school performance gains. The policy gave rise to improved educational outcomes via improvements in the local community. The right-to-buy policy had positive effects on educational and downstream labour market outcomes. The right-to-buy experiment shows that increasing home ownership generates greater human capital accumulation.
To curtail the ability of residents in social housing to purchase property through right to buy is immoral and goes against every fabric this Government were elected to uphold. Those opposite may be surprised to know that the decision to allow local authorities to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts was made by the previous Conservative Government, and it is right. The days when local authorities were forced into pooling right-to-buy receipts on to national schemes undermined the principle of the scheme; namely, that a right-to-buy receipt be used to build new social housing to replace stock that had been purchased privately. I hope this Government will consider using this Bill to put into legislation that the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts be made permanent.
On a similar point, the Government announced that right-to-buy receipts would need to be spent by local authorities within a 10-year period. Could this legislation include an ability for local authorities to seek an exemption from the Secretary of State where they may have right-to-buy receipts linked to future regeneration schemes coming down the line? As I am sure the Minister will understand, given supply chain constraints in the construction sector, this is having a knock-on impact on local authorities.
Following my contribution in the King’s Speech debate, I reiterate my interest in the upcoming Law Commission consultation on escheat land, which is transferred to the Crown Estate. I understand the commission will look at the feasibility of transferring escheat land to public bodies other than the Crown Estate. I would welcome confirmation in the Minister’s summing up on whether her department will push for housing revenue accounts to be included in this on the basis that local authorities agreed to use such land for building social housing where practical.
Finally, Clause 9 is of concern to me, and I seek clarification on its necessity. It will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to contribute right-to-buy receipts towards national pooling schemes. Given that the Government have said they would like to keep 100% of right-to-buy receipts for local authorities, I would welcome clarification on why Clause 9 is therefore needed, unless the Government plan to reallocate localised right-to-buy receipts to national pooling schemes.
This Bill is wrong and undermines the principles of home ownership. Significant work will need to take place in Committee and on Report to bring it to a satisfactory condition.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. There have been some thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I particularly enjoyed the passionate defence and argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, for regeneration to take priority. I hope the Minister heard those comments and will respond. I will confine my remarks to welcoming provisions in the Bill relating to survivors of domestic abuse and to raising two areas that would help the Government meet their ambition of tackling housing insecurity by supporting people to remain in their tenancies and communities, as the Minister spoke about at the outset.
First, I support the provisions in the Bill for survivors of domestic abuse. The barriers people face when trying to leave an abusive household, whether navigating tenancy arrangements, securing alternative accommodation or avoiding financial penalties, can keep them trapped in dangerous situations for a very long period. Provisions to tackle that are hugely welcome. It would be good to hear more about how the Government foresee these measures working for people in practice in a timely way. I imagine that will be part of our discussions in Committee.
I will focus on two areas that I think would help the Government achieve their ambitions of supporting greater housing security. They recognise that some people need lifetime secure tenancies and are repealing mandatory fixed terms created by the 2016 Act. However, a tenancy agreement alone does not limit people’s ability to stay in their home and community. We need systemic thinking about the kinds of homes we are building—whether they are appropriate for people’s needs as they age and as our climate changes, and how we support people to maintain health and well-being throughout their life. There is nothing in the Bill about that.
When I was an MP in Brent, around half of my constituency casework was about housing. The most desperate situations almost always involved families whose needs had changed because of disability. Families had to wait years for housing that met their needs. Without it, children were dependent on others to shower, get to the toilet and even get out of their property and get to school, when they should have been exploring their independence. For adults, it limited their ability to go to work, and it limited others in their household too.
I also have some personal experience of these struggles. My husband is a wheelchair user. When we could no longer make our flat work, after a series of mishaps, including being stuck inside for a week after the lift broke and nights sleeping on the sofa after the internal stairlift went on the blink again, we were, thankfully, financially secure enough to make the move elsewhere and pay for our own adaptations. But I have other relatives whose experience has been different. One who became a wheelchair user after a serious accident got stuck in hospital for months after he was ready for discharge because no accessible social housing was available. He was discharged several times to a Travelodge, without care, as it was the only available accommodation with level entry and a wet room. Both chaotic discharges resulted in fairly rapid further emergency hospital readmissions, with all the misery and NHS cost involved.
In my role as a board member of two NHS trusts, Barts and EPUT, both listed in my register of interests, I am conscious of the pressures on NHS trusts to discharge patients and of how, too often, lack of suitable housing is the main barrier. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that one in five disabled people living in social housing is in accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs. The Centre for Ageing Better says that only 13% of homes in England in 2005 met the four most basic accessibility criteria for someone to visit or live independently in a property with dignity. Almost 13 million people may now be living in homes that do not meet their accessibility needs, with lack of accessible private accommodation only adding to the pressure on social housing lists. The Government’s recent healthy homes guidance recognises this, recommending that all new homes should meet accessible and adaptable standards under Part M4(2) of the building regs, yet the Bill contains no serious attempt to drive that transition at scale.
I will say something briefly about green space, because this too is an issue of inequality that too often disappears from housing debates. Social housing policy cannot concern itself simply with the existence of housing units in isolation from the environment around them. Where people live affects physical health, mental well-being, childhood development and community cohesion. Access to green space must not be an optional extra or the preserve of affluent neighbourhoods; it should be part of healthy social infrastructure.
The inequalities on this are stark. Research consistently shows that poorer communities and communities with higher proportions of social housing have significantly worse access to quality green space. Nearly 3 million people in England live more than a 10-minute walk from a public park, while those in deprived urban areas experience some of the worst environmental inequalities in the country. This matters because the evidence on health outcomes is overwhelming. Studies published in the BMJ have linked increased access to green space with significantly lower levels of preventable illness and premature mortality in deprived communities; in other words, access to nature is not an aesthetic nice to have, it is a core part of preventive public health policy.
There is much in the Bill that I support, but I am concerned that it lacks the scale and urgency that the situation demands and misses areas that would support the Government to meet their ambitions to tackle housing security. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness’s additional points, which need to be taken on board. I will provide a general welcome to the Bill, particularly the changes it makes to the right to buy, but I will also use this opportunity to highlight the relationship between housing tenure and the quest to provide all pensioners with an adequate income.
On the sale of social housing, I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister is not present, because I was going to say some nice things about her introductory speech. It was a powerful and effective speech which came from the heart, but with clear policy content. I almost felt like, as they do in the Commons, leaping to my feet and waving the Order Paper. It was exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from the Front Bench, and I thank her very much indeed for the way she presented the Bill. I also agree with much of what else has been said by my noble friends.
I am a long-term opponent of the right to buy. I respect my noble friends who take a broader view of the issue, and I accept that this is a fight where we have to accept what is being proposed on the mechanics of right to buy. I was impressed by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and his exposition of the justification for the right-to-buy process. The important point that he missed from his exposition, the one that does not get mentioned, is that this is fundamentally a political project on the part of the Conservative Party. It was an attempt to social engineer in the belief that it would have an adverse effect on support for the Labour Party. This is clearly a fact. In Westminster, they were caught out—and they paid the price. I was around as a local councillor at the time, with a large quantity of council housing in my estate, so I was aware of the debates that took place. It is undeniable: the political pressure for this policy was about social engineering to try to disadvantage the Labour Party. Noble Lords should not try to deny it.
It not only failed to obey the law in that particular case, but it also had a destructive effect on social housing. It also had a destructive effect on the finances of local government—the net effect on its finances was adverse. Most importantly, it had an adverse effect on the social housing stock. The end result has not been more owner-occupation; the proportion of houses owned by owner-occupiers is in long-term decline now. Instead, we are seeing this shift to expensive, low-quality private rented accommodation, much of which is ex-council stock and should be available to social renters. So let us be honest about the nature of right to buy.
I want to put this into the context of the specific issues affecting pensioners. Two weeks ago, the first report of the Second Pensions Commission was published. Much in there is about the nature of people’s tenure and the effect it has on their incomes. There are certain items in the report that are worth highlighting. It finds that
“two key groups with a higher risk of poverty are those without private pension income”—
no surprise there—
“and renters (particularly in the private sector)”.
It also goes on to tell us that
“the number of non-homeowning pensioners is expected to grow: by 2050”,
the end of its period of remit,
“half of pensioners in poverty are projected to be renters”.
The problem is particularly acute in the private rented sector, so the development and expansion of social housing is a crucial element in developing decent, adequate incomes in retirement for pensioners.
I very much hope that the ministerial team will take this on board. It will be worth them and the officials reading what the report says about social housing and the long-term impact it will have on the standard of living of pensioners. The more we are able to develop social housing and offer it at social rents, the lower the level of poverty will be among pensioners. I hope that is an objective we can all support.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate that so many people have made important points in. I declare my interests as chair of Look Ahead, a social housing provider that works with homeless people and those with mental health problems, and as a previous non-executive director of Aster and Southern housing associations.
The Bill is designed to protect existing social housing stock and to respond to long-standing challenges in the number of homes available by reducing the number of social homes sold through the right-to-buy scheme and removing significant disincentives for councils to build new supply with receipts received from such sales. The Bill is also designed as a route to home ownership for eligible long-standing tenants.
All social housing stock, as other noble Lords have said, should provide safe, secure homes for individuals and families in which to live. As so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, evidence demonstrates that there is a significant relationship between people’s physical and mental health and the security of a well-maintained flat or house in which to live.
The new consumer standard for social housing is resulting in greater investment in many of our current homes, but that actually means that many housing associations are building fewer newer homes because of the investment in current stock.
As many other noble Lords have said, there have been opportunities for people to buy their social homes at a substantial discount. Though in principle an extremely good concept, we know that it has been open to abuse through individuals exercising the right to buy, then subletting and ultimately using the increase in property value to benefit other family members; or through some tenants even borrowing money from unscrupulous lenders to purchase their homes, then being held to ransom, in effect, and forced to sell their homes at less than market value to repay the debt to those lenders. This effectively makes the so-called purchasers homeless, or results in them having to move to a less suitable property, with any remaining funds they have available after such a transaction.
The new Bill will increase the minimum qualifying period for exercising the right to buy for secure tenants from the current three-year period to a 10-year tenancy. That may result in individuals who can do so saving a deposit and choosing to leave their social homes and buying independently or through a shared ownership arrangement, thus releasing social housing provision for those on the waiting list.
However, the proposed Act makes little mention of tenants dwelling under a shared ownership arrangement, except regarding disposals notification requirements. Can the Minister indicate whether His Majesty’s Government could consider an amendment to the Bill for people who have bought a percentage of their property through shared ownership and paid rent on the other element of their home for 10 years also to be granted a discount reduction of 5% on the remaining property value after the 10-year qualifying period?
Many shared ownership tenants, particularly single people, have gone down this route due to their inability to access rented social housing. A change to enable shared owners to be part of a discount scheme would include many essential workers, such as paramedics or teachers, who could then take advantage of the proposed scheme. Indeed, the optimist in me thinks that it may encourage young people in essential occupations to stay in expensive areas that are hard to recruit to, when they have purchased a shared ownership property, as they feel they could get a discount at a later date. Depending on the Minister’s response to this issue, I hope to work with others in this House on an amendment to reflect parity of discounts for shared ownership residents. I welcome the content of the Bill and passionately believe that it will result in fewer families in more expensive private rental accommodation or, in worst case scenarios, living in bed and breakfasts due to a lack of availability of social housing stock in the area in which they live.
Finally, can the Bill make provision for councils to consider purchasing additional social housing stock that is currently vacant? The latest data, to which I was so kindly referred by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—I received her note only this afternoon—states:
“The overall number of unsold units increased”,
by December of last year, “by 11%” from the previous quarter,
“to 7,313, with the number of units unsold for over six months … increasing … to 3,016 units, the highest number since December 2023”,
indicating the points that other noble Lords have made about the difficulty of selling stock at the moment. Is it not time that we bought this stock and put it into social ownership for rent? Further investigations could be done across England to understand the detail more fully. How can we allow such properties to remain vacant for prolonged periods after completion while families with children live in temporary accommodation? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester identified this challenge.
The Bill is welcomed, but let us swiftly try to improve its intentions, so that we genuinely increase the social housing stock at pace and make life happier and healthier for many of our population.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench: it is quite right to debate the effective allocation of scarce public resources. That needs to be said.
The Government have brought forward the Bill ostensibly with the desire to protect social housing and facilitate the building of new supply. This is an admirable goal. We need more houses. The UK is building only 200 homes a year per 10,000 people added to the population over the past 20 years. However, there is an aspect of this discussion which does not receive the attention it deserves and which I will highlight later in my remarks: population and housing tenure.
I welcome in particular Clause 12 and Schedule 1 on victims of domestic abuse. However, the tenor of the Bill is generally hostile to right to buy and seeks, particularly in Part 1, to circumscribe and curtail the rights of those seeking to exercise their rights under the scheme. I know that, for many people in the Labour Party, right to buy is a totemic scheme to which they have been opposed by habit and tradition with tribal hostility. But for many of us, it represented and still represents the greatest and most profound transfer of capital via property rights, in our country’s history, to working people away from state oligopoly and, sometimes, municipal slum landlords. It gave a pathway to prosperity, self-reliance and family stability and success to thousands of British citizens of modest means from 1980 onwards and boosted home ownership to almost 70% by the early 2000s. I accept that it was by no means perfect and that more emphasis should have been placed not merely on paying off local authority debt but on building good-quality homes for working families—not merely substandard properties for those on welfare, which exacerbated multigenerational welfarism.
It is important to dispel the myths about right to buy. Your Lordships’ House will no doubt be aware of research published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy demonstrates strong empirical evidence not just of increased prosperity and financial stability but of real demonstrable improvements in educational attainment. It generated detectable, sizable school performance gains among young people exposed to home ownership, showing an increase in the number of good grades in high-stakes exams as well as a reduction in crime.
Despite all that, I want to leave the ideological debate for Committee. Instead, I ask a fundamental question about housing and particularly social housing: what sort of housing do we want? What sort of homes would best serve the needs of the British people? What do we want our housing to do?
The ONS has argued that, from about now—mid-2026 onwards—deaths in the UK are projected to exceed births. The BBC reported two weeks ago that births have fallen to the lowest level in 50 years. The UK is facing an unprecedented situation that will have a significant impact on the strength and viability of our economy. Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, there are projected to be 450,000 more deaths than births. We all want economic growth, but low birth rates create an ageing population increasingly dependent on the state, leading to a vicious circle of higher government spending and a weaker economy.
How do we address that? Families are the building blocks on which a society is built. A 2026 poll commissioned by the New Statesman found that 81% of men and 82% of women between the ages of 18 and 30 said that they would like to be married or in a civil partnership one day. It also found that 75% of young women and 80% of young men wanted to have children at some point in their life. Analysis of the 2025 UK multifamily housing survey and historic surveys indicated that the perceived ideal family size has mostly stayed similar since 1945. British men and women in the 2025 survey said, on average, that they would be happiest with 2.1 or 2.2 children.
However, one significant issue that is often not factored in is housing tenure. The analysis of the UK multifamily housing survey found that housing was a significant factor in how British people approach having families. Some 81% believe that the cost and availability of family homes is making it harder for people to marry and start families; only 9% disagreed. Some 74% said that the type and size of housing available has a major impact on people’s decisions about having children. Some 65% of the public agreed that too many new homes are small flats, and that they are unsuitable for raising families. More than half personally know young people or couples who are delaying having children because they cannot afford a suitable home.
The public also have views on how to address the problem. A majority wanted new housing developments to include a higher proportion of family-sized homes, and 65% wanted three-bedroom homes to be prioritised in the planning rules for new development, so that families can put down roots and become part of a stable local community. A survey of people’s preferences from the Institute for Family Studies found that those who wanted to have children saw having a two-bedroom property, instead of a one-bedroom property, as having the same impact on their confidence in having children as a £1,900 to £2,600 reduction in their monthly housing costs.
Policy should not and cannot tell people whether they should have children, but it can make it easier for those who want to. In 2023, flats rose to almost 22% of housing stock, while detached homes and bungalows fell to between 25% and 26%. Our policies, under both parties, have focused on the number of houses and not on those that are compatible with the family. As we think about housing, and social stock in particular, including the aesthetics of new housing developments, we should look to support the family. Local plans and housing needs assessments should track and plan for the number of bedrooms and family-sized properties. Local and national policies should plan for the building of family-sized homes. Our planning policy should focus on schemes that are viable and conducive to families.
Finally, as I have exceeded my time, Britain is facing a crisis of the family and significant housing challenges. The policies we discuss in this House should attempt to deal with both those problems. For no other reason, I welcome the Bill and hope it gives rise to opportunities for the Government to begin to solve these pressing, significant societal issues.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my housing interests as a landlord, leaseholder, former renter and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Leasehold and Commonhold Reform.
The Social Housing Bill before your Lordships’ House is to be welcomed, particularly changes to the right-to-buy system and provisions intended to protect victims of domestic abuse. The Bill should be read alongside His Majesty’s Government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes in England by the end of this Parliament, including some 300,000 social and affordable homes under the affordable homes programme. Of these, at least 60% are intended for social rent over five years—just less than 40,000 a year. HMG have committed £39 billion over 10 years for the new social and affordable homes programme. So far, so good.
However, when you drill down into what is actually happening in the housing sector, the picture is not so rosy. Shelter estimates that 90,000 social rent homes are needed every year for the next 10 years. The reality is that just about 12,000 social rent homes were completed in 2024-25 in England and, over the same period, around 21,000 social homes were lost—almost double.
The impression is that the Government are tinkering around the edges, when what is needed is a radical improvement in the delivery of affordable homes to buy and rent to tackle the current housing crisis head on. Right to buy should not be restricted but should be banned outright, as a first step. In that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton.
The housing crisis has not been helped by a clear downturn in housing starts over the previous year. In 2025, starts were still 21% below pre-pandemic levels. The housing market is the worst that I have seen in my lifetime, for sellers, buyers and renters. We are witnessing a catastrophic situation. In London, we have witnessed a near collapse in housing starts. Less than 6,000 homes were started in London in 2025, which is about 94% below the level needed. The impact on the supply of affordable homes and sky-high rents is obvious. At the beginning of last year, 23 of the 33 London boroughs recorded zero starts—the lowest level since 2010. For affordable housing, the picture was even worse, with the second-lowest starts on record.
What does this mean for the overall target of 1.5 million homes? London is supposed to deliver a large share of this target—about a third—but current building implies that a large national shortfall is baked in. Starts today drive completion in the next couple of years. With starts this low, completions will drop sharply later this decade, blowing a hole in government targets, and the housing crisis will get only worse. What is needed is a massive post-war-style building programme of social housing and a regulatory and financial environment which allows this to happen. Housing has to be built and viable. Eventually, relaxing the planning application process, as proposed in London, will not suffice. Delivery, not targets and endless consultations, is required. His Majesty’s Government need to wake up to the scale of this crisis and adopt immediate radical measures to deal with it. At the moment, they are in denial over the scale of the housing crisis and adopting piecemeal policies to deal with it.
Another case in point is the state of the existing rental market, in which long-term rental properties are becoming increasingly rare and landlords are turning to virtually unregulated short-let platforms, such as Airbnb. They are doing that because they are bound by few rules, are more lucrative than long-term lets, avoid costly measures such as EPCs, and can easily avoid tax.
These short-let platforms took off only in the last decade. I think that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does not understand the scale of the problem and the impact on the long-term rental market. There are over 100,000 Airbnb-style short lets in London alone. In the city of Bath, which I know well, with its population of about 100,000 people, there are up to 1,700 Airbnb-style short lets. That is bad for local hotels and B&Bs, let alone for people looking for a long-term rental home. Barcelona is phasing out all short-term tourist flats by 2028, and there are strict restrictions or bans in Florence, New York, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Las Vegas, Penang and other places. A register, as was proposed by the Government, will merely record the problem and do nothing to ease it.
In one block in London that I know well, it took two years and the threat of flat forfeiture to stop a landlord renting through Airbnb, so causing excessive wear and tear, noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, with visitors arriving at all hours with their suitcases and sometimes staying just a day or two. I look forward to the Government’s new plans to enforce leases in the absence of forfeiture.
To protect our residents in cities and resorts throughout the UK, His Majesty’s Government should institute an immediate ban on these type of short lets and encourage landlords to return to affordable long-term rentals. Some of these landlord properties will undoubtedly be sold, although anecdotal evidence suggests that many trapped landlords are unable to sell in the current dire market conditions.
Currently, the private sector accounts for one out of five households, but the private rental sector has shrunk by 250,000 in the last 12 months. The Minister may continue to deny that, but Savills estimates that 800,000 to 1 million additional private rented homes will be required by 2031. Even if the PRS does not shrink by then—which I doubt, given population and affordability pressures—where are those extra homes to come from? Unlike Airbnb, the PRS is heavily regulated and taxed, buy-to-let mortgages have gone through the roof and interest is no longer tax-deductible. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to expand the PRS? I suspect nothing.
In conclusion, we need to see radical action from the Government to solve our housing crisis, with no more delay and no more dither, through the delivery of a massive affordable and social housing programme and, yes, a more supportive role for the PRS.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this pragmatic Bill, as it seeks to protect social housing stock and tenants. It is shameful that, due to low wages and profiteering, too many people cannot afford decent housing. Some 330,410 households need homelessness support; 134,760 households are living in temporary accommodation; and an estimated 172,420 children are living in temporary accommodation. Social housing matters, because it enables local authorities and housing associations to address homelessness, provide secure accommodation for families, provide affordable housing to millions of people, provide competition for the private sector and reduce the cost of living crisis. The depletion of social housing stock forces families to enter the private rented sector, which is more expensive.
Some 4.4 million new social homes, or around 126,000 a year, were built in the 35 years following the end of the Second World War. By 1983, in the aftermath of Conservative policies, social housebuilding declined to 44,240 a year, and by the end of Conservative rule, in 2024, it was down to 10,000 a year.
The right to buy for sitting council tenants did not start with the Conservative Party, though it likes to take credit for it. It has existed since the 19th century. The Housing Act 1936 and the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959 affirmed that commitment. The biggest change came in 1980, when the Thatcher Government offered tenants massive discounts, which my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton might say were actually bribes. By March 2025, 2.8 million homes had been sold to tenants across the UK at an average discount of 44% of market value. The discounted sales generated £62 billion, which local councils could not use to replenish the stock. Some 1.9 million council homes were sold by England’s local authorities for £51 billion. In 2024 the same houses were worth £430 billion. Commenting on this, the think tank Common Wealth said in 2024 that
“£194 billion corresponds to the equity that was effectively given away for free through the discount. Only £236 billion corresponds to the equity that was compensated at market value at the time of sale, for which councils received £51 billion in nominal terms, or £104 billion”
in 2024 money. So this was a massive giveaway by the Conservative Party.
The housing stock has not been replenished. In the 44 years after the Conservative right to buy, councils built a total of 300,000 new homes, severely restricting their capacity to provide affordable accommodation to millions. The total number of social home housing stock has declined from 6.8 million at its peak to 5.4 million. Insufficient social housebuilding plus too many homes being sold or demolished means that there has been a net loss of social housing stock in almost every year since 1981. In some years, more social homes are being sold than actually built. Around 18,500 council homes were planned to be sold off in 2025-26. That is almost eight times more than the numbers built in 2024-25.
The housing crisis has been deepened by the legacy of the Conservative policies. It has pushed more people into poverty and the expensive private sector. Nearly 41% of council homes sold under the right to buy are now being let in the private market, so that has not actually increased home ownership at all.
In 2025, England had a waiting list of 1.34 million households. In 2024-25 alone, England’s councils spent £2,842,091 on temporary and emergency accommodation, which could have been avoided if there was an adequate stock of social housing. This drain on the public purse has more than doubled in five years.
Against the background of the Conservative legacy, I welcome the constraints in the Bill on the sale of social housing and profit-making from it. I welcome the Government’s 2025 announcement to build 300,000 social and affordable homes over a 10-year period, of which some 180,000 are for social rent. In my opinion, that is not enough. Civil society organisations are calling for 150,000 new social homes a year. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not being ambitious and how such a tiny target will address the social housing crisis?
I also urge the Minister to amend the Bill to ensure that the number of social housing units sold in any two-year period does not exceed the numbers actually built during the preceding two years. Otherwise, we will never be able to fully replenish the housing stock. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill. Before I come to my main comments, I just want to address what feels to me to be the demonisation of the right to buy.
I come from a very poor community, and I recognise the comments that my noble friend Lady O’Neill made on how our community purchased those houses to live in. They did not purchase those houses to become stockbrokers but to live in them. If we move on to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jackson, they boosted great social outcomes. They boosted not only the economy of those local economies but the confidence of those families. It was the launching of those families into better exam results for their children and better social outcomes. I wonder how many people who sit in either of these two Houses could point to the fact that their grandparents or parents bought their house and that was the beginning of their journey to these Benches. We do this country a great disservice when we talk about those people as if they were profiteering. They bought their homes to support their families.
I also go to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: what are we going to do with a huge number of people when they become elderly if they are all in social housing? We already spend £37 billion—I believe that was the figure I heard mentioned in this House—on supporting people in their homes, which is great, but that number will grow significantly if we do not help people on to the housing ladder. The main thrust of my speech today will be about young people and getting them on that ladder.
I start by saying that I can support many of the things in the Bill. I believe the Government are genuine when they say they are trying to protect social housing. I grew up in social housing but I also had the misfortune of being homeless for a long time. I sofa-surfed for many years. Anybody from my background would tell you that the older you get, the less cute you are, and the less prepared people are to put you up. Can you imagine coming home and finding me lying on your sofa so you have to sit in your bedroom? That is what many young people are facing in this country today.
It is right to protect newly built social homes from being lost too quickly to the right to buy. It is right that we look again at how homes are sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Where possible, it is right to bring them back into the social housing sector, and it is absolutely right to protect the victims of domestic abuse so that they are not forced to choose between remaining trapped in that situation and giving up their housing.
Those are sensible and humane provisions, but my concern today is that the Bill is too narrow in its outlook to address the scale of the housing crisis we face today. It protects parts of the existing system but does not yet answer the bigger question: how do we build enough genuinely affordable homes for people who need them now and for the generation to follow them? You have only to look at London and the staggering failure of the Mayor of London to produce enough homes. He was given a very generous settlement by the previous Government and an equally generous settlement by this Government but he has utterly refused to do that. Housebuilding in London has collapsed, and young people are at the forefront of bearing that.
Changing the right-to-buy rules may slow the loss of social housing but it will not by itself create the homes we need. The problem this country faces is not simply the loss of homes from the social housing sector; it is a failure to deliver enough homes over decades. But protecting the stock is not the same as expanding the stock. That distinction matters. My first challenge to the Minister is: where are the hard delivery mechanisms in this Bill? Where is the clear link between protection of the social housing stock and the building of new homes at scale? If the Bill is to be credible, it must be accompanied by a serious, long-term plan for delivery: not simply warm words about renewal but actual homes in actual places, with infrastructure to make this actually happen.
While I welcome the Bill’s protection for social housing, I ask the Minister: how will this legislation help a young person who needs social housing today and is not yet on the housing list, and how will that be delivered? If the Bill protects only those already inside the system, it will fail a generation outside the gates. The test of the Bill should be not whether it preserves social housing stock only but whether it improves housing opportunities for those currently locked in the system and those locked out of the system altogether.
The Bill needs to have stronger accountability and clearer outcomes. The House of Lords Library briefing notes that the Government have not published an impact assessment for the Bill. That is a serious omission. We are being asked to support legislation that changes property rights, local authority powers, tenant expectations, provider behaviour and the long-term economics of social housing, yet we do not have a clear assessment of what the Government think the impact of those changes could be.
How many additional homes do the Government believe will remain in the social housing sector because of this Bill? How many homes do they expect local authorities or providers to repurchase through the extended right of first refusal? How will the 35-year exemption for newly built social homes affect council and housing association investment decisions? How will Ministers measure whether young people, care leavers, domestic abuse survivors and homeless households are benefitting from the results of this Bill? These are not technical questions. They go to the heart of whether the Bill will work.
I urge the Government to be careful about adding process without adding capacity. For example, requiring notification before disposals may be sensible but if councils and providers do not have the funding, speed or institutional capacity to act on those notifications, the right to be notified risks becoming the right to watch homes leave the sector anyway.
The crisis that we face now is not just in social housing but in housing generally. Many people, particularly young people, who have great housing need will never get anywhere near a social tenancy. This Bill must affect the whole housing crisis, not just social housing. I am a massive fan of social housing and I am a product of social housing, but I have lived through the nightmare of social housing being inadequately resourced.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My lords, it is a privilege to be part of this debate. As somebody who is still pretty new here, the sheer range of expertise and experience is striking to me. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Abri Octavia housing association.
We live in a country where people on a low income simply cannot afford a decent place to live, where 1.3 million people are on council waiting lists for social housing and where well over 350,000 people are homeless in temporary accommodation. Many millions are in poor-quality homes that they cannot truly afford. As I saw many times while I was chief executive of Shelter, the lack of a secure home breaks people’s sense that their country has any investment in their future. It breaks communities, damages trust and destroys people’s sense of belonging. Can noble Lords imagine how this entirely justified sense of unfairness could be weaponised to exacerbate blame, scapegoating and division? We do not have to imagine it; that is exactly what is happening in many of our communities right now. As a country, we cannot afford to let this continue.
For decades, and through successive Governments, we have failed to build the social homes that are the only solution to this emergency. Independent analysis commissioned by Shelter shows that if this failure continues for another decade, the cost to the economy and our public services will exceed £117 billion. This is why I very much welcome the current Government’s much-increased investment in building social housing and, in particular, the way in which they have rebalanced the priority of the so-called affordable homes programme towards the only genuinely affordable form of housing for people on low incomes—social homes. Our communities desperately need even more and they need it soon. I urge the Government to make bolder, faster and more ambitious changes, to get councils building social homes at scale once more.
Turning to the Bill, the reforms that it introduces to right to buy are critical and much to be welcomed. We also need to see the replacement of homes already lost to right to buy, which has meant that, over many years, we have been losing more social homes than we have built.
The Bill’s measures to protect survivors of domestic abuse will transform the prospects of many abuse survivors and their children, and are very welcome. To achieve its aims, the measures in the Bill will require significant co-operation between social landlords, the criminal justice system and local specialist organisations that support survivors. Post-separation abuse makes up 40% of calls to the national domestic abuse helpline, according to the charity Refuge. This could be exacerbated if perpetrators are forced from their home, as I know well from my time as chief executive of Women’s Aid. The measures in the Bill are a major step forward, but they require significant local co-operation and resources to be implemented successfully.
There is a major challenge around survivors’ ability to afford a tenancy on their own, particularly if the abuse has included financial exploitation and saddling the victim with debt, as is very common indeed. I propose that the Bill could be strengthened still further, by ensuring that domestic abuse survivors are exempt from housing-related debt rules, which are currently denying them access to social housing. If added to the Bill, this measure would be a huge step towards ensuring that domestic abuse is no longer a precursor to homelessness, as I have seen throughout my career. I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the Minister about this.
In 2017, when I first joined Shelter, I met a woman who had fled an abusive relationship, losing her job and social housing tenancy in the process, to another city over 100 miles away. She and her three children were living in one room in temporary accommodation, nowhere near friends or school. She was desperately isolated and fearful. Shelter helped her into new temporary accommodation that was somewhat better. Shockingly, however, when I left Shelter last year, nearly eight years later, she and her children were still there. They still had nowhere to call home. The measures in the Bill, particularly with the addition that I have suggested, will, I hope, mean that a woman going through the same experience now would have a different story. That would truly be an achievement.
However, for that family and hundreds of thousands like them, now and in the future, only a new generation of social homes will make the difference that they need and repair people’s sense that their community and country are somewhere where they can put down roots, feel secure and respected, and achieve their potential. This is not about the dream of home ownership. This is about the reality of working hard, paying your rent and getting security in return.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, for years I fought on the front lines of our housing crises. That is why I support the Bill. It tackles one of the most pressing issues facing our country: the shortage of safe, secure and affordable housing.
Housing should be more than a privilege that is available to a fortunate few. It should be a foundation upon which people can build stable, productive and fulfilling lives. Good housing builds thriving societies by improving health outcomes, educational attainment, employment opportunities and community cohesion. The benefits extend beyond the housing sector itself. Investing in social housing is therefore not simply a housing policy but an investment in the social and economic future of our nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, emphasised this, and I commend her for it.
For too long, demand for social housing has outstripped supply. Families spend years on waiting lists. Councils face mounting costs for temporary accommodation. Young people struggle to find an affordable place to live and vulnerable individuals often lack the housing security that they need to rebuild their lives. The Bill addresses those problems directly. At its core, the legislation recognises a simple truth: we cannot solve the housing crisis if we continue losing social homes faster than we can replace them. Social housing is a finite resource. Every home sold without adequate replacement means one fewer opportunity for a family in need.
The critics lament the restrictions on right to buy, but if every social home sold is one less home available to a family on a waiting list, how exactly does their approach solve the housing crisis that this country is facing? Furthermore, why should taxpayers fund the construction of social housing if those homes are not guaranteed to remain available to future families who need them? That is why the Bill’s reforms to right to buy are so important. By extending the qualifying period before purchase and protecting new-build social homes from immediate sale, the Government are ensuring that public investment remains available to the communities it was intended to serve.
When taxpayers fund the construction of affordable housing, it is only reasonable that those homes continue providing affordable accommodation for future generations rather than disappearing from the social housing stock within a few years. So, I ask the opponents of the proposals: do you accept that the current housing shortage requires us to protect existing social housing stock? If not, what are the alternative solutions? What do they offer? These measures are not about preventing aspiration; they are about balancing individual opportunity with the wider public good. Home ownership remains an important goal, but so too is ensuring that thousands of families have access to affordable housing in the first place.
I welcome that the Bill creates the stability needed for local authorities and housing associations to plan for the future. When housing providers know that newly built homes will remain within the social housing sector, they can invest with greater confidence, develop long-term strategy and borrow to build the additional homes our communities desperately need. I would like someone to explain to me how preserving newly built social housing for future generations is less beneficial than allowing it to leave the social housing sector shortly after construction.
Beyond individual measures, the Bill represents something larger: a commitment to fairness. A fair society in which people have access to stable housing is one in which children can grow up in secure homes, where families can put down roots in their communities and where older residents can live with dignity and peace of mind. What is fairer: to preserve affordable homes for thousands of families over decades or to prioritise the sale of those homes to a smaller number of individuals? If social homes continue to be sold faster than they are replaced, how do the naysayers propose to reduce the waiting list for the thousands of families currently in need of affordable housing?
Importantly, this legislation strengthens protections for some of the most vulnerable members of society. Victims of domestic abuse should never have to choose between their safety and their housing security. By improving protections for tenants facing those circumstances, the Bill provides practical support to those who need it most and helps ensure that housing serves as a source of safety rather than uncertainty.
The Bill offers a practical and sustainable way forward: it protects existing social housing, supports the delivery of new homes, strengthens tenant protections and ensures that the public investment produces long-term benefits. The question before us is not whether we can afford to protect and expand social housing; the real question is whether we can afford not to. I believe the Bill provides a step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the degree of political ideology that this Bill has provoked has been quite entertaining this afternoon. I was terribly tempted to wade in, especially when my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about where the money went. But I will resist that temptation—
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Or I might just cheat, if I have enough space at the end, and put the odd little bit of dagger between the ribs.
The Bill is very welcome. It helps put a knife through the heart of a highly damaging Thatcherite right-to-buy policy that has persisted from the 1980s onwards and seen the total number of social homes in the UK decline from 6.8 million in 1981 to 5.2 million in 2025. Particularly important are the measures in the Bill that disapply the right to buy in protected landscapes and wider rural areas. That is absolutely vital.
The Government have promised a decade of renewal of social housing, so I hope that we see additional action to support local authorities and housing associations to build more social homes as well as the measures in the Bill. But I want to take a different tack and ask the Minister some important questions, not about how many social homes are to be restored or created but about the quality of those homes.
First, I believe that it is the Government’s position that the social housing sector needs to have a minimum energy efficiency standard set, and that this should be at EPC level C or equivalent. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is the Government’s position. Can she also say how this will be implemented and whether it will be something the Government have existing powers to do or whether it will need further legislation? If it is the latter, and further legislation is required, the Bill would seem to me to provide an opportunity to legislate. Although the social housing sector is not the worst sector in terms of energy inefficiency—the private rented sector is notably worse—it is even more important that social homes are efficiently warm and reduce bills for the least well-off residents.
The second important question to the Minister is: alongside the commitment to more social homes, what steps are planned to enable these homes to have their energy provided by smaller-scale renewable energy generators, particularly community-run ones? At the moment, there are crippling financial and bureaucratic obstacles to community energy generators being able to sell their energy direct to local homes. Funding issues, planning permissions, grid access and market access all make it impossible for community energy companies to sell directly to local homes. Yet such local provision would provide cheaper energy bills as well as a healthier environment and energy that would be independent of the Strait of Hormuz.
Local community energy projects were supported in DESNZ’s Local Power Plan, which was published in February. There was a promise of £1 billion of funding, hands-on support and regulatory reform so that community energy could grow at pace and scale. Will the Minister undertake to speak to her DESNZ colleagues to ensure that social housing residents can benefit as soon as possible from the cheaper energy that local community energy can provide?
My third question is, as you might have guessed, about trees. I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission and past chair of the Woodland Trust. Can the Minister give the House some assurances about grasping further opportunities from the commitment to social housing and gaining further public benefits in considering how the social homes will be built? Houses built with timber reduce reliance on high-carbon concrete and steel; they lock up the carbon for the duration of the house’s life, which in many cases is several generations. In addition, wood is a natural insulator, reduces energy needs and lowers energy costs. In Scotland, 92% of all houses are timber framed; in England, only 9% per cent are timber framed. What plans there are to use the push for social housing to make a reality of the proposals in the Government’s Timber in Construction Roadmap 2025, which was published last year?
Will the Minister take account of the work of the Woodland Trust on tree equity? Its tree equity project shows that rich areas have lots of trees and a nice environment, and poor areas have next to no trees and a crap—that is a technical term—environment. The Minister spoke passionately from her direct experience about the benefits of social housing in Stevenage, giving a sense of security and of belonging. Can she give assurances that the disadvantaged areas most in need of social housing will get the concomitant tree planting that is required to improve their environment, reduce heat effects, improve air quality, reduce flood risks, and provide the well-documented health and mental health benefits for those who are most at need? They need social housing but they also need tree equity.
I have got some time, so I might make two last remarks about the political debate. I was brought up in Scotland, quite a long time ago. At that stage, 55% of all housing was social housing. It was not regarded as a last resort for poor and disadvantaged communities. It was regarded as the bedrock of housing provision for people on low wages who were going to continue to be on low wages. The degree of security and stability that that housing provided was immense. I do not think we should forget that. For me, it fits closely with the future role of local authorities returning to the days of being substantial housing providers for a group of people who are not ever going to be in a position to see an uplift in their housing ability because of their persistent low wages.
I have a piece of history to talk about. I ran the health service for Westminster when Dame Shirley Porter was the Conservative leader of Westminster City Council—I keep forgetting that I am supposed to be unaffiliated at the moment. The right to buy was very much pressurised in Westminster City Council. I asked Shirley at one point why she was doing this. She said, “Because I want to get good Conservative voters into the borough”. Before the Whip stops me, I shall just say that I bought, 30 years later, a right-to-buy house in Westminster. I wrote to Shirley in Israel to say, “Shirley, the policy has failed”.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I endorse the comments that she has made.
Decent, affordable and secure housing is a basic human right. To start, I thank the Minister for the way that she introduced the Bill, particularly in sharing her personal experience, and for the briefing that has been offered to noble Lords in advance of today’s Second Reading. I declare my own housing interests as set out in the register. On these Benches, we broadly welcome the legislation, but we will scrutinise it carefully. After decades of ever-decreasing social housing stock under right to buy—a scheme which, regardless of its original intentions, has depleted one of our most precious public assets—we welcome that this Government are moving rather decisively to stem that flow.
Extending the minimum eligibility period from three years to 10, reducing maximum discounts and exempting newly built social homes from sale for 35 years after construction are substantive reforms. The Chartered Institute of Housing is right to call them a positive step. Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, spoke for many when she said that with 4.2 million people in need of social housing in England, these measures should make right to buy a far more sustainable scheme. I add my voice to that welcome, and welcome the extension in perpetuity of the right of first refusal.
However, what concerns me is not so much what is in the Bill as what is conspicuously absent. Last week, the UK broke the record for the hottest ever day in May, and a week-long heatwave caused the UK Health Security Agency to issue amber heat alerts. Heat is a slow motion and inescapable killer that preys most on those who are financially poor or in ill health. The Guardian reported that, in 2024, the summer heat in the EU claimed roughly three times more lives than car crashes, 16 times more than murders and more than 10,000 times more than terrorists.
The Climate Change Committee has just published A Well-Adapted UK, the fourth assessment of UK climate risk. Its findings for social housing tenants are alarming. We already know that not one of our adaptation pathways is adequate. Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The committee warned that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes are likely to overheat; that is the central assessment of the most rigorous, independent scientific analysis available to Parliament. The UKHSA estimated that, during the summer of 2022, there were 2,803 excess deaths among people aged 65 and over in England. The climate for which our housing stock was designed no longer exists. Labour plans to build 1.5 million new homes, many of them social or affordable. They must be climate-ready to be fit for purpose. Social housing tenants are disproportionately elderly, disabled and/or suffer from chronic illness. They are more likely to live in flats, which overheat faster than homes. They live predominantly in urban areas, where temperatures are higher. They cannot, in the main, afford the cost of air conditioning. We are debating the homes of the people most at risk of dying from extreme heat.
The Government will point to Part O of the building regulations, which already requires new homes to be designed to mitigate overheating risk, and to the technical review. I acknowledge this, but Part O is a building regulation. It sets a design floor, not a statutory duty tied to a social housing programme. It is not specific to social housing, it carries no enhanced standard for vulnerability and it lacks the weight of primary legislation. I do not dismiss what the Government are doing elsewhere either. The warm homes plan is a genuinely ambitious £15 billion programme and the energy independence Bill announced in the King’s Speech is likewise welcome, but neither is sufficient. The warm homes plan acknowledges the overheating problem and commits to incorporate passive cooling measures, but they are an aspiration, not a duty, and it applies primarily to retrofit. I see no evidence that the energy independence Bill will enact the required powers. The Minister will argue that this Bill is deliberately narrow in scope, but a simple provision here would not expand the Bill unduly and its absence would be a missed opportunity.
The Climate Change Committee’s A Well-Adapted UK report recommends approximately £11 billion of annual adaptation investment, with around two-thirds directly to the built environment. This is a recommendation of the statutory adviser to Parliament. I want to see this Government being prepared to translate that advice into a binding duty where it matters the most. In Committee, I intend to pursue a statutory obligation requiring that all new social housing, whether built by local authorities or registered providers, be designed and constructed to reduce the risk of overheating. Building in overheating prevention at the design stage costs a fraction of retrofitting. Every home built today without these standards is a home that will need costly remediation.
The Bill will be judged not only by what it contains but by what it chooses not to. Without additional adaptation, heat-related deaths in the UK could increase sixfold from around 1,600 a year today to 10,000 a year by the 2050s. We have a Social Housing Bill, a major housebuilding programme and the most authoritative climate risk assessment this country has ever produced, published just days ago. The question Parliament must answer is this: knowing all that, are we going to build the same dangerous homes over again? I say we must not.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a retired member of a farming family who still rent out some domestic property.
I cannot say how much I welcome this Bill. For over 40 years now, I have been struggling against the almost total lack of affordable housing in rural areas and trying to limit the damage done to our rural communities by the right to buy. It has been obvious to me for some time that however much we allow for the building of new homes in the countryside, we will never get to the point where less well-off rural families will be able to buy their own homes. Why should they have to buy? Why can they not rent?
The answer to that, at the moment, is that there are hardly any houses to rent in rural areas. There are some housing association rentals but very few private landlords—usually farmers with spare cottages. As rural house prices soar ever higher than their urban equivalents—research shows that a village house can cost over 50% more than a similar urban dwelling—the sale of these rural rented houses becomes ever more likely and puts them ever more out of reach of local working families.
As I have said many times in this House, the answer lies in the provision by local authorities of affordable housing to rent. Council houses really worked. I stress the very real need for more rural council houses. Currently 17% of the population live in rural areas, but they receive just 7% of any new affordable homes. Rural council houses were among the first to go under the right to buy in the 1980s—who would not want to live in the countryside? There are hardly any such houses left now. There are currently 306,000 families on rural housing waiting lists, and Defra research indicates that council house waiting lists in mainly rural areas increased by 32% in the four years to 2023, while in the same period there was no increase in predominantly urban areas.
The effect of this has been disastrous for rural England. It has led to rapidly ageing communities, a loss of local services, a breakdown of social networks and a complete absence of the necessary vigour that young families give to any community. Lack of housing has also undermined the rural economy, making it harder for businesses to find a good workforce and ultimately making it harder for any remaining workforce to find businesses.
The rural housing crisis—I emphasise that word—is now of epidemic proportions, and this Bill could be like the arrival of the long-awaited first ambulance at a rural motorway pile-up. Note that this is the first ambulance; there is a lot more to be done.
I will briefly run through some of the Bill’s clauses. Extending the qualifying period from three to 10 years is good. I would have gone for 12, but 10 is good. Reducing the discounts available is good. Extending the period from five to 10 years when a discount given to a purchaser can be reclaimed from a subsequent sale is also good.
On Clause 6, I approve of the right of first refusal up to 20 years. While we need more of all types of housing everywhere, it seems right to allow social landlords to retain what was social housing within the sector. Rural England attracts rich retirees buying into the market whenever and wherever they can, so such a right of first refusal will be very useful.
Clause 7, exempting all our national landscapes from the right to buy, is good. I hope that the reference to exempting areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State applies to any community with a population of under 3,000, as in the 1996 Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that and am happy if she wants to write.
Also in Clause 7, I was surprised that the exemption for new housing is as high as 35 years. That would seem a bit long if you are at all interested in any form of social mobility, but I understood it when I got to Clause 9—if there had been any doubt that the local housing authority would not be in receipt of the sale proceeds from the right to buy in the future, it will need a long time to get some return from its new housing investment. To me, Clause 9 is the weak point of the Bill. I detect the obfuscatory hand of the Treasury all over it.
There was—and is—nothing wrong with the right to buy. There was just no long-term thinking about the way it was introduced. By far the biggest problem with the old right to buy was that all the sale receipts went to the Treasury and the local housing authority never saw the money. It could therefore never reinvest; it could not waste council tax money on building council houses, only for them to be bought out below cost, at a discount, a few years later. Clause 9 is a golden opportunity to definitively put this right.
I am not convinced by the anti-hypothecation arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. There is no right to buy in hospitals or nuclear power stations, to use his examples. We will not lose those assets from their use by society as a whole, but we have lost all our council houses from society as a whole. If we are going to replace that loss, we need to change the way that we do things. We do have a housing crisis.
I am assured that all receipts from the right to buy will, in future, go to the local housing authority—so why not just say so? Clause 9 is so hedged about with ifs, what-ifs and what-nots that it appears that the Treasury is keeping open the right, in future, to once again steal money from the local authority housing budgets, as it has done for the past few decades. I know that that is rather simplistically put but, if we are trying to solve a long-term housing problem, please let us think long term. We must state firmly in the Bill that all receipts from the right to buy belong to the local housing authority or the housing provider. They should be ring-fenced for future local housing investment.
To sum up, I approve of the Bill, but only if it leads to widespread investment in rural council houses in the future. I am for ever hopeful.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have previous experience in the delivery of social housing. During the 2010s, when I was leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered 1% of England’s entire affordable housing every year. My council built more homes to rent than the rest of Norfolk put together. Every home lost to the right to buy was replaced and then some. After my nearly 20 years as council leader, the number of affordable houses in south Norfolk had gone up from 4,188 to more than 7,000.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, that the amount of social housing is not a finite resource; it can be built. We had an ambitious plan that could be delivered through development proceeds from a position of negotiating strength. The Planning and Infrastructure Act and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act have weakened that power but, when I was leader of the council, I held all the cards. Now those cards are held by developers, on undeliverable housing targets under the five-year land supply, so the Government have made their task harder. The irony is that this Bill has never been needed more, since the private rented sector was decimated by the Renters’ Rights Act, which turbocharged rents to new highs. Who knew?
That said, I welcome the measure for a 35-year lockout for new homes on right to buy. The probability that brand new homes could be acquired under right to buy has chilled new investment and spawned no end of avoidance structures from within local authorities, which is diverting.
In some respects, it is shame that the right to buy will be diluted. It should be stated clearly and loudly that the ability to buy your own home has been one of the most empowering success stories of the last 40 years. Done right—as I did, as leader of the council— a social home that is bought houses two families: the family who bought the house and another one in the new house which replaces it.
This plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron: I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they are in the same housing market area. When my neighbour Norwich City Council could not build houses or spend the receipts, it lent the money to us and we built some affordable houses within a mile of the city boundary. My reading of the Bill is that this desirable behaviour would be banned, and that is crazy.
This leads me to the subject of locality. I understand that the Bill is limited in scope, but protecting the stock cannot be just a national numbers game. Housing is more local than that, but that is not envisaged in the Bill, as I read it. There are general freedoms for social providers to recycle funds, not within a specific area but across their entire estate. As part of my ward work, I was surprised last month when a home in Brooke, in the ward where I live, was under the management of Victory Homes but being managed from Gloucester. The freedom to move receipts within the RSL without challenge, from Norfolk to Gloucester, does not help local people at all. Unless we protect the stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it is cheaper, not where it is needed. The RSLs are different from the councils.
I was grateful to the Minister for the drop-in before the Recess, when she explained that it is very difficult to define territories. From one ex-council leader to another, she must know that that is incorrect. We both developed local plans based on housing market areas. They are defined; they exist. It is just not the case that area management is not part of the Bill. The principle of locality is established and there are welcome carve-outs for national parks. I just wish that it would go further on national landscapes. In Committee, I will seek to probe how receipts can be recycled locally by default before being snaffled by the centre.
None of this would be necessary had social housing providers not become so large. Scale has not been good for the tenants. It has led to a lack of local accountability. National RSLs populating their boards with the great and the good, acting as pound shop developers on the government dime, has seen tenant reps excised from the landscape. The consequence is that the focus on local matters, such as anti-social behaviour, has been dropped, as I know from my own ward casework. This Bill could have been stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of the law-abiding resident, but it is not.
Candidly, far too great a focus on development has led to a loss by these RSLs of the social purpose of providing social homes. RSLs cannot even sell houses they developed initially for the private market to be used for social use, and that is wrong. Instead, one of the effects of the liberalisation of certain financial powers in this Bill may be to drive financial engineering to new heights. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by the increase in build costs, finance and land costs. Quite simply, there is no space for the social purpose of these organisations. That is an omission this Bill should correct but does not.
I am disappointed that the Bill purports to protect the supply of new homes but fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. I spent about £3 million a year adapting homes for an ageing population. In some cases, it might have been a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, a £75,000 extension was required. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those adaptations. The new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes. It is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who has to pay twice, once to put the adaptation in and again to take it out. Where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of adapted homes for the ageing population? I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and we are not going there. I say: why not?
As I warm to my allocations theme, where are the protections for veterans? Where is the assertion that those with local needs should be prioritised? Where is the preference for the indigenous population? Where are protections for local needs, for affordable housing in our villages—small developments in places such as Bergh Apton that local people campaigned for, not against? Where are the stronger fiscal incentives for people to downsize from the family home as they age? This Bill is deficient in that it does not even look at the totality of the supply and certainly fails on the demand side. Partial supply without looking at the demand is no solution at all. The Bill is incomplete. It looks only at the home, not really at the people who live in it. It does half the job, and in Committee we will attempt to make it whole.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I am another former council leader. When I was leader of Telford and Wrekin Council in Shropshire, we took a bold and innovative decision to address the growing shortage of good-quality, affordable homes for local people. Rather than simply discussing the housing crisis, we decided to act. We established a wholly owned housing company called Nuplace with a clear and practical purpose to build high-quality homes for rent on council-owned brownfield sites, to regenerate neglected land, to provide homes for local families and at the same time to generate income that would support vital local services. At the time, some questioned whether the council should be involved directly in housing delivery in this way.
However, I am proud to say that the result has more than justified our decision. So far, around 1,000 homes have been built or are in the process of being completed in the near future through this scheme. Tenant demand has remained constantly high, which demonstrates the real need for well-managed, affordable rental homes. Approximately 25 acres of previously underused derelict land has been regenerated, transforming eyesores into thriving communities. Our policy focused on delivering high-standard, energy-efficient properties that local people are proud to live in. I am told that the tenant satisfaction rate remains at around 96%, which is a remarkable achievement by any standard.
The financial benefits have also been substantial—this is some years ago in Telford and Wrekin when I was leader of the council. The scheme has generated more than £8 million in net income for the council, alongside more than £3 million through council tax receipts and new homes bonus funding. At a time when councils across the country were facing severe financial pressures, our innovative housing policy both met social needs and strengthened our council finances. Although I am no longer with Telford and Wrekin Council, I am told that the scheme continues to perform strongly with high demand.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that councils across the country should seriously examine models such as that of Telford and Wrekin Council? It is not a complete solution to the national housing shortage, but it is certainly a part of the answer. This approach delivers multiple public benefits simultaneously. It increases housing supply, regenerates brownfield land, improves the local environment, creates construction jobs and apprenticeships, supports local economic growth, provides secure homes for working families and generates long-term revenue streams for local authorities. It also demonstrates something very important: that local authorities, when given the freedom and confidence to innovate, can become active partners in solving national problems rather than just waiting for a diktat from central government.
At a time when housing pressure continues to affect so many families, particularly young people and key workers, we should encourage practical, locally driven solutions that combine social purpose with financial sustainability. I hope the Government will continue to support councils that are prepared to take this kind of ambitious and entrepreneurial approach to local housing policies.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and to hear his contribution on the housing problems in his area.
I endorse our Front Bench particularly and the opening speech we heard on some of the problems with this Bill. In passing, I will take up my noble friend’s reference to veterans and the importance of helping them. Some time ago at King’s Cross station, I was sitting on a bench waiting for my train. A man came up and sat beside me, and we got chatting. He was a veteran. He had served in the Royal Marines for more than 11 years, including in Afghanistan, and had been shot in the back. He lived in social housing with his daughter. Shortly afterwards, before we spoke, his daughter had been killed in a taxi accident; the driver was found guilty of reckless driving and sent to prison. The man lost not only his daughter but his home and never knew where he was going to spend the night, at which station, but I have not seen him since at King’s Cross. I feel that this is a very important priority and should be given the same protection in law as the other categories that this Bill addresses.
One of the central premises of the Bill is that there should be more state housing and that the more social housing there is, the better. This is to be promoted by restricting the right to buy and putting more obstacles in the way of tenants trying to buy their own homes. These obstacles include increasing the number of years, as we have heard, from three to 10 and making it expensive, as we have also heard, for tenants to buy by amending the percentage discounts, so cutting the value of the tenant’s stake in the home they may have lived in over decades. They include reducing the stock of right to buy homes as a proportion of overall council housing; for instance, no newly built homes will be available to buy for the first 35 years, so you may, if you are a tenant there, in your working life, never be able to aspire to buy that home if you settle in that area. Another obstacle is creating delay and uncertainty for applicants by increasing the time landlords can take to respond to them, both on eligibility—from four to eight weeks or from eight to 12, depending on the sort of tenancy they have—and on giving information on the price and details: from eight to 12 weeks for freehold or from 12 to 16 for leasehold. In the light of these changes, can the Minister please let us know whether the Government consider that the increase we have seen in right to buy sales will continue or decline as a result of this measure, and what the estimated figures are over the first five years after the Bill becomes law?
The Bill will have further damaging effects. First, in terms of cost, it will increase the stock of housing owned, managed and run by local councils or those registered by them, thus augmenting the power of the state over men, women and their families and augmenting the costs for taxpayers. The DWP estimates that this year, the housing bill will be almost £39 billion, a rise of £913 million on last year—the highest, in today’s prices, since 1970, measured on similar data. By contrast, the taxpayer receives a significant, as things stand, return from social housing sales receipts. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham what is done with these housing receipts, which can alleviate the tax burden on taxpayers, who might have to meet other needs, or perhaps they might even help to lower taxes. In the financial year ending March 2025 alone, local authorities received £798 million from a reported 7,494 eligible sales, an increase of 7% compared to 2023-24. I ask the Minister, on a per annum basis for the first five years of the operation of this Bill, in respect of the decline in sales and the maintenance and overheads that must now be borne by councils and taxpayers, what is the estimated additional cost?
Secondly—this is a very serious problem, and we have heard about it today from noble Lords— the Bill will undermine the incentive for working people to be independent and support themselves and their family, preventing dependency on benefits not only during working life but well into old age and retirement. As we have heard, already in 2026, across England, Wales and Scotland, almost 6 million people—a record 5.95 million people—will receive housing support from the taxpayer this year. That is 1.2 million more than in 2019-20. In Cambridge, where I live, around 65% of tenants receive some form of benefit, with 55% on maximum housing benefit or universal credit.
Thirdly, the Bill will undermine overall economic growth and increase overall the ever-growing burden of taxation. This is an attack on property rights by taxing the earnings of working men and women to subsidise the unproductive public sector and a benefits culture. I therefore do not share the Government’s enthusiasm for increasing the size and power of the state over people’s lives, turning individual men and women into supplicants dependent on the state, potentially for the rest of their lives, without the incentive—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I must ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
—to earn enough to pay a market rent and take responsibility for themselves and their families. State housing, subsidised by the taxpayer and owned and managed by the state, is not home ownership. It is state dependency.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is either the market or the state; that seems to be the argument.
In 2017, I went to a city that was having problems with a whole bevy of people. What we did was to try to reorientate the way that local charities worked together. One of the things that really interested me was getting charities working with businesses. I am very interested in the idea that you get businesses to trade with charities so that money does not really pass hands, because the businesses have to spend and the charities have the need.
We identified a housing association that wanted to expand its work. It had gardening facilities; it had painting, decorating and repairing and all that. It wanted to expand but was very limited in this very small town. I went to talk to estate agents—the most evil people on God’s earth, according to some—and I said, “Look, what you’re doing is buying services, because you’ve got 150 or 250 buy to rents. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you bought the services from a housing association? You would pay the same rate”. It would also help the housing association to address a problem that nobody talks about. I have not heard anybody say—excuse me, I have put too much glue in my teeth. I am getting them redone in Turkey soon, so that I will not have the problem.
Lord Bird (CB)
Anyway, to address the problem which I have not heard anybody mention: why is it that if you live in social housing—if you are the child of social housing—you have about a 2% chance, as a child, of finishing whatever levels you do to leave school and then getting into university or a highly skilled job? I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Best, about this when I first came into the House. The problem we were trying to address in that little city was that 70% of the people living in social housing were unemployed. We have to face that, and I do not see any provision in this Bill for creating the opportunity.
I believe in social mobility, like the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. What I do not like about what he says—forgive me my trespasses; he is a Conservative, so I cannot agree with him, even though we come from the same neck of the woods, up there in Notting Hill—is that the only way you can get social mobility is through a housing purchase by your family. Why is that? I know it is true, and I know hundreds of people who have done it, but why has social housing changed so much from the days when our Minister was moving to Stevenage?
Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham, where we were in a block of flats and had a toilet that we shared with no one, whereas when we lived in the slums, we had to queue up if we wanted to do our business. We might have had to wait two days for certain services that you would want in a toilet, but there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed.
Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class. Until we address the issue of around 70% of people living in social housing not having a job—they are stuck and their children are stuck—the arguments around it will go on, but we need to address the poverty that is thrown up but not addressed at this moment. It is certainly not addressed in the Bill.
I am a great believer in social mobility. I am a perfect example of it; I am as posh as anything now, though I did not start poshly. But I would love to see a situation where social housing was addressed as a place of great opportunity, great security and great comfort, so that it becomes what virtually everybody here today has described as the beginning of a new future. Unfortunately, for too many people it is not a beginning of a new future. It is a place where you and your family are parked for maybe the next 100 years.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite overwhelming to speak after such an expert on housing and homelessness as the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I thank the noble Lord for his speech.
I welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend the Minister for her work on it. I have just finished eight years as a councillor in the London Borough of Islington, and I welcome these moves to retain social housing and encourage the building of it. A lot of my casework over eight years as a local authority councillor was trying to help people on a housing waiting list of 16,000. Even with our borough’s country-leading buy-back scheme, through which we had a grant from the Mayor of London to buy back right-to-buy properties and bring them back under council ownership, we still struggled to get those waiting list numbers down. I am delighted that this Labour Government have included right-to-buy reform in this Bill as part of a suite of policies to tackle the housing crisis.
Before I move to my substantive points about the Bill, I want to say this. When I entered your Lordships’ House, I understood that this was somewhere prized as a place of evidence-based scrutiny, robust evidence and expertise. So I have to take note and challenge when I hear casual tropes being deployed. I lived on the Bemerton Estate, a council housing estate, for over 13 years. In that time, I had the honour of getting to know my neighbours, who became my friends, some of whom were incredible Somali women. Time constrains me from telling noble Lords in detail about Mana, Hana, Safia and others; that is for another day. Suffice to say that Mana is referred to by many as the godmother of the estate and by others as the queen of the Bemerton because of her service to generations of residents and her key role in interfaith initiatives. She is a brilliant woman who instinctively builds community. So I implore noble Lords on all sides of this House to err on the side of thoroughness and evidence when speaking in this place.
To return to my substantive points about this Bill, I am proud of this Labour Government and the work of many, both here and in the other place, who have created a plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Working in prisons repeatedly brought me face to face with women who had suffered the most appalling violence and survived it, mostly at the hands of men. Some 68% of women in prison have suffered domestic abuse. Certainly, almost all the women I worked with in my decade of working in and after prison disclosed sexual or domestic abuse as part of their life stories. This has made me a passionate advocate for the survivors of that abuse.
This Government’s ambitious strategy is rightly a cross-government strategy. It cannot just sit in the Home Office, and it is entirely appropriate that this narrowly drawn Bill includes provisions to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse and their access to housing. At Islington Council, our primary reason for people becoming homeless was parental alienation. The second most common reason was domestic abuse.
As such, there are parts of the country that have been tackling this in innovative ways for many years and taking a whole housing approach for survivors of domestic abuse. Both Cheshire East and Islington Councils have been platinum accredited by the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance for their work in this field. This is a plea, in seeking to refine this Bill, to my noble friend the Minister and the team to make sure that they have thoroughly reviewed the best practice that is already available and make sure that this legislation complements and turbo-charges the work already going on in many local authorities.
To achieve that whole housing approach and the accreditation from DAHA, Islington Council put on extensive staff training. Even if it was somebody coming to repair a light, there might be an opportunity to speak to someone who needed help with a domestic abuse scenario. They made sure that any contact someone had with the council might be a pathway to a safer life for that person. The council also had a collaborative daily safeguarding meeting, advocated for strong and inclusive partnership working with the voluntary sector and pursued robust relocation policies. Staff developed a high-risk move policy, so they could quickly rehouse individuals fleeing violence in addition to providing flexible funding to assist those transitions.
The Bill does many things well, but I want to flag to my noble friend the Minister that she should consider reviewing the grounds required for moving somebody from a joint to a single tenancy. The grounds involve waiting for people to breach an order, rather than just having an order—a non-molestation order, for example. When you have those orders, you already must have proved that domestic abuse has taken place. Perhaps having an order may be enough, rather than putting a survivor/victim at further risk by demanding that the perpetrator breach that order before they are able to transfer their tenancy. This is to ensure that everybody that might need this kind of help to move to a single tenancy or to move home is able to do so without putting themselves at further risk.
As I said, this is a welcome and very long overdue suite of measures to address many of the problems of our social housing stock. The measures around domestic abuse are particularly welcome. These are stronger legal mechanisms that remove perpetrators from social housing tenancies and will enable more survivors to stay in their home, if it is safe to do so, or to move to different accommodation as the sole tenant.
I commend this Bill and the brilliant measures therein to the House. They enable autonomy and independence. They enable the dignity of the individual through the dignity of social housing, including for all those—whatever their country of birth—who are fleeing domestic abuse.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister particularly for her very clear and personal introduction to the Bill. I feel I will be the first person to stand up and say that I was not brought up in a council house, but I looked with envy upon those who were. When we were evicted from our home in Wales, we came up north to my father’s family in Preston, where we lived in a house in which the sink was on bricks in the kitchen. It still had what I called Bunsen burners—gaslights—on the side, and there was no plumbed-in bath. There was the luxury of one toilet outside, just for us. I made friends with people at my primary school who lived on the Larches estate, which was a real exemplar of brilliant council housing at its peak. If we had had one of those houses, my father would have used the right to buy—I am absolutely convinced of that.
I am grateful to follow all the contributions. I started off making notes of what people were saying, because the seven minutes has given us time to get some detail and some quality. I will not make a list of everybody, but I will quickly go through some thoughts outside the scope of the Bill that are quite interesting. I will kick off by saying that I was quite troubled—I echo what the noble Baroness on the other side said—by some of the comments made in the Chamber, particularly around who the “true” people who need social housing are and about the most vulnerable people in society being “state dependent”. I want to register that that has made me feel really uncomfortable.
However, I was greatly enlivened by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who brought together housing injustice and poverty, and of course most poignantly by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. The connections between health, housing and poverty were ably brought out by my noble friend Lady Teather, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Babudu. They are inextricably linked, and as people in this world we absolutely know that.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Stoneham and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, brought out the importance of the regeneration of estates and neighbourhoods, which is totally missing from the Bill. I hope the Minister will tell us where it is because it is important that, when people open their front door, they feel they live in a safe, clean and green neighbourhood. I think we would all aspire to that.
Let us throw in rural issues—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others. This keeps coming up all the time, does it not? It is clearly an area that we are neglecting. Of course, on environmental issues, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Russell. I can see that this Christmas tree will have lots of baubles hung on it. The noble Lord is shaking his head—we will have to see how we go. But there was certainly real quality there.
As several colleagues have said, there are elements here that we on these Benches really welcome, particularly the provisions intended to strengthen protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse—the final comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, were really pertinent to that intention—and the steps to slow down the loss of much-needed social housing stock.
However, context is everything. The Bill sits within a wider and, in many respects, ambitious programme. The Government’s decade of renewal is backed by significant investment—the most for a long time—and a commitment to expand supply at scale, alongside reforms to the private rented sector and to housing quality and standards. So, to give credit where it is due, taken together this suggests a Government seeking to grapple seriously with the housing crisis, which has occurred over decades and under Governments of all stripes.
The crisis that we have heard expounded on by many is profound, with over 1 million households waiting for social housing, more than 134,000 in temporary accommodation, and the eye-watering cost of that to society. There have been decades of undersupply, combined with the steady depletion of social housing stock. I think we are very clear on these Benches that this is not a moment for incremental change; it is a moment that demands systemic delivery—that is going to be a word that I use a lot.
When we turn to the Bill itself, however, we encounter something a little bit more limited—some might say tame—and deliberately so, it would seem, from the Minister’s introduction. This at best is a fragment of a much larger cloth. The strategy, however, speaks of scale, delivery and renewal over a decade, and the Bill speaks largely of frameworks, adjustments and protections. These are relevant, but not sufficient to meet the challenge—and this was a theme that was echoed by many noble Lords, not least of all my friend Lady Pinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to name but a few. I would say that, even judged on its own terms, the Bill could and should be stronger.
We are not going to get a consensus on everything. Let us take right to buy. I was particularly struck by the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, of right to buy, which really nailed it. The times they have a-changed—and who was it who famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”? That is absolutely what has happened with policy, and it is what noble Lords have been saying about how council housing has really changed from what it was to what it is—so we have to change our policies.
The reforms here are really sensible. They recognise the long-term damage done from the loss of social housing stock, with millions of homes sold and not replaced. Let us look at last year’s figures: 10,000 homes for social rent built, give or take a few, but a net loss of 4,000 after sales and demolition, against a recognised need of 90,000 a year. The core problem remains unresolved, which the Bill is genuinely trying to address. We have a system that allows homes to leave a sector in acute shortage without any reliable, enforceable guarantee of replacement.
The Local Government Association has said that the Bill could go further, so we want to strengthen this Bill in Committee by giving councils greater flexibility to exempt properties based on local need and with the tightening of the link between homes sold and homes replaced, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, moving much closer to a truer one-for-one requirement. Protecting stock must mean actually protecting it.
I totally agree on the domestic abuse provisions—time is flying, so I will be quick—and the intent here is welcome. However, as was said, we really need to listen to the people who work in this area, because there are things that we can do to make that even better.
But still, for us, the fundamental issue is that this Bill does not deliver any single home. The wider programme is focused on increasing supply, but this just protects it—it clarifies, it adjusts, but it does not build. That matters, because delivery depends not just on policy intent but on the capacity, capability and the workforce. I am surprised that nobody really went into today the fact that we are facing a serious skills shortage in construction, with tens of thousands of vacancies and a need for hundreds of thousands of additional workers. Without a credible skills pipeline, we simply will never deliver the houses that we have all said today that we need. I will be very interested in the Minister’s answer to that.
I loved the conversation about money, with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, having completely different perspectives; I am sure that we will go into that even further. There were recurring themes about the ability to deliver at pace and scale and for certain sections, most forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his usual inimitable style.
We do not oppose the Bill; it moves in the right direction and contains sensible provisions. I look forward to us getting into the detail in Committee. As we all know, it is the social housing blockage at that end of the housing crisis that we need to unblock to move people on. We will support the Government as far as possible, but, of course, we will push them to go faster and further, because that is our job.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There seems to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it, though we may differ on what the solutions are. In particular, we welcomed those speeches focused on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards of victims of domestic abuse. Those protections matter and we will continue to engage constructively as this Bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and other noble Lords, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about the need for social support.
However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this Bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify—we have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, private rent or social housing to meet demand.
Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this Bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding ministerial powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, just raised, the Bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause. The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward: build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions and a willingness to support development where it is needed.
As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than 1,000 homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord, Lord John, raised the increasing costs of housing in London—London has registered fewer than 1,000 homes in the first quarter of this year across the entire capital. That is a buildout rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London? Central Bedfordshire is not unique. I can name a list of neighbouring authorities, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire, which have all had good buildout rates, and there are many others across the country, though I am not quite as familiar with them.
Too often, we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally. When areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes, those pressures do not disappear; they are simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities which are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving a national housing crisis.
Much of this Bill is centred on weakening the right-to-buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families and establish a greater stake in their communities. My noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, which noted how right to buy enabled an increase in human capital.
When managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes: one for the existing tenant exercising their right to buy; and a second new home, funded by the proceeds from that right to buy, for a family on the waiting list. That is known as a “buy one, get one free”. Two homes must be better than one. It has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation, such as disability accommodation and so forth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, raised. If you get those proceeds, you can start doing that. I do not say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win-win? It can be done, as we did in Central Bedfordshire and as has been done elsewhere.
We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding it impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? The right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing. The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced and that overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years.
We need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. I do not cite these figures to criticise tenants; they simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focused on those in greatest need, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Bird, with his focus on the unemployed. At a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years, these are questions that Parliament should not shy away from addressing.
The Bill misses opportunities elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, raised, it will do little to tackle the well-known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, not only is there insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers fail tenants through poor management or declining standards but we need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable.
Alongside new housing delivery, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, yet this remains largely absent from the Bill.
There is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe that more homes of all tenures are needed. We on these Benches believe that home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration and regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence and security for themselves and their families. Of course social housing has a vital role to play; nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. However, a successful housing system should do both: provide support for those who need it while helping those who aspire to ownership to achieve it. This Bill does not strike that balance.
As my noble friend Lady Scott said in opening, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and will support constructively, but there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully. Ultimately, the public want more homes, regeneration, greater affordability, fair access to social housing and, wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle that on these Benches we will continue to defend. I look forward to the further scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very thoughtful and constructive debate. As ever, there has been an incredibly wide range of experience and insight brought by this House, and I really welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill today. The debate has covered a varied range of issues, and I will do my best to respond to as many of those issues as I can in the time allowed—but I assure noble Lords that I will check Hansard at the end, and if there is anything I do not get the chance to respond to, I will reply in writing.
I want to give one piece of statistical information in relation to the impact of the Bill. Under the previous pre-reform baseline, the system was projected to deliver a net loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036 due to right-to-buy sales. By contrast, following implementation of the measures in the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period. I hope it will be many more than that, but the provisions in the Bill will deliver that.
Before turning to the specific points raised, I will make one general point. I was very keen to stress in my introduction that the Bill is a range of very specific measures in relation to right to buy, domestic abuse, and removing some of the bureaucracy around social housing. It does not cover all of the Government’s programme on social housing, because much of that programme does not need a legislative framework. In fact, we have already started to deliver much of it with a £39 billion investment. The social and affordable housing programme is already under way and will be delivering very soon. Many of the quality issues that were raised in the debate are also already being dealt with; there are extensive programmes to deliver them, and that reform is on its way already.
The Bill attempts to start easing some of the pressure on social housing, which is being caused by the specific issues contained within the Bill. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will sympathise when I say that if you bring an enormous Bill before this House—we went through the process of the levelling-up Bill together—you get criticised for doing a Christmas tree Bill. However, if you bring a narrow, tightly focused Bill like this one, you are criticised because you have not put everything in it. So as a Minister you are never going to win—but this is the right step to take at this point in time.
A considerable number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock, Lady Shah, Lady Murphy, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Gill, Lady Young and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Lansley, Lord Babudu, Lord Sikka, Lord Bailey and Lord Bird, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—talked about housing supply and the ability to deliver increased social housing supply. The fact that so many noble Lords mentioned this highlights the great importance of that issue. The Bill strengthens our commitment to building more social rented homes and to delivering what we all want: the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the Conservative legacy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just repeated that theme. We would not be where we are now if we had not had 14 years when this problem was pushed under the carpet. In the time that the Labour Government have been in power, we have delivered the Renters’ Rights Act, tackling the problems that private rented sector tenants have in their tenancies. We have passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has swept away some of the planning bureaucracies preventing housing being built. We are now approaching this Social Housing Bill, as well as empowering local councils and strategic authorities to deliver the infrastructure and the homes we need to grow our country. So I will not be taking any lectures from the other side of the House about their legacy, which has caused the housing crisis we are now trying to fix.
Our reforms to right to buy, notably the 35-year exemption for new-build social homes, will directly support our ambition by ensuring that councils have the confidence to deliver. The Bill’s changes will stop homes being sold before councils have recovered the costs of building them. Anyone who has been a council leader will know the pain of building homes and having them sold for less than they cost to build. Crucially, the Bill builds on the funding and regulatory certainty we have already given the sector to boost supply, including the £39 billion of investment—the biggest long-term investment in recent memory. The programme aims to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, including at least 180,000 for social rent.
As other noble Lords have said, I have been somewhat disturbed by some of the comments about allocations to non-UK nationals. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa status means they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing. For all social housing, the overwhelming majority—88% of social housing lead tenants—are UK nationals, according to the 2024-25 English Housing Survey. It is not at all helpful to use some of the derogatory and mischaracterising tropes that often accompany discussions around social housing. That is just not helpful, and I hope we can avoid that in future discussions. Fraudulent tenancies are sometimes obtained, and where they are councils have very strong powers to deal with them. I hope that anyone listening to or watching this debate—including anyone in this Chamber—who is concerned about a fraudulent tenancy will do what they need to do: report it to the local authority concerned. I hope we can avoid comments like that during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.
Of course we have to support councils to build more homes. My noble friends Lady Shah, Lord Whitty and Lord Sahota, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Young and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Fuller, all spoke about that. In 2024-25, councils completed 10,480 homes, the highest number achieved in over 30 years. The Government are committed to reinvigorating council housebuilding, and councils are central to our efforts to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding. We have already taken decisive action to maximise councils’ engagement with our new social and affordable homes programme. Since April, for the first time, councils can mix right-to-buy receipts with grant funding, helping to improve the financial viability of their bids.
We have also allocated almost £9 million to 44 councils to support bid development through the council housebuilding support fund. This funding forms part of a £63 million four-year programme to support councils to improve their skills and capacity to build housing themselves. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I note that a great deal of work is going on with skills and capacity more generally in the construction sector. Finally, we are helping councils to borrow more cheaply to finance housebuilding by extending the preferential lending rate from the Public Works Loan Board for another year until March 2027.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, my noble friend Lord Sahota and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, clearly highlighted the need to provide support. Local authorities need to deliver programmes that are right for their areas. This is about the Government providing that support and funding and then letting local authorities implementing that in the right way for their local community.
We are all concerned about the safety and decency of social housing. There have been a number of mentions of Awaab’s law in our debate today. The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Babudu and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Jones, all highlighted these issues. Reforms are already under way which will deliver transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The newly updated decent homes standard will ensure that all rented homes in England are decent, safe and warm, designed with tenant safety at their core, while remaining proportionate and affordable for providers to deliver.
In addition, the Government have legislated on Awaab’s law, requiring social landlords to investigate and fix damp, mould and emergency hazards within strict timeframes. We have committed to bring forward regulations for further hazards using a test and learn approach. We will announce timings for the implementation of phase 2 in due course.
The Government have published a draft update to the national design planning practice guidance, which consolidates key existing guides and tools into one document. The updated guidance illustrates the Government’s priorities for well-designed places, helping local authorities to make planning decisions and developers and architects to submit planning applications to local planning authorities. It highlights that well-designed, liveable places should have a mix of house types and tenures to suit people of all ages and all stages of life, according to different needs, and integrated with other facilities. We are clear that this guidance should be applied across all housing sectors in this country, including social homes. A consultation seeking views on that guidance closed on 10 March, and we will publish a final version in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to my spreadsheet about the quality of homes. I have just taken on this responsibility. I take it very seriously, and there is a lot of work to do.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to energy efficiency in social housing. We are committed to ensuring that every tenant has a decent, warm and comfortable home. We are implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards in the social rented sector, requiring all social homes to meet the new energy performance metrics. They will help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants, reduce fuel poverty and make homes warmer, more comfortable and less susceptible to damp and mould.
We have also published the future homes standards, which will come into force in March 2027 for non-high-risk building work. All new homes will have excellent insulation, low-carbon heating systems and, in most cases, solar panels.
To answer my noble friend Lady Young—sorry, I should not call her that now, but she still is—social landlords will be required to meet one of the new energy performance certificate metrics. We have listened to the sector’s concerns about affordability and deliverability, and we have introduced two compliance dates to address these concerns, allowing providers to balance their time and financial capacity across other housing priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a key issue around investment in social housing and mentioned additional ways to generate capital to support investment in social housing. We are open to hearing innovative ideas that meet our core principles—delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality and sustainable places—so my officials are very happy to follow up with the noble Lord on specific proposals, and I hope he will be happy to discuss those with us.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised an issue about Clause 9. Clause 9 will not affect the increased flexibilities we introduced in July 2025. Councils will continue to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, and those flexibilities will remain in place indefinitely. From 2026-27, councils will also, for the first time, be able to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The purpose of Clause 9 is to reduce administrative burdens for councils and central government because currently, whenever the rules on receipts change, the department must reissue retention agreements to every stockholding authority. Clause 9 will streamline this by allowing the Secretary of State to modify the requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements while maintaining oversight. It is a safeguard power rather than something that takes away the important retention of receipts.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Teather, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, mentioned the important issue of estate regeneration. We are clear that increasing supply and improving the quality of existing homes must go hand in hand. Too many tenants are living in homes that fall short of modern expectations, and we are determined to increase the number of social and affordable homes and to drive up standards across the homes that already exist. That is why the reforms that I have already mentioned are under way—to improve the quality and safety of social housing.
We are committed to supporting estate regeneration schemes to transform neighbourhoods and deliver well-designed housing with a better quality of life for tenants. The core strategic objective of the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is to maximise supply, but it will also support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in affordable homes.
The noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, among other Peers, all spoke on the right to buy. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government are not seeking to abolish the scheme. For many social tenants, it remains a crucial route into home ownership, opening the door to greater security and opportunity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord John, highlighted, we must also confront the reality before us. For too long, homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced at the rate needed, contributing to growing pressures on social housing supply and waiting lists across the country. That is why the Bill takes a balanced and responsible approach, retaining the opportunity for long-standing tenants to buy their homes, while protecting vital stock and ensuring councils can replace homes sold. So these are practical, necessary reforms that are designed to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme.
On the issues around home ownership and social mobility, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Gill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, the right to buy provides a pathway for social housing tenants to own their home. However, as I said, too many homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced. So we are reforming this, as we set out in our manifesto, but we are not shutting the door on home ownership; that pathway will remain for tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for a long time.
On the wider issue of home ownership, there is an extensive programme going on now with the sector to make the buying and selling of homes much less complicated and much easier for first-time buyers, so your Lordships will hear more about that in weeks to come.
The one-for-one replacement of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Warwick, Lady Shah and Lady Neate. We are moving away from the previous one-for-one replacement target for homes because that was introduced when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. We know that the right to buy has acted as a strong disincentive to council housebuilding, which our reforms will unleash. We are calling on councils not just to replace homes sold but to go further and play a central role in delivering a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. That reflects our wider programme and objective. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery to make sure that this continues to be the case.
I want to speak briefly about the rural exemption, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Excluding rural areas from the right to buy reflects the very real and unique challenges of replacing social and affordable homes in those communities. Constraints on land, planning and supply mean that once homes are lost, they are often extremely difficult to replace. For that reason, we have taken the targeted decision to exempt designated rural areas from the scheme. We are not proposing to exempt any further areas from the scheme.
I have already spoken a bit about allocations, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was very concerned about these issues. The allocations framework is not included in the Bill, but work is going on with the sector to discuss further issues around allocations. The allocations framework gives priority to the groups who are most in need, and local councils have the freedom to manage their own waiting lists so they can develop solutions that make best use of their social housing stock. They are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people—for example, those who are homeless, as I know the noble Baroness will be very well aware—and we committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness to work with partners to update statutory guidance on social housing allocations to make sure that the framework is working effectively, and to support vulnerable households.
I will just briefly mention the mergers of housing associations, which was a common theme that came out during the debate. Housing associations of course play a vital role in delivering good quality homes and services, and landlords sometimes conclude that the best way to do this is through a merger with another housing association. Housing associations are independent organisations that make their own commercial decisions, and we do not direct how they run their business. However, all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards before and after any merger. In addition, under the transparency, influence and accountability standard set by the regulator, where a merger is being considered, tenants must be given the opportunity to influence and be involved in that process. A landlord must also be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. I knew I was not going to get to all the points I wanted to make, but I will respond to noble Lords in writing on those I have missed.
Fundamentally, this Bill is key to ensuring that social housing continues to play the role it should in our society, not just for today but into the future. As I reflected at the beginning of this debate, social housing has long provided more than just a roof over people’s heads. It supports stable, connected communities, places where people can put down roots, build their lives and remain close to family and support networks. The Bill is a step towards restoring that stability—what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, called opportunity, security and comfort. Those were good words. It is protecting the homes we have, supporting the building of the homes we need and ensuring that the system works fairly for those who rely on it most. In doing so, it seeks to ensure that future generations can once again enjoy the security, opportunity and sense of belonging that I had growing up in Stevenage and that social housing has provided for so many in the past.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clause 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 20, Title.