House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The price cap increase announced last week as a result of the war in Iran was deeply concerning news for families in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Tackling the cost of living crisis is the Government’s top priority, which is why we have acted to take £150 of costs off bills in the coming years and expanded the warm home discount, and why we are accelerating the warm homes plan. We will do everything we can to help protect her constituents in the face of this fossil fuel price spike.
Dame Chi Onwurah
In the local elections, Reform told my constituents, who are worried about rising fuel bills, that drilling new wells in the North sea would bring down energy prices. Will the Secretary of State explain how long it would take for the oil to flow if we permitted drilling new wells tomorrow, who would benefit the most from that oil, and how that would bring down prices at the pumps or energy bills in Newcastle? Given that, I suspect, big oil companies would benefit the most, is he surprised that 70% of Reform’s funding comes from fuel investors?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and does so in her articulate way. The big choice that we in this House face is this: is the way out of a fossil fuel crisis to double down on fossil fuels, in a way that would make no difference to bills and prices, or is the answer to drive further and faster for clean energy, as this Government are doing? We have made our choice.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for championing deep geothermal. This Government recognise the potential that deep geothermal represents, particularly as a source for heat networks. Our priority is building out heat network infrastructure, which can then connect to any heat source. The green heat network fund and contracts for difference offer opportunities for geothermal projects to demonstrate the potential to de-risk both heat and power.
Dr Mullan
Deep geothermal has great potential for left-behind communities in this country, and it is a first-class transition industry for our oil and gas workforce. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the positive engagement with the Minister in the other place, who is a huge champion of deep geothermal, but the message from industry is that that is not enough, and that the funds that the Minister mentions are not doing the job. A deep geothermal strategy, giving the Government’s vote of confidence in deep geothermal, could go a long way, and would not necessarily cost very much. Industry tells us that that in itself would drive growth. Will the Government consider a strategy for deep geothermal?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Gentleman once again for championing this issue. I know he has been calling for it, and I welcome the engagement. It was exciting to see the first deep geothermal project being opened in February, as a result of the contracts for difference, and more projects are coming online as a result. We are prioritising the heat network, but I would welcome more conversations with him to ensure that we are making all the right choices.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
West Fife has huge potential for geothermal. In particular, the Comrie colliery development, at a former mining site, is now being regenerated to create leisure facilities, housing and other mixed-use development. It has been exploring the possibility of using deep geothermal from the former mine. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this in more detail, and perhaps come to visit the site to see its huge potential?
Katie White
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The opportunity to visit sounds fabulous, and I look forward to it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
Clean energy is a huge economic opportunity for every corner of the country. Our clean energy jobs plan highlighted 860,000 high-quality jobs across the whole of our nation by 2030—jobs that young people will not need to leave their home town for.
Steve Witherden
As we face the second fossil fuel shock in half a decade, it is right that the Government are scaling up clean, home-grown renewable energy through the energy independence Bill. However, clean energy jobs are not yet being created at the pace required to replace losses in oil and gas. How will the Government guarantee secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade union rights throughout the green transition?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point out the vulnerability to oil price shocks—Wales has been identified as a particularly vulnerable area. Like me, he has paid close attention to the report by the former Member for Darlington, Alan Milburn, on the need to provide opportunities for young people; in fact, I believe he has invited Alan Milburn to a meeting of his all-party parliamentary group later this week. The clean energy industry is one of the industries that will provide good-quality jobs, and in the Department we are using grants and procurement to ensure that we have strong trade union engagement.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) is right: those jobs are not there yet, and we risk losing the incredible talent in our energy industry as my constituents move abroad to find jobs. My constituency has historically had some of the highest numbers of patents in the UK, so we have the innovators we need for the energy transition. How will the Minister and the Government ensure that this gap is filled and that people can find jobs to power that transition, rather than leaving us because there are no jobs just now?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Lady raises an important point about managing the transition, and that is certainly what this Government are doing. I just want to challenge the point about the number of jobs being created by the number being lost. I know that the Opposition are always keen to quote the research from Robert Gordon University, but it does point to more jobs being created than lost. Actually, the recent report from the Confederation of British Industry now says that 1.1 million jobs in our economy are now dependent on net zero. But clearly, we do need to support the transition—it will not happen on its own. That is why, through our North sea transition funding and the opportunities through our clean energy technical colleges, we are providing that opportunity for people.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Twenty-five per cent of the manufacturing output of the east midlands is in the food and drink sector, but that sector feels left behind in the clean energy transition without support from Government programmes, such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme. What support can the Minister give to the food and drink sector to ensure that it continues to prosper in the east midlands and to create jobs in constituencies such as mine?
Chris McDonald
The Government and I recognise the importance of the food and drink sector. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sector is not included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but our boiler upgrade scheme does apply to these industries. One thing that I am doing is looking at the role of third-party intermediaries. The Department intends to provide a regulatory role for Ofgem, and subject to parliamentary time, we should be bringing forward measures that will benefit the food and drink industry.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
This Government are not supporting workers in the oil and gas sector in north-east Scotland and Aberdeen; they are supporting workers in the oil and gas sectors of Norway, Qatar, America and even now Russia. The recent energy transition survey from the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce showed that 37% of respondents had seen staff or colleagues move abroad. What will it take for this Government to see the damage they are doing and end their ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and get Britain drilling again?
Chris McDonald
I have to say that caring for the transition of our oil and gas workers is not something on which the Opposition have a monopoly, because only the Government have taken any action. The previous party when in government oversaw a decline in the North sea and did nothing to support a transition. This Government are supporting the transition in the North sea. Through our tiebacks policy, we are ensuring that we can make the best use of the available resources, but by continuing to invest in our cheapest form of energy and by ensuring that the supply chains are here and that the skills remain here, we will create those opportunities for people to work in those areas of the UK.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?
Chris McDonald
Clearly, on a personal level, I say to the hon. Member’s constituent that I fully understand the position she is in, having lived through such transitions myself. But the difference with this Government is that we are taking care to ensure that communities are supported—1.1 million jobs now in net zero, £105 billion of gross value added and £90 billion invested in clean energy industries since this Government came to power. We are building the British industry of the future and attracting investment to do that. We are creating the jobs of the future, while the Conservatives sat and oversaw a decline.
Andrew Bowie
We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?
Chris McDonald
I think we have found something on which we can agree, which is that we need to invest in renewables further and faster. I look forward to those on the Opposition Front Bench supporting our clean power 2030 plan.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
With that new-found consensus on the clean power mission, I am happy to report to the House that we are making good progress towards our targets. We delivered the most successful renewables auction in history through allocation round 7, securing enough home-grown power for 11 million homes, as well as delivering a record-breaking 269,000 solar installations last year, the majority of which were on rooftop sites. By moving further and faster towards electrification, we are reducing our dependency on global fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security here at home.
Vikki Slade
Last month, alongside other Dorset MPs, I met with the Crown Estate to discuss the Dorset Clean Energy Super Cluster. While I welcome its recognition of the area as a medium-term opportunity, it is concerning that development is likely at least a decade away, despite Dorset’s significant potential for a range of green energy initiatives. Given that net zero industries are already delivering higher wages than average and 50% greater productivity than the UK average, does the Minister agree that it is both an environmental and economic missed opportunity to delay Dorset’s potential for so long, and will he commit to reviewing this personally and consider appointing a ministerial advocate for the south-west on energy security?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right to champion her local community. I have met with those involved in the Dorset super cluster before, and I am happy to do so again, because we do see huge potential for the clean energy transition right across the country. As she rightly says, it is also about how we create good, well-paid jobs in every community, so I am very happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Progress? Not when it comes to Scotland’s jet fuel supply, because yesterday there were fuel shortages at Scottish airports, meaning lengthy delays. Those on the Front Bench will say it was because of a tanker driver shortage—a logistics issue—and they would be absolutely right to do so. However, the fact is that 2,822 supply chain jobs were lost because of the Grangemouth oil refinery closure, leading to transport problems like the one we saw yesterday. Jet fuel shortages will happen again; what are the Government going to do to stop that happening?
Michael Shanks
Well, it is a basic fact that the very short-term disruption at both Glasgow and Edinburgh airport was caused by driver disruption. That has now been resolved, and flights are carrying on as normal. There is not an issue with jet fuel in the UK at all; that is just a fact, and I am happy to put that on the record.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the failure of both the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government to plan for what was well known—the closure of Grangemouth—has meant that we lost the opportunity to build on the industries that were there. However, we have committed £200 million, so that there is an industrial future at Grangemouth. We have announced the first projects from that, and there are many more to come.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I have a very simple question. Everybody in this House knows we will need gas for decades to come, so for once, can the Minister give a straight answer? Which is better for the environment: going to a country 1,000 miles away, fracking the gas, freezing the gas, shipping it and reheating it, or just piping it in straight from the North sea?
Michael Shanks
The very simple answer is that we are continuing to use the North sea—no one is switching off what we are producing in the North sea—but the amount that we are able to extract from the North sea has been in long-term decline. The right hon. Lady knows that because she was the Secretary of State who talked a lot about the need for a transition in the North sea—she recognised then that the North sea has been in decline. We have been a net importer for more than 20 years, so this is not a short-term position. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), gave the game away a few minutes ago: the answer to this is how we build the industries that come in the future, alongside retaining oil and gas for many decades to come.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The UK is home to fantastic and innovative clean technology start-ups in the energy space. However, these businesses tell me that funding for start-up and, importantly, scale-up phases in this space is falling off a cliff. The net zero innovation portfolio, which awarded more than £1.3 billion in grants and crowded in £3 for every £1 in public spend, was abolished at the last spending review, and the clean tech innovation challenge has yet to get off the ground. Will the Minister explain what his Department is doing to support clean tech start-ups in this space?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right to highlight the enormous potential. For a very long time, the UK has not been good at growing the good innovation and spin-outs coming out of our university and innovation space. We need to nurture them, but also build on them and invest in them in the future. That is why we are investing in that early stage development, and it is also why Great British Energy is interested in what the next set of innovations are, how we can back them and, crucially, how we can keep the intellectual property here in the UK and also build the supply chains and the industry that goes along with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, and today’s report from the CBI outlines just how crucial it is to the overall British economy that we continue to grow and nurture the exact industries that he talks about.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership in West Bromwich, in this place, and internationally. This Government have consulted on our manifesto commitment to introduce transition plan requirements for UK regulated financial institutions and large companies, and my Department will publish our response to that consultation shortly.
Sarah Coombes
Britain has been overly reliant on oil and gas for decades, and fossil fuel companies have profited hugely from that. I was glad to see the CBI report today, which said that the net-zero economy is now worth more than £100 billion to the UK. Given that electrification is essential to the UK’s energy future, what role will different types of energy company, who will eventually reap the profits of electricity use, have in investing in infrastructure for that transition?
Katie White
Electrification is key—that is something we can agree on across the House and outside. As my hon. Friend rightly says, since July 2024 we have secured £90 billion of investment in the UK within the clean energy sector, and it is fabulous to see the CBI report today that says that that sector is now supporting nearly 1 million jobs in the UK. Those are real jobs and lives across the country.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The people of Skidby, Little Weighton and Walkington are not opposed to the clean energy transition, yet 90% of them are opposing the 2,500-acre clean air solar farm that is swamping that area, in conjunction with other such farms. They are against multiple large-scale solar developments industrialising productive farmland, including grade 2 and 3a land, undermining food security, and permanently altering rural communities. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State will stop chuntering, he will look at the issue with an open mind and listen, properly, to the people of that area?
Katie White
I am glad to see the right hon. Member’s agreement on the direction of travel. We must ensure that we involve local communities in decisions, but choices need to be made. I was honoured to work with one of his colleagues in the other place—they were formerly in this place—who spoke to me as a farmer about the value of solar projects for farmers. We must ensure that we protect that land. That is why my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs introduced the “Land Use Framework”, and we must ensure a strategic approach. In all our plans less than 1% of land will be used for solar, but I am keen to continue the conversation and I am glad we agree on the direction of travel.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The two renewables auctions under this Government have secured power for the equivalent of 23 million homes, and we are embarked on the biggest nuclear building programme for 50 years. The war in Iran shows that we need to go further and faster, so we will open our next renewables auction next month. We recently signed contracts for a fleet of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors. Clean power is already reducing wholesale electricity prices by up to a quarter, and those steps will do more to protect families and businesses across our country.
Mr Dhesi
For my Slough constituents, the crisis in Iran and the naval blockade have had a profound impact on household budgets, but we have also been left vulnerable by previous Conservative-led Governments who ran down our energy system for over a decade, leaving us on the fossil fuel rollercoaster and susceptible to global fluctuations. Unlike our Tory predecessors who failed to invest and did not provide for our constituents, what measures are the Government taking to invest in cheap, clean, home-grown energy so that my Slough constituents, and others across the country, can be protected from those spikes in the cost of living?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The central fact that we cannot get away from is that we are price takers not price makers when it comes to oil and gas, and that is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of where the Opposition are. We are going to drive further and faster on clean power, including electrification across the economy. Indeed, customers are already better protected as a result of the renewables in our system, but we must go further and faster.
Jacob Collier
The US-Israel war has pushed up prices for my constituents and is yet more evidence that we need to be energy self-sufficient with clean power, so I greatly welcome the £2.6 billion investment in Rolls-Royce for small modular reactors. That is great news for my constituents, as well as those in Derby and the wider region, and those reactors will help with Britain’s energy security. Will the Secretary of State say more about how GB Energy will invest in such projects?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I was pleased to sign that contract with Rolls-Royce in the past few weeks. We are world leaders in small modular reactors and this is a massive innovation, not just for Britain but for the world. It is not just the jobs constructing the SMRs that are really important, but the jobs in the supply chain too. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and Members across the House on ensuring that their constituents benefit from those good, well-paid jobs.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
To get the best out of intermittent energy producers such as wind and solar, we need to invest in battery energy storage systems. However, these face new safety challenges. The National Fire Chiefs Council recently issued guidance that understandably concentrates on firefighting techniques rather than design. The Minister has kindly met me in the past, but will he agree to a further meeting to specifically address the unmet needs in national construction standards?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I know that the Energy Minister has met him and the National Fire Chiefs Council to discuss this issue. We take the safety of battery technology incredibly seriously, and I am sure that the Energy Minister will be happy to meet him again for further discussions.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Government say that less than 1% of the countryside will be covered in solar farms, but if the 7,000-acre Great North Road scheme, which is now before the Secretary of State, the 2,000-acre Steeple scheme, which is also now before the Secretary of State, and the 4,000-acre One Earth scheme, which will be before the Secretary of State shortly, are all approved, almost 10% of the land mass of my constituency—one of the most rural and largest in England—will be covered in solar farms, with good-quality agricultural land in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire lost. How on earth is that fair to local communities?
Ed Miliband
For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I am not going to comment on individual planning decisions, because they have to go through the proper process, but I say to him that solar is the cheapest, cleanest form of power that we have. We can decide to bury our heads in the sand and stay on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, but the people who will pay for it are his constituents, because they are paying for it now in higher energy Bills. This Labour Government will keep going with the drive for clean power.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
We recognise that the latest price cap that has been announced will be deeply concerning for households, many of whom were already struggling before the Iran crisis hit. That is why the Government have already taken action. We have taken £150 of costs off energy bills, extended the warm home discount to nearly 6 million families and provided over £50 million of immediate support for vulnerable customers who use heating oil. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation closely ahead of winter and stand ready to take action.
Olly Glover
The energy price cap increase is estimated to cost each household an extra £18 every month, which is the price of a regular essential food shop at a discount supermarket. I note the measures that the Minister says the Government are taking, but in addition will the Government urgently bring forward a social tariff for vulnerable low-income households?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Member makes an important point. The Government do not want anyone to be making the choice between heating and eating. That is why across Government we are working on a data sprint to work out how we can use household income date to ensure that we are targeting support at the right people.
Shockat Adam
The typical annual dual fuel bill is 40% higher today in real terms than it was in 2021. After accounting for inflation, that means it is £511 more per household. The bad news does not stop there, with Ofgem announcing that the crisis is going to get worse, with a 13% increase to the energy price cap. My constituents in Leicester South were already suffering. Labour promised to fix that, but the cost of living is just getting worse. The Minister says that the only way to protect our country is through clean, home-grown power, so what is he doing to decouple the bills from gas prices and when will my constituents feel that?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Leicester will benefit from the decisions that we have already made. Those decisions take £150 off energy costs and extend the warm home discount and the warm homes plan, providing £15 billion of support. We are delinking and we are already taking action, as the Secretary of State announced last month. Ofgem has pointed out that although last week wholesale gas prices at the price cap went up by 24%, electricity went up by 5%. As it said:
“This reflects the increase in the amount of renewable generation on the system and therefore reduced reliance on gas”.
Mr Mohindra
In my constituency, 3,199 households currently experience fuel poverty due to high energy costs, and costs linked to the Government’s clean energy agenda could mean that household bills are set to rise by at least £100 in the next four years. How long will hard-working families in South West Hertfordshire have to pay the price for Labour’s ideological dash away from domestic energy production until it has a credible plan to fill the gaps in its energy policy?
Martin McCluskey
That comes from a member of a party that learned no lessons from the last energy crisis. We will not make the same mistakes, which is why we are investing in clean power by 2030, which will drive down bills. Only today, we have seen the jobs benefit from the investment in clean energy, supporting 1.1 million jobs, 22,000 small businesses and £105 billion for our economy.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s measures to support domestic consumers of kerosene heating oil. I am told that if those who are eligible filled their tanks today, they would pay the equivalent of what they will be paying in February 2027. In my constituency we have big commercial users of kerosene oil, such as distilleries, seaweed manufacturing, tourist amenities and chemical plants. What measures is the Department taking to support commercial users of kerosene oil?
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does to advocate for his constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar; I was pleased to visit him recently to see the impact that the increases in heating oil are having on his constituents. We are looking closely at the non-domestic heating oil market, and we will come forward with more proposals in due course.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the team on reducing the cost of energy, including with recent efforts to break the link between the volatile gas price and electricity prices. However, every witness before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, when we ask how to decarbonise and reduce bills, tells us, “Make electricity cheaper.” What further efforts will the Government make in reforming the energy market in order to achieve that?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend will know that we are taking action, which the Secretary of State announced, to further delink the cost of electricity from gas. As Ofgem said last week in relation to the price cap, we are already seeing the effects of that. Because of the additional renewable generation in the system, we are seeing the effects of that. Every turbine we build, every solar panel we deploy and every reactor we bring online will ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and bring down the cost of electricity.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
A good way of reducing bills is to reduce consumption. In Germany, about 12 years ago, subsidised mortgages were introduced to help reduce the cost of installing triple glazing in houses. However, in conservation areas in this country, such as in my constituency, people are prevented from installing even secondary glazing, so they cannot reduce their bills, even though they would desperately like to. Will the Minister meet colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get this issue sorted?
Martin McCluskey
I would be more than happy to meet to discuss that. The warm homes plan—our £15 billion investment in home energy upgrades, which is the biggest in British history—will go a long way to achieving some of the ends that my hon. Friend describes. I point him towards the work that we are doing jointly with the Green Finance Institute to bring forward low-cost consumer loans so that people across the country can benefit from clean technology.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
One in three households in the constituency that I represent live in fuel poverty, and they face even higher bills from 1 July. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now and to give people certainty in the cold winter months ahead?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, and I look forward to working closely with her on this brief, as I have done with other colleagues from her party. She will know that we have said we are looking at all contingencies in relation to the support that we may need to offer in the winter, but that has to be paid for. We need to ensure that we have proposals that do not make the same mistakes that the Conservatives made in the last crisis, when they wrote a blank cheque in order to provide support to people, so we will come forward with plans for support in the winter.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool is home to something special and remarkable: a pioneering eco community hub at Palatine library that offers free, independent energy advice and is helping residents to make sense of new technologies to reduce their bills. Since July 2024, when it opened, it has visited 1,300 homes, offered 1,000 winter packs and saved over £111,000 in energy bills. I met a new trainee green doctor there, Luke Hollowell, who is going into homes to support residents. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this eco hub, to ensure that we can keep it going for the long term and maybe roll it out across the country?
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing on this issue in his constituency, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further. I have seen for myself the benefits that green doctors—energy doctors—bring to constituencies across the country when I have visited those programmes. That kind of local support will be central to the work we are doing in setting up the warm homes agency, which will provide advice and guidance to people across the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Labour came to office with bold promises to cut energy bills, but in the real world we have seen bills go up, up and up again. In answer to the first question, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to do all he could to cut energy bills, so here are some ideas for how he could do so. He could scrap carbon taxes, he could remove VAT from energy for three years, and he could scrap legacy renewable subsidies—that would save people £200. It is called the Conservatives’ cheap energy plan and, in the national interest, we do not mind if he steals it. Will he?
Martin McCluskey
We can see the economic recklessness of the Conservative party when the hon. Member stands at that Dispatch Box making uncosted promises and claims. Before this crisis, bills were going down—they were going in the right direction—and no one would have anticipated the consequences of the war in Iran. Let us look at the balance sheet of the past two years. This Government have made the biggest investment in warm homes in our history, with record-breaking renewables delivering for 23 million homes. As of today, there has been £90 billion of clean energy investment, and every single wind turbine we deploy and every single nuclear reactor that is online reduces energy bills for consumers across the country.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
Supporting businesses with the cost of energy is a priority for the Government. We have expanded support through the British industrial competitiveness scheme and increased discounts on electricity network charges, and we stand ready to act if market conditions worsen due to the middle east crisis.
Clive Jones
Surelock McGill, based in my constituency, is a world leader in the manufacture of door locking systems. It recently acquired a casting foundry to ensure that its manufacturing process proudly remains entirely in the UK, but the foundry is struggling with ever-increasing energy costs. What will the Government do to support local businesses that are proud to contribute to the UK economy yet seem to be suffering as a result of their determination to keep manufacturing in the UK?
Chris McDonald
In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, if the company is operating a ferrous foundry, that will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme. If it is a non-ferrous foundry, he may wish to share further details with me, because I have had representations on both copper and aluminium foundries, which I am looking at very carefully.
Sarah Green
Not only are small businesses facing increasing energy bills, but they are dealing with prohibitive costs in connecting to the grid when they want to expand. These businesses want to grow, invest and create jobs, and we should be helping them, so what is the Department doing to bring down the cost of grid connection and ensure that the price of accessing reliable power is never the reason that a small business cannot get off the ground or expand?
Chris McDonald
We are concerned about the ability of businesses to connect to the grid, both to expand and to invest in new production facilities. Part of the work we did on reordering the grid queue was to help with that, but my colleague the Minister for Energy has commissioned an Ofgem end-to-end review so that we can bear down on the cost of grid connections.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
From Denby Pottery to Royal Crown Derby, soaring energy costs are hitting our ceramics industry hard, putting more skilled jobs at risk. I welcome the recently announced ceramics support package, which will help bring costs down, but can the Minister confirm that he will work with colleagues across Government to ensure that energy bill support reaches the ceramics manufacturers who need it the most?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend and all the other MPs from the Stoke and Staffordshire area for their work in championing the ceramics industry. First, let me say how sad I was to hear the news about Denby, as that company proceeds into administration. The Government are providing support to the workforce. On the point he raised, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s support we are providing £120 million to enable ceramics companies to invest in lower carbon production—essentially, electrical furnaces—so that they can decarbonise and reduce their operating costs. I will be working closely with ceramics MPs on the implementation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I have recently written to the Department for Business and Trade about the Lea Valley growers, who are fantastic fruit and veg glasshouse growers in my constituency of Harlow. That hugely energy-intensive business is important to food security, and indeed to this country’s security more generally. What work is the Minister doing across Departments and with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that no energy-intensive business, including the Lea Valley growers, is forgotten?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his letter on the Lea Valley growers. I have had discussions as a result of his prompting with Ministers in other Departments, not only about the Lea Valley growers, but about the horticulture sector more generally. I will update him on that in response to his letter. I thank him for saying that my answers so far have been acceptable, and hopefully that one is too.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Co-operation with our EU counterparts is vitally important when it comes to energy security. I recently travelled to the WindEurope conference in Madrid, where I joined other European Ministers to discuss how recent global events have shown that we have to work together to deliver on our energy security. We have held constructive discussions with the EU on the internal electricity market and those continue.
Dr Pinkerton
At a time of intense geopolitical instability, British households remain particularly exposed to volatile global energy prices. Indeed, Ofcom has announced a 13% rise in the energy price cap from July. Given that there are interconnectors with six European countries already, does the Minister agree with a coterie of esteemed energy economists that the single greatest thing that this Government could do to strengthen our energy security, drive long-term investment in renewable energy and bring down bills would be to recouple our electricity market with that of the European Union? [Interruption.]
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Member. We have this bizarre situation where we have chuntering from the Opposition Front Benchers about the fact that we have interconnections with Europe. We have had them for decades, and they are important to our energy security. That was the case under both Governments, and theirs is an absurd position. He is absolutely right to say that in a moment of geopolitical uncertainty, closer links with Europe are important. Our interconnectors import and export every single day to the benefit of consumers in Britain. We want to see much more efficient energy trading, and that is why we are working on those formal negotiations about the EU internal electricity market, which is important for Britain.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The provisions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 drive industry action via due diligence and transparency to tackle forced labour in supply chains for solar panels. All procurement conducted under Government and GBE contracts is required to meet those standards.
Bradley Thomas
The Xinjiang Uyghur region of China is estimated to provide 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon. An estimated 68% of UK panels come from China, and two thirds of NHS trusts are dependent on Chinese solar. The Government have said that GB Energy is committed to having a supply chain free from slave labour by spring 2025, but a Politico investigation has revealed that five out of seven of the contracts that GB Energy has provided for schools cannot guarantee that they are free from forced labour. The GB solar stewardship initiative pledges to ensure that there is no slave labour, but there is no guarantee of 100% elimination of slave labour from the supply chain. What will the Government do to reduce slave labour in supply chains and wean the UK off Chinese-made infrastructure?
Michael Shanks
As I said during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of tackling modern slavery as a country across supply chains and across the economy. It is right that we take action. We are tackling forced labour where we find it in global supply chains, and we want to go further. GBE will be a leader in how we tackle modern slavery, and it has set up a function to look at sustainable supply chains and to ensure that they are free from modern slavery.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
For too long, heat networks have been left unregulated, with consumers paying the price. That is why I am pleased that we have now established Ofgem as the heat network sector regulator, delivering statutory redress, advice and advocacy to protect households. We aim to develop the regulatory framework further, and recently concluded a consultation on mandating minimum technical standards.
Tracy Gilbert
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I also place on the record my thanks to him for coming to meet my constituents from Saltire Street and Saltire Square, and for listening to what they said about the long-running issues that they have been facing with their district heating networks?
I welcome the regulation that this Government have brought forward. Can my hon. Friend confirm that data on pricing will now need to be reported quarterly to Ofgem, and that this will help increase transparency for my constituents and others?
Martin McCluskey
I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents in Edinburgh to discuss the issues that they face with their heat network. The poor experience that they have had is an example of why we have introduced this regulation, and I commend her for the campaign that she has been running on their behalf. She is right to say that, under the new regulatory framework, heat network suppliers will be required to submit pricing data quarterly to Ofgem, improving oversight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
He’s the one with the hair, Mr Speaker; I don’t have any.
I welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert). The regulation of heat networks is not just an issue for her constituency, as the Minister well understands. My request to him—he is one of the Ministers who always respond very positively—is that he makes sure that we in Northern Ireland are able to take advantage of the opportunity that the hon. Lady mentioned, and that he gives us a good answer.
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Gentleman will know that I take a keen interest in Northern Irish politics. I spent this morning in a Delegated Legislation Committee, delivering a reduction in bills through the removal of the renewables obligation. I am more than happy to discuss further with him how the regulation of heat networks might operate in Northern Ireland.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her leadership on this issue? The UK is a global leader on carbon pricing and nature recovery. We are committed to strengthening carbon markets to help us achieve our climate and nature goals. At London Climate Action Week, we will set out our work to centre integrity and build scale in these markets through the coalition to grow carbon markets, and the consultation response will be published later this year.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for her response, and I welcome the UK’s leadership. Investors are concerned that the role of nature-based solutions in carbon market frameworks is not being fully recognised. With London Climate Action Week fast approaching, can she reassure investors that the Government see nature-based solutions as crucial to our collective efforts to tackle climate change, and that we will pursue this endeavour during upcoming article 6 negotiations?
Katie White
I assure my hon. Friend and investors that nature-based solutions are central to our response to this issue. London is the centre of carbon markets, and we want to protect that. We have been focusing on the coalition to grow carbon markets, which we will work on at London Climate Action Week, but I would love to work with her to make sure that we give reassurance, act with integrity and come forward with the necessary proposals.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Minister plan to allow clean community energy companies to sell power directly to households and businesses?
Katie White
We are pursuing that through the local power plan, and we intend for that to happen.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Today we have set out our proposal for the seventh carbon budget, as new research from CBI Economics shows that over a million workers are now supported by the UK’s net zero economy. This comes after 2025 set a new record for solar generation, and we have already set a new record in 2026 for offshore wind generation. We are taking these steps because they are the right choice for energy security, and for investment in good jobs and growth, and because it is the right thing to do for future generations and to prevent climate breakdown.
Adam Dance
Red diesel costs have rocketed from 78p a litre on 26 February to around 98p a litre now. For Nick, who farms in South Petherton, price rises mean an extra £7,000 per week cost that he basically has to take on the chin. Can the Secretary of State tell Yeovil farmers what steps he is taking to support them with the cost of red diesel?
Ed Miliband
We take this issue incredibly seriously, and we are talking to the Competition and Markets Authority to make sure that the pricing is fair. We continue to monitor this, and to look at what further action may be necessary.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the workers from Grangemouth. I wrote to him earlier this week on the case of his two constituents. The training fund was set up to provide that support. We will continue to look at it, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I would like to offer my condolences to the Secretary of State on the death of his mother. It is clear that she was a remarkable woman, clearly much loved by her family.
I have a yes-or-no question for the Secretary of State: can he guarantee that not a single solar panel put on a British primary school by his Government has been produced by Chinese slave labour?
Ed Miliband
First, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words about my mum. If you will allow me to say so, Mr Speaker, I feel incredibly sad to have lost her, but very lucky to have had 56 years with an amazing mum, who taught me values of kindness, warmth, love and justice. It is a reminder to me of what really matters most in our lives. I sincerely thank the shadow Secretary of State for the message she sent me.
On the question about the use of forced labour, we take this incredibly seriously. We inherited a regime from the last Government, which we applied in the early stages of what GB Energy was doing, but the shadow Secretary of State will know that, through the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, we have strengthened GB Energy’s commitment to this. Frances O’Grady is now the champion of dealing with slave labour. I can absolutely assure the shadow Secretary of State that we will do everything we can to prevent the use of forced labour.
Claire Coutinho
Well, there were words there, but there was no guarantee, so let me just remind the House that the Secretary of State has sold his entire agenda as being one of providing moral leadership to the rest of the world, but there is no moral leadership in sending British children to schools powered by Chinese slaves.
On 2 May, our electricity grid almost breached its frequency limit. That has the potential to cause nationwide blackouts. The Secretary of State’s plans are making it harder and harder to balance the grid—there is no denying that—so can he confirm who is legally accountable if we have a blackout, thanks to grid instability, and what repercussions would that person face?
Ed Miliband
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State is indulging in the worst sort of scaremongering to justify her anti-clean-energy agenda. It is incredibly sad what has happened to her. She used to believe in clean energy. Today, a report comes out from CBI Economics, showing 1 million jobs in net zero, and what does she do? She starts quibbling about the small print, and saying that the report does not represent the views of CBI, when the CBI chief economist is actually advocating for clean energy.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue. We need to make sure, when pushing forward with our planning developments, that they are undertaken with communities, and that the commitments made are delivered. I would very much welcome hearing more about the case that he raises, and I will talk to my colleagues and to him to take this forward.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The UK should be the world leader in greenhouse gas removals, but the sector is struggling to attract funding and off-takers because of uncertainty about Government support for GGRs. Will the Government please confirm when they plan to publish their response to the independent GGRs review, and whether the Department is considering the launch of a UK buyers’ club, running along similar lines to the EU system?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right about the ambition, and that is why we commissioned the independent review by my noble Friend Lord Whitehead. We will respond to that review in due course, and we are ambitious about the role that GGRs can play.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
My hon. Friend is a big champion of not just Bristol, but climate action more generally. Bristol is one of the trailblazing heat network cities, and its City Leap partnership is a model of what other local authorities can consider. I am pleased that we have announced nearly £35 million in this Parliament for the further development of its heat networks.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Ed Miliband
Tony Blair has lots of interesting views. I am actually old enough to remember when Tony Blair was a great advocate of climate leadership in this country. Fundamentally, this Government and I believe that unless we get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster—I think all Members have to confront this—we will never get the energy security and lower bills that all our constituents want.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The River Severn holds incredible potential for tidal energy, with the Severn Estuary Commission finding that it has the potential to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how the Government plan to take that forward, and how we can ensure that some of the resulting good-quality green jobs come to Gloucester?
Katie White
We are grateful for the Severn Estuary Commission’s work, and we recognise the benefits that tidal range can bring to our energy system. For now, the Government remain open to considering well developed proposals for harnessing the tidal range energy in the bays and estuaries around our coastline. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a crucial aspect of the local power plan. We need to support communities in developing the project, and then creating a market in which they can sell electricity locally. We are working with Ofgem and partners to ensure that can happen, and we will say more in due course.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Had the 8.3 GW of offshore wind secured at the start of this year through allocation round 7 been in place last year, we would have seen gas generation cut by a third, and wholesale prices down by 13%. It is clear that we have to double down on the clean energy revolution. We cannot be distracted by yet more fossil fuel work. Will the Secretary of State outline how we will push forward the clean energy transition, and offshore wind in particular?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. If I might actually praise the previous Government, some of what they did on renewables has helped to reduce wholesale costs. The problem is that the Conservatives have now abandoned their position. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the only answer to the crisis we face is to go further, faster, on getting off fossil fuels and on to clean power.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Northern Ireland is home to some innovative carbon capture businesses with real export potential, but many UK clean technologies face a gap between successful pilot innovation and that first commercial deployment. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that high-value opportunities can be scaled, thereby supporting jobs, investment and growth? Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to visit Nuada?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue. We have provided funding to support the development of carbon capture projects in Northern Ireland, such as Catagen’s biohydrogen reactor in Belfast. We welcome engagement on further carbon capture, usage and storage projects. It is a really important part of decarbonisation, and I am happy to engage on it further.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State just praised the previous Government’s role in rolling out renewables, but what they did not do is seek to co-ordinate energy projects, in particular nationally significant infrastructure projects. In Suffolk Coastal, that is a huge issue, and one that I have raised at length and continually with the Minister. Will the Secretary of State meet me to talk about what we can do to seek better co-ordination, including introducing an energy levy to enforce co-ordination?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The strategic spatial energy plan, which will be coming out later this year, is designed precisely to ensure the kind of co-ordination that she is after. I am very happy to meet her to talk about it.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
By now, the Secretary of State will be well aware of my opposition to the 1,900 acre East Park Energy solar farm in my constituency. We are now at the business end of the planning process; the application is before the Planning Inspectorate, ahead of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year. Will he outline roughly when he expects to have to take a decision on the application? Ahead of that, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) to discuss our concern that it is not the right solution for our area and our constituents?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but because it is a live planning application under independent examination, it is not possible for me to comment further. I obviously encourage him and his constituents to register with the Planning Inspectorate, if they have not done so already, so that they can share their views.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the contracts for difference for geothermal and the fact that the Secretary of State has been down to see deep geothermal in Cornwall. A policy indication from the Government that deep geothermal could form part of our energy mix would be useful to grow confidence in the industry.
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued championing of this matter. It was exciting to see the opening of the first project in February. We are focusing on the local heat networks, but we will continue to engage and are glad to see the CfD projects coming to fruition.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Once again, those on the Government Front Bench have inadvertently misled the House in saying that there is a single price internationally for gas—gas is 80% cheaper in the US than it is here in the UK. When will the Secretary of State grant oil and gas licences in Jackdaw, Rosebank and other fields in the North sea to increase supply and bring down bills?
Ed Miliband
No matter how many times I tell the hon. Gentleman, he does not seem to get it: we are price takers, not price makers. Even the Conservatives, who want to drill every last drop, do not claim that that would reduce bills. The truth is, he said he would— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman calms down for a minute, he will hear my answer. He said he would wage war on clean energy—that is waging war on jobs across our country and on energy security.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Today, X-energy and Centrica’s proposals for advanced modular reactors at Hartlepool reached another major milestone with the submission of an application for a generic design assessment. Given the importance of retaining Hartlepool’s world-class nuclear workforce and ensuring that there is no cliff edge when the existing power station approaches the end of its operational life, will the Minister reassure me that every effort will be made to maintain the outstanding momentum to build this project and, wherever possible, to accelerate progress?
Ed Miliband
I am incredibly excited about this project between X-energy and Centrica—I have met both to talk about it. It is part of this Government overseeing the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, and that is absolutely part of the clean power mission.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for not approving the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cable corridor and for deferring the decision for six months for further consultation. I know how much he wants to achieve his target, so I know how difficult that decision will have been. Together with cross-party local councils, I have written to him to articulate the available alternative routes. Will he use these six months to consider those alternatives?
Michael Shanks
As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on live applications for obvious reasons. We look at every single application on its merits; even though we have ambitions for where we want to get to, individual planning applications are considered on the individual merits on which they are presented.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Peak Cluster in the Hope valley is a cement decarbonisation project looking to prevent 3 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere every year. Will the Minister commit to establishing a clear route to market for industrial carbon capture projects beyond track 1 and track 2 clusters, which would offer projects like Peak Cluster greater certainty?
Michael Shanks
We see carbon capture as a hugely important part of how we decarbonise, and we have supported clusters already. We are looking at what a future model could look like; equally, we need to see other projects coming forward on commercial terms to ensure that they are viable. I continue to meet with all the clusters, and I chair the CCUS taskforce to ensure that we are doing as much as we can.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Saturday, I met representatives from a number of well-established hospitality businesses in my constituency, one of whom is facing an energy cost increase of £70,000 this year. That is clearly unsustainable. What are Ministers doing to prevent unchecked energy increases from happening year on year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, we are concerned about the role of third-party intermediaries and the proper functioning of the market, and, subject to finding parliamentary time, we intend to bring forward the opportunity for Ofgem to act as a regulator in that regard. The hon. Gentleman’s question clearly identifies why it is so important that we return to energy stability in the UK through our own home-grown clean energy.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In an earlier answer, the Minister for Energy mentioned the money being spent on carbon capture, but has he considered the impact of his net zero policies on carbon release? Last week, I visited a site in the Sperrins where 250,000 metric tonnes of peat are to be stripped from the hillside in order to put in the infrastructure for a wind farm. That is similar to what is happening on peatlands all over England. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that and will he—
Mr Speaker
Order. Come on, you’re not playing the game at all. I call the Minister.
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, so I thought I would answer this one. It is important to look at the whole context of carbon emissions in projects, but if he shares our desire to reduce carbon emissions, renewable energy and nuclear energy are the right way forward.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Last September, I met the Minister for Energy Consumers, the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), to discuss those who have been adversely impacted by incorrectly installed spray foam insulation. Has the Department considered remediation or support for those affected?
Martin McCluskey
We are considering a range of remediation options in a number of schemes for which the Department is responsible, most of which were operated by the previous Government. We will come forward with proposals soon.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I, too, offer my condolences to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State will be familiar with the Russian-backed AQUIND application for a submarine interconnector that will cut through Portsmouth naval dockyard, affecting my constituency, and go on to France. The Ministry of Defence has raised national security concerns. We have been waiting over a year for a decision from the Secretary of State on the application. When will he issue one?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words about my mum. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the progress of planning applications, as she will know, but I will definitely pass on her comments to my Department.
Milburn Review: Interim Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the publication of the Milburn report on young people and work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Last week, Alan Milburn produced a powerful report on the crisis of opportunity facing young people. The Secretary of State asked him to lead this work because it is a crisis that has been ignored for far too long. Far too many young people are leaving education and not getting the chance to work. The human and financial impact on individuals can last a lifetime, and the economic costs are significant. It is clear that this is not a feature of the last year or two but a deep-seated and long-term issue.
Unlike the Conservatives, we will not stand back and abandon young people in the face of this crisis. During their last few years in power, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by a quarter of a million—a shameful legacy. Rather than holding young people in contempt, we believe in them. We are making opportunity for young people a national cause. We have begun with the youth guarantee, more work experience, workplace training and apprenticeships, hiring bonuses for employers who take on young people in regular or apprenticeship roles, and subsidised employment for young people who remain out of work for 18 months. That means, in total, half a million opportunities for young people to work, train or undertake apprenticeships.
We have undertaken welfare reform to remove barriers in the benefits system that trap young people. We have changed the law so that claimants on sickness and disability benefits have the right to try work without the fear of automatically triggering a benefit reassessment. We have narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard allowance—a perverse incentive of the last Government’s making—and we are investing in genuinely personalised employment support.
We have made a good start, but last week’s interim report is a call to action. That is why this Government are putting work and opportunity at the heart of everything we do, and we will go even further as Alan Milburn comes forward with his final report and recommendations.
Helen Whately
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that the Minister had to be dragged here. Last week, the Secretary of State was only too eager to talk about this report on the telly. Where is he today? Why so quiet now? I think we all know.
The Secretary of State has been caught out telling the devastating truth about Labour MPs:
“who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”?
That is what Labour MPs really think, and that is what the Government have done. They have put up people’s taxes, spent more on benefits and left hard-working people with less to live off.
Once again, Labour’s shenanigans are getting in the way of something we really should be talking about. Every morning, a million young people wake up in Britain with nothing to do and nowhere to go. This is a disaster for our country, our economy and, worst of all, for all those young people: Labour’s lost generation. The Minister said that it started under us—yes, the numbers did start going up from the pandemic, so this was not a surprise for Ministers—yet here we are after almost two years of Labour in office and it still has no plan. All it has done is make the situation worse, and of course commission this big report.
I welcome Alan Milburn’s contribution—it is a serious analysis—but Milburn himself says it is just a diagnosis; there are no solutions, actual answers or policies. In fact, he even tells us that the things the Government have been doing—their “piecemeal” programmes—are not going to work. He also says that after six months of inactivity, young people are far less likely ever to work. This is urgent, but where is Labour’s urgency?
This is not the first time Labour has let down young people: the number of NEETs soared to 17% after Labour’s last stint in government. The Conservatives turned that around to less than 10% in 2019. Of course, covid undermined that progress, but the Labour Government have turned a post-pandemic problem into a crisis by taxing jobs, tying up businesses in red tape, making it riskier and more expensive to hire a young person, and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail and hospitality. Like many young people, one of my first jobs was working in a local pub, but Labour has pulled the plug on that opportunity for this generation.
Whenever we do get to hear Labour’s plans, we know what they will be: spending more money and taxing people more to pay for it. That is the wrong answer. The answer is jobs, to back businesses, to cut taxes, to get rid of red tape, to get government out of the way and to reform welfare—
Mr Speaker
Order. You get two minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, it is two minutes, and it has always been two minutes. I have not changed the rules. When I grant an urgent question, please stick within the rules. That helps me, because we have said that we will try to adhere to that.
Andrew Western
That was a predictable set of questions from the hon. Lady, who has the audacity to label the NEETs of this country “Labour’s lost generation” when the number of NEETs increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ last few years in office. She tells us that there were no solutions in this report—that is hardly a surprise for anybody paying attention, given that it is an interim report, with further recommendations to follow.
The hon. Lady mentioned national insurance contributions. What does Alan Milburn actually say in his report? Let me direct the House’s attention to paragraph 268, which says
“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”
Specifically on NICs, paragraph 266 says,
“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”. [Interruption.]
The hon. Lady chirps that I am in denial—this is the Conservatives’ record, their problem, and a mess that we will solve.
On that very point, there was no explanation—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, the urgent question has been granted, and I do not need Opposition Front Benchers thinking that they can shout the Minister down.
Andrew Western
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, there was no explanation or apology from the hon. Lady for the fact that her party left almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. That was a predictable omission, but an unacceptable one none the less, because discussing the rise in NEETs in recent years without discussing the actions of the past Conservative Government is rather like staging “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark.
On the Secretary of State’s comments, what he has said has been the same ever since he was appointed. He has said that we have to change the question and the system from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” That is what matters and it is exactly what this Government are doing: fixing the broken welfare system that we inherited from the Conservative party, rebalancing universal credit, implementing right to try, tackling the Conservatives’ backlog on access to work, and, of course, providing our £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee. That is the welfare reform that this Government are delivering, with opportunity and work, especially for young people, at its heart, and the guarantee of a safety net for those who need it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome Alan Milburn’s report. The Select Committee is in the concluding stages of its own youth employment, education and training inquiry. We take account particularly of the drivers, and the Minister is right. As the millennium cohort study has shown, more than half of NEETs have experienced adverse and persistent child poverty and family adversity over the last 15 years, which has contributed to the current level. I really think that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), should recognise that and apologise.
Is the Minister as concerned as me that we must not forget that, in addition to young people, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had a lack of opportunity, and they have not had the profile that our young people are getting? They also need to be considered alongside young people, particularly in relation to employment support.
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question but for the work that the Select Committee has done on its inquiry. Indeed, I know that Alan Milburn was before her Committee recently, speaking to the work that he is doing. She is absolutely right to call for a focus on disabled people too. Our Connect to Work agenda provides significant support. There is, of course, always more that we can do, but on this—as with those not in employment, education or training aged 16 to 24—we are determined to act, we have a programme to do so, and we take this extremely seriously.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who always has something of value to bring to the Chamber.
There are 1 million youngsters not in employment, education or training; this has been brewing for many years, but sadly has been exacerbated by the new Labour Government. We have seen the sad decline of our high streets over the last 20 years, a quarter of a million jobs lost in retail in the last five years and, since the last Budget, 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality. The dual impact of the national insurance change—the jobs tax—and business rates has hit hard. Whitbread has cut 3,800 jobs across the United Kingdom, with the closure of two restaurants in my constituency—one in Torquay and one in Paignton.
I welcome most findings of the Alan Milburn review; the Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of direction. However, I have some key questions. Does the Minister have some clear economic plans to grow jobs for young people, and how can we develop greater connections with our European partners in order to grow our economy?
Andrew Western
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will have heard the Prime Minister’s recent intent to work more closely with European colleagues, because of the economic benefits that working in partnership can yield. Further, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that this is a problem many years in the making. I welcome the broad support from Liberal Democrat colleagues for the interim review and I hope that will be the same when the final review comes forward with recommendations.
On plans to bring forward jobs for young people, I point the hon. Gentleman to recently announced interventions by the Secretary of State to provide £3,000 to small and medium-sized enterprises that hire apprentices and £2,000 to any employer who hires a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months. This will make a significant difference and it is the right thing to do.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Too often, young people are written off as lacking ambition, when the reality is that they are lacking the opportunities for good work. More than 40% of young people not in education, employment or training have said that finding fulfilling work is their top priority. Despite that, in my area under the Scottish National party-run Renfrewshire council and the SNP-run Holyrood Government, employability services are being cut by 30%, failing too many of our young people. Can my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to work with the Scottish Government to protect vital employability services and ensure apprenticeship opportunities for young people in my area?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend knows that I met an employment support provider in her constituency recently, and I was grateful for her welcome. She is absolutely right to say that young people do not lack the ambition to find work. This is a failure of the state’s making, not a failure of young people. If she has specific concerns about cuts to employment support in her area, I would very much welcome a letter from her setting out those challenges, and I will raise those issues on her behalf.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman has elevated me to Cabinet level—something that is at least premature, if not unlikely ever to happen, I suspect. I refer him to the Milburn report, because it sounds as if he has not read it. It states that
“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”
Making particular reference to national insurance, it states that
“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes to NICs.”
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
I welcome the interim report. My question is about work experience. When I was at school, this was typically organised by teachers and gave children a peek into worlds that otherwise would be unimaginable, but today children in my Bristol constituency are being asked to find their own placements, which obviously disadvantages children from families that are less well connected. Will we be likely to see more organised work experience placements for schoolchildren as a result of this review?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the value of work experience, in particular for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who perhaps do not have the connections that others benefit from. He will be pleased to know that the Government are committed to reforming work experience to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every pupil will have access to two weeks-worth of multiple, meaningful and varied workplace experiences throughout key stages 3 and 4, progressively increasing their work-readiness as they move through secondary education.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee scheme; something similar operates in a number of European countries. However, under the proposals, it will not kick in for 18 months. If someone is unemployed for 18 months, the damage is already done. Will the Government consider acting earlier?
Andrew Western
I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s trepidation, but I fear that he has not been made aware of the full range of activity before the 18-month intervention kicks in. This includes the addition of a reframed employment and skills review at two weeks and the maintenance of weekly appointments from weeks 3 to 12, with increased focus on personal support to address barriers to work. After three months, the specialist youth guarantee gateway kicks in, whereby young people are referred to one of six options, including sector-based work academy programmes, training, work experience and apprenticeships. At six months, the £3,000 youth jobs grant for employers recruiting young people kicks in. This is one part of a range of holistic interventions that we consider will make a significant difference to the challenge we face.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the truth that Governments just do not respect working-class jobs, like apprenticeships? Since the apprenticeship levy was brought in, the number of starts has dropped by 35% and the number of level 2 starts has dropped by 68%. Of those that did take place, only 16% were advertised in the two months when young people were finishing their exams, creating the gap that young people fall through. The Milburn review is welcome and absolutely needed, and I am appreciative of the Government for starting this process, but can I ask two question? First, why can we not close the gap today by saying that every public sector employer, whether it is the Government, a council, the police service or the NHS, must advertise at the point that young people are leaving school? Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that devolution has to be part of the solution, because we cannot command and control from the centre when so much of this is about localised economies?
Andrew Western
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the power of devolution—it is something that he and I know only too well from our roles as leaders within the Greater Manchester combined authority—but I hope he will recognise that this Government are taking a very different approach on apprenticeships and technical education. That is underpinned by the Prime Minister’s revised target, not of 50% of young people going to university, but of having two thirds of young people in either an apprenticeship or higher education.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many young people take time to adapt to new jobs and simply have not proved themselves after six months, but with the coming into force of the Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025, the period for dismissal without fault will be reduced from two years to six months. Many employers have told me that this will make them much less likely to employ young people, because they fear that they will not prove themselves in that time period, and that it will be much harder to get rid of them after six months. This provision is not due to come into force until the beginning of next year, so at this very late stage, can I urge the Minister to look at it again? It will make a bad situation so much worse for young people.
Andrew Western
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I have to say that I have rather more faith in young people in the workforce than he seems to. The Employment Rights Act is an important, once-in-a-generation opportunity to level up rights in the workplace, and this Government remain committed to it.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome this report by Alan Milburn, who highlights the need to work cross-sectorally to support young people. I wonder if the Minister could take away the thought that he could test and learn by doing a pilot with Choice in Hackney, which works with disabled people, and with my local Mind, which has very good employment training schemes to help people into work. Their success rate is phenomenally higher than the DWP success rates, and we would be very keen to work with the Government on this matter.
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend makes the important observation that, for us to make successful change in this space, we need to work with a range of partners and providers. I am very happy to propose, on the terms that she has outlined, that Hackney be put forward to test some of the initiatives that we are looking towards in this space. We need to work not only with charities and employment support providers, but to work more holistically across Government, with Health, Education and other Departments, and we are determined to do that work.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Alan Milburn, in his excellent but devastating report, makes it clear that the young people most at risk of ending up out of education or employment are likely to go to a further education college, and he identifies that 32,000 of those FE places are currently unfunded. Just last year, in her skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised
“increased funding to…16 to 19 providers to provide real terms per-pupil funding in the next academic year”,
yet I know from talking to my local college that per-head funding this year is going up by only 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut and a broken promise. Coupled with the lag in funding of up to a year for new students, this is disincentivising colleges to take on these pupils. How does the Minister explain that?
Andrew Western
The 0.55% increase in 16-to-19 funding rates is only one aspect of 16-to-19 funding. In the academic year 2026-27, we will provide nearly £9 billion in 16-to-19 funding, and overall funding per student will rise by 1.66%, meeting the White Paper commitment by reflecting inflation at the time that the spending review was settled.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
This excellent report makes it clear that exams can lead to early disengagement from school, particularly for children who are neurodiverse. The son of my constituent Danielle repeatedly failed his GCSEs, which left him stressed and undermined his self-confidence. She felt that his opportunities would be limited and doors would be closed for him, but thankfully he was encouraged to get functional skills and has now secured a place at Leeds College of Building to learn bricklaying. Does the Minister agree that early information on and awareness of alternative qualifications and pathways, such as functional skills, can help young people to fulfil their potential?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If she has any ideas about how we can extend the knowledge and availability of such information, I would be happy to hear them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister must understand that to create the jobs that we need, we must encourage the private sector to invest. In my constituency, every single hospitality venue has halved the number of staff it employs. When I ask why, the answers are national insurance, non-domestic rates and the new Employment Rights Act. Extending the national insurance holiday, as it were, from age 21 to 24 would enable people who leave school to get a job, enable those who leave university to get a job, and de-risk taking on young people for employers.
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that incentives are needed to encourage employers to hire young people. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the incentives that I have already laid out: supporting young people who have been on universal credit for six months by financially incentivising employers to hire them, and incentivising small and medium-sized enterprises to hire apprentices under the age of 25 earning less than £50,000.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I have just had a group of year 8 pupils visit me in Parliament, and many of their questions were about the increasing numbers of young people on benefits, AI sweeping away jobs, and new opportunities and training for young people. The red wall MPs recognise that issues surrounding youth unemployment are not new, but I am hugely concerned that young people now see that as their future. I welcome the Government’s initiative for a youth hub in Worksop, and I am already working on that with partners, but does the Minister agree that we need to work with other partners beyond the DWP to resolve this problem?
Andrew Western
I do agree. I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) earlier about the need to work holistically, across Government and outside Government, with partners in the charitable sector, employment support companies and so on, to ensure that a range of interventions are available so that young people do not—exactly as she outlines—see a life not in education, employment or training as their future. That is something we must stop.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Some 70% of graduates say that university just was not worth it—and is it any wonder, when we have seen an increase in low-quality degrees, people coming out with crippling debt, and lower job prospects for graduates? I welcome many elements in the Milburn review, but if we are to fix this crisis of youth unemployment, we need not tweaks, but an overhaul of vocational training and a correction to the Blairite obsession with university, so that fewer young people are scammed by the great university con.
Andrew Western
I would not put it quite in the terms used by the right hon. Lady, but jingoistic rhetoric is a feature of her new place in this House. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), this Government recognise that it should no longer be a target of any Government to send 50% of young people to university. That is why we have revised the target, so that this Government’s aspiration is for 66% of young people to be either in higher education or undertaking an apprenticeship.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, 410 young people are not in education, training or employment, and we know from Alan Milburn’s report the causes of that. I particularly want to focus on mental health, and the fact that we do not have the right support in place for young people much earlier than the point at which they seek employment. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have systems in place to identify young people who experience mental health challenges, in particular children with adverse childhood experiences, so that they can be set on a stronger path and build more resilience throughout their childhood, enabling them to be prepared for work?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise that many of the challenges faced by young people not in education, employment or training start at school or even preschool. We need to ensure that there is early intervention in schools, with more mental health practitioners available to children and young people, and that they can receive the support needed at the first possible opportunity, because mental ill health blights and affects their future, not just in academic terms with exams, but often for many years beyond that. I absolutely agree with her. That point underpins many of the proposals put forward in the Department for Education’s special educational needs reforms. We need early intervention and greater mental health support for children.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
This is an important piece of work from Alan Milburn, but what principles will underpin the Government’s approach? Does the Minister think that, other things being equal, if we increase the cost of employing people, then that will come at the expense of jobs? Does he think that, with slack in the labour market, if we do things such as reducing probation periods at a time when the cost of employing younger people without experience is going up anyway, that will mean that those young people are less likely to be given the opportunities and the vacancies that exist?
Andrew Western
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the current climate, incentives are required to encourage employers to hire young people, and I have set out the measures that we have taken to do that. However, he is one of a number of Conservative Members today who have raised the Employment Rights Act, which is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This Government are steadfast in continuing to support working people and ensuring that the Act is fully implemented.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This generation of NEETs grew up under Tory austerity, suffered the closure of Sure Start centres and finished their education with per pupil funding lower than it was in 2010, and then many of them grew up in poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a root-and-branch change from what we had under the Conservatives if we are to end the conveyor belt of young people finishing school and going into unemployment?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the damage caused by the previous Government to a range of services on which children and young people rely. Child and adolescent mental health services—pertinent to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—are one example, but there are a range of others. A recent report highlighted the difference that Sure Start, which was ravaged by the Conservative party, had made to young people. He is absolutely right that we need root-and-branch reform, and this Government are committed to delivering it.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The only country in the whole of Europe that has a NEETs crisis worse than the UK’s is Romania. That is quite shocking. For me, the issue is funding for further education. Mike Taylor owns Bond’s Barbershops and runs an award-winning academy, and he has far more students than he can give places to. Other local providers tell me that they are taking on students with no funding because they need to get them in place for next year, with no funding at all for this year. The youth guarantee is a great idea, but surely it is better to get ahead of it, provide the places for our young people and stop them becoming NEETs, rather than waiting until they have been out of work for 18 months.
Andrew Western
The sweeping range of this Government’s interventions means that we will deliver more than 500,000 opportunities for young people. The hon. Lady asked specifically about training for younger people. This Government have pivoted funding from older apprentices—level 7 and above—to younger ones, and introduced foundation apprenticeships so that we can better support people aged 16 to 24.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I welcome the report, which dismisses the long-held stereotypes that young people are lazy or do not want to work. This situation is not a failure of young people; it is a failure of the system. In the survey, 84% of NEET young people said they want to find a job, education or training. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Government believe that we can move to a system that recognises that fact and adopts a participation approach, and how employers can play their part?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend asks an important question and underpins it with an extremely important statement: this is not the fault of young people. They are not lazy. They have been let down for years by a system that does not serve their needs. The Government are putting in place £2.5 billion for the youth guarantee. We continue to work with employers and employment support providers to talk about how we can tailor support to the specific needs of young people to get the number of young people not in education, employment or training down.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states:
“It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”.
We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that point, and the Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking a review of mental health provision, the causes of poor mental health and so on. I agree that 40% of young people citing mental health conditions as a driver for their not being in employment, education or training is a concerning increase—it has almost doubled in recent years. That is clearly unacceptable. That is why some of the interventions being led by the Department for Education are so important: more mental health support in schools, getting those CAMHS waiting lists down and ensuring that children and young people get early intervention when they need help, because, as we see in those numbers and this report, poor mental health blights them not just at school, but in later life.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
This report powerfully illustrates the benefits of investing in our young people, as well as the costs and consequences of not doing so. It shows that children who are not school-ready at the age of 4 or 5 are nearly three times more likely to be a NEET at 16 or 17, and those young people who have the bank of Mum and Dad to support them financially to take risks are more likely to succeed, even if they are less talented. What discussions has my colleague had across Government about how we can ensure that every child can access early years education, and what thought has he given to restoring child trust funds so that every child can have a nest egg for their future?
Andrew Western
If it is okay with my hon. Friend, I will write to her specifically on the point about child trust funds, because it is not specifically in my domain. She is absolutely correct, though, to highlight the issue of school readiness and the link that that has to the likelihood of a child becoming a NEET when they turn 16. That is why, as I said in an earlier answer, the loss of Sure Start is such a tragedy, and that is why I am so pleased that this Government are reintroducing family hubs. On the bank of Mum and Dad, I hope that she heard the question that I answered earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) about our intention to revolutionise work experience to ensure that it is not the opportunities that someone’s parents can provide them, but the opportunities that we can arrange that make a real and tangible difference and level the playing field.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is the system that is broken, not the young people. Alan Milburn seems to have actually listened to young people when he wrote this, but too many people do not hear and value those voices. Nobody seems to be talking yet about co-production and the value of asking young people and working with them to make these changes. What will the Minister do to ensure that young people are involved in writing the policy, so that we know that they will work for this generation and not just for what we think this generation might want?
Andrew Western
I spend a great deal of time talking to young people about what they need to support them into work. Clearly, at the moment, we are waiting for the recommendations of the Milburn review, but she will have seen the intent on co-production from the Timms review. I do not know what will be recommended in the Milburn review as yet but, if co-production is in there, I am sure that it is something the Secretary of State will look at.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I was privileged to open our new youth hub in Thanet last week. It is a perfect example of how the DWP is working with third sector and private sector organisations to offer that wraparound help for young people, which of course we need desperately in places such as Thanet, where unemployment is 12%—among the highest in the south-east. In the light of the analysis both in the Milburn review and beyond that there is a particularly entrenched problem in coastal towns because of our poor connectivity, transport links and fewer chances to learn and earn, will my hon. Friend commit to a coastal and place-based dimension to the plans to turn around this moral and economic crisis?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of place-based interventions. Of course—she sits next to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb)—I am aware of the particular challenges facing coastal towns, and I will feed that request in. Whatever interventions we make, it is incredibly important that they are bespoke where needed and that they tackle this crisis in all parts of the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to Conservative Members on national insurance, business rates and the Employment Rights Act, but I fear the Minister has been, at best, attempting to dance on the head of a pin. If he wants to come to Mid Buckinghamshire, I can take him to business after business that desperately want to take on new apprentices and young people, and would love to use the incentives of the national insurance provisions for under-21s, but cannot because of the overall impact of taxation from this Government, not least national insurance rises on employment. Can he at least accept that it is the overall impact and not the incentive that is the problem?
Andrew Western
Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that I am here to answer questions about the interim report from Alan Milburn, who himself points to a problem that is longer and more deep-rooted than the changes that have been made in the last couple of years. I remind him, as I have already said in response to other colleagues, that under-21s do not pay national insurance. A range of incentives have been put in place for under-25s seeking apprenticeships with small and medium-sized enterprises and for young people who have been on universal credit for more than six months.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to speed up if we are going to get a lot of these Members in. Emma Lewell will be a good example.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I will do my best.
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s responses, but youth unemployment in South Shields continues to be higher than the national average. Hospitality is the absolute lifeblood of my small tourist town, and it typically employs our younger constituents. The local industry is telling me clearly that a perfect storm of taxes and now the impending tourist tax is directly impacting its ability to stay afloat, let alone employ staff—
Emma Lewell
Please will my hon. Friend look at and speak to his colleagues about a VAT cut for the sector?
Andrew Western
In the interests of time, I will follow up with my hon. Friend directly in writing.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My first job was in a local café washing pots when I was 13, and then in my 20s, I opened my own restaurant in that same location, offering young people in my local community their first job. But when I am out in Chichester, all my businesses tell me that they are so squeezed at every single angle that they cannot take risks on young people any more. Will the Minister lay out what he will do to support hospitality, specifically looking at reforming business rates so that those businesses can offer the right path for our young people to cut their teeth in work?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please help me to get your colleagues in, because we are really struggling for time.
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will be aware that business rates are a question for the Treasury, but we are looking at a range of interventions through the youth guarantee and other interventions that I have already outlined that will help to provide more opportunities for young people, including in work experience, in first jobs and in training and apprenticeships.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The reality is that a generation was lost and forgotten about under the previous Government, with NEETs increasing by 40% in Blackpool. Now, 3,000 young people are not in education, training or employment—double the national average and among the highest. Despite local initiatives, such as the Platform and the job fairs that I put on with the DWP, there is a lack of opportunity. If the Minister agrees that geography still shapes destiny, can he set out—
Andrew Western
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does through jobs fairs and so on, and I suggest that we meet to discuss it further.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Youth unemployment in North West Norfolk has increased by 10% over the last year, and the Minister referred to paragraph 268 of the Milburn report on the jobs tax. It actually says that if policy aims to increase growth,
“it has to help minimise risks and maximise incentives. It needs to avoid creating a labour market in which costs of entry have risen”.
Will he listen to that and lift the costs on employers, so that they do not have to subsidise so many jobs?
Andrew Western
I refer the hon. Member to the rest of paragraph 268, because his selective quoting does not cover all that was in there. It also says:
“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”
Milburn is very clear that action is needed, that there are a range of reasons for that and that he will bring forward a set of recommendations on which he expects the Government to act. We await those and stand ready to act.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
It is brilliant to see an example in the interim report of a young woman who taught herself Shopify in order to start a business. This Government have prioritised growth, which comes from innovation and entrepreneurship. Given that young people have incredible ideas and often thrive when they can direct their own destiny, rather than adapting to another company’s culture, does he agree that encouraging entrepreneurship among young people needs to be a significant part of the solution?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that the Secretary of State is interested in what we can do to increase the support available to self-employed people of all ages.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Many young people get their first job on the checkouts. The boss of Next, Lord Wolfson, said that two years ago Next received 10 applications for every job vacancy, but that number has since risen to 19 applications per vacancy. He said nothing about how retailers have stripped out jobs at checkouts. Next made a profit of over £1 billion last year. Does the Minister accept that retailers also have a responsibility to create opportunities for young people?
Andrew Western
I do accept that, and the hon. Member will be aware of our work with Charlie Mayfield. He may also be aware that we have recently appointed Marc Bolland, a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, as the lead non-executive director in the Department. We are incredibly interested in how we can work in partnership with retail to deliver more job opportunities for young people.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am grateful to Alan Milburn for this sobering report. The proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in south-east Wales who were NEET in the year ending June 2025 was 13.2%, and as the report indicates, that is only modelled to increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling the increase in NEETs has to be a central mission of this Labour Government?
Andrew Western
Absolutely, and that is not just for this Department, but Education, Health and all other Departments.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Among the things that Tony Blair taught us in his essay last week was that apparently AI is where it’s at, and we just have to suck it up and fit in. Given the vast number of graduate and entry level jobs being lost to AI, as Milburn identifies, is it not time for us to demonstrate that we have agency? Technology does not need to be the king; we can be. Is it not time we built our economy and our technologies around our people, rather than building our people—especially our young people—around our technologies, with a lost generation of a million young people as casualties?
Andrew Western
The causes of those 1 million young people being NEET are deeper than the advent of jobs being lost to AI. None the less, the hon. Member makes an important point, and that is why the Government are undertaking a review of the impact of AI on the labour market.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Only around 5% of young people with an education, health and care plan end up in permanent employment, so any plan to address this issue needs to be better on that. Supported internships are an incredibly good way of supporting young people with EHC plans and others to find work—we have a great example in Derbyshire—but we need more funding for them. What will the Minister do to boost supported internships and support those young people with EHC plans?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. As I have said in a number of answers, we need to work creatively and holistically with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to make sure we are joined up, so that there is an opportunity for all young people to find employment—whatever their background or their level of need. I look forward to working with him to deliver that.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The social contract that we all had growing up was, “Work hard and you get ahead.” Now artificial intelligence is ripping that apart, and young people do not understand what their relationship is with the state. How would the Minister describe the new deal with young people?
Andrew Western
The current deal that this Government have with young people is that we will give them opportunities after the Conservative party did not. We will make sure they can find education opportunities, employment opportunities or training opportunities. We will not allow a lost generation to continue based on the failings of the Conservative party.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Tomorrow I am going to visit my former colleagues at the University of Nottingham to celebrate our first tranche of electromechanical engineering degree-level apprentices as they approach the end of their five-year course. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them and explain what this Government are doing to ensure that people can earn and learn through gold-standard apprenticeships like those being delivered by Dr Liz Bishop and my old team at Nottingham?
Andrew Western
I extend my congratulations to those young people. I know that my hon. Friend takes a significant interest in higher education, and I hope he will pass on my congratulations directly. As for what we are doing to ensure that high-quality apprenticeships are available, he will be aware of a significant increase in funding for the growth and skills levy.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. The APPG published an inquiry earlier this year which found that 40,000 young adult carers are providing more than 50 hours of caring a week. They face significant financial and systemic barriers to going into higher education, training and employment, and almost half have turned down education or training opportunities. They are the best of people; they are balancing education, work and caring. I offer the Minister one suggestion that would help. Will the Government look at changing the eligibility rules for carer’s allowance, so that students studying for more than 21 hours a week are eligible?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will be aware that carer’s allowance is intended to offset lost income elsewhere, and students do receive finance from various sources, but I have not seen that report, so I would be very grateful if she could send it to me.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
This is not just about work; this is about what it means to grow up as a young person in this country and meeting the ambitions of young people like those in my community in Croydon East. The Government have already announced a number of measures to support our young people. Can the Minister outline what can be done to bring together the national youth strategy, the Young Futures programme, the youth guarantee, youth hubs, health and education to ensure that our response to this emergency is joined up and across all of Government?
Andrew Western
I hope my hon. Friend has recognised a sincere conviction in the narrative around the publication of the report in recent days that this must be a key priority right across Government, working with both public and private sector partners to ensure that it is treated as a whole-system problem, so that we can get to the bottom of it and resolve it, to give opportunities to young people.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Minister proudly touts jobs, hiring bonuses, youth guarantees, Government-funded work experience and job placements, but these are all treating the symptoms of the problem. Frankly, it is all a bit old Labour. The problems are structural ones in the economy to do with investment, taxation and regulation. Is there anyone on the Government Benches who understands how an economy works?
Andrew Western
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate on why young people not in education, employment or training are struggling as they are, he would do well to look at his party’s legacy in government between 2010 and 2015, because we are seeing the impact of things like cuts to Sure Start and opportunities for young people across the piece. It is a far more complex picture than that which he seeks to articulate, and his party’s fingerprints are all over it.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I welcome the report and my hon. Friend’s commitment to cross-departmental working, but I want to raise one area that his Department could put its weight behind. The Health and Social Care Committee has suggested an amendment to the Health Bill that would put the mental health investment standard into statute, so that we could increase investment in our mental health services, bring down the backlog of people waiting for mental health treatment and get more young people in Gloucester into work.
Andrew Western
I am very keen to look at all opportunities to bring down mental health lists, and if my hon. Friend wants to share information with me directly, I am happy to look at it further.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Last week I met Sophie and Matt, two young entrepreneurs aged 24 and 19 who have bucked the trend and opened Toploaf Bakery, but they are already terrified about the long-term viability of their business. I hear this time and again from entrepreneurs who say they have nothing left in the tank—pressure put on them by this Government means that they are at risk of closing their business. When are the Government going to start listening to those who actually employ people?
Andrew Western
As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the Mayfield review, we have a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer as a lead non-executive director at the Department, and we are talking to business all the time. That is how we have developed some of our initial thinking in this space, it is why we have brought forward the youth guarantee, and it is why we are incentivising businesses to hire young people. We are serious about helping them, and we will continue to do so.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I welcome Alan Milburn’s interim report, which is nothing short of totemic. Given the work that he will now do to develop recommendations, will it be in scope to consider how to support not only those currently impacted, but those most at risk of leaving education, employment or training, as identified according to the risk factors in this helpful interim report?
Andrew Western
I hope that Alan Milburn will propose a range of interventions that look not only at how we help people now, but at how we fix this problem for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: short-term fixes will not work. We have a structural problem that requires a structural solution.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
When 84% of young people are classified as NEET—or as LEET as I prefer to say, because they are all looking for education and training—it is heartbreaking that they feel they are the lost generation. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government have committed to aligning education and training with Welsh economic needs, so can the Minister set out how the UK Government will use their powers to address those challenges in Wales?
Andrew Western
I am due to meet the new employment spokesperson for the Welsh Government as the devolution lead for the Department, and I will be very interested to hear their ideas. This needs to be a partnership moving forward, and if sensible and credible solutions come forward from that Administration, I will look to work with them to deliver those.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
We must not forget that hundreds of thousands of NEET young people are disconnected from traditional employment support, and hidden from the system entirely as a result. With youth workers and trusted adult relationships offering the missing link to help identify and bridge those young people into support, how will we put those relationships at the heart of the systems change that is needed to meet that challenge?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has not been made so far today, about young people who slip through the net because they are perhaps living with their parents or not claiming—as he described, they are “hidden” NEETs. We are looking across the piece, and particularly talking with the Department for Education about interventions we can bring forward, and I will update him as soon as I can.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Every week I meet young people with energy and ambition whose hopes are at risk of being crushed by a lack of opportunity. I also recently met Stuart Forbes, who set up Fairford Heating 42 years ago in my constituency. Stuart told me that this year, for the first time, they will not be taking on an apprentice due to the cost overheads of employment. What are the Government doing to make it easier and cheaper for local family businesses to take on apprentices?
Andrew Western
As I have said many times, we are introducing a new financial incentive to support SMEs to hire young people under the age of 25 as apprentices, providing that the earnings are below £50,000.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a complete cultural change in our schools, giving equivalence of practical skills to academic pursuits? We have masses of rebuilding in our country after the wreckage of 14 years, including in Suffolk, yet we have no welders. Let’s fix this.
Andrew Western
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is correct to say that we must make it easier for people to unlock technical as well as other forms of education, in support of the Prime Minister’s target of getting two thirds of young people into either an apprenticeship or higher education.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We say we are going to listen to young people, but one young person recently said that they should be labelled as LEETs, not NEETs, because they are looking for education, employment and training. Positive framing is essential, especially as AI reshapes the labour market and we have the boss of Standard Chartered calling them “lower value human capital”. Does the Minister agree that we must rethink pathways into work, invest in new models of education, and provide a stronger safety net so that technological changes create opportunities, not exclusion?
Andrew Western
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is what we are seeking to do, not least with the youth guarantee.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
In Medway we have identified 240 NEETs as part of our local authority review. They have suggested that part of the solution is increasing the capacity of further education colleges so that people can be streamlined from school straight into college, as opposed to having to wait. Does the Minister agree that more investment in further education is a solution to this problem?
Andrew Western
That is one of a range of potential solutions, and I agree that it is an important one.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Milburn highlights the need for the cross-departmental working that the Minister has highlighted, but I wonder what structures are in place for that. We have already seen missed opportunities, for example through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, to put more local powers in place. This must be a focus of every Department of Government, so what is the structure to deal with that?
Andrew Western
I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that Milburn reported on Thursday, and recommendations from that report will not come for several months, but this is an important point and we will need a structure in place. I am committed to ensuring that this is a whole-of-Government intervention, but for the moment it is important to take time to get that right.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley has one of the highest levels of NEETs in the country, and the highest levels of deprivation. After my NEETs roundtable in February, stakeholders wanted better data, joined-up services with the Departments for Work and Pensions, of Health and Social Care, and for Education, and better SEND provision locally. What guarantees will my hon. Friend provide to ensure that places such as Dudley are prioritised, and the root causes of inequality are tackled holistically?
Andrew Western
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to delivering that holistic intervention and ensuring that all areas of the country see progress in this space. As colleagues would expect, we will particularly target those areas where this issue is the greatest problem, and if that includes her constituency, she will see some action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The concept of paying our dues, working long hours and bad shifts, and working our way up are principles that founded the British work ethic, but they now appear something to be embarrassed about. What steps can the Minister take with education Ministers and the voluntary sector to train our children from a young age that working hard at any level is something to be proud of, and that not working if they are able to is not a choice that anyone should profit from?
Andrew Western
I am reluctant to respond in the strongest terms possible because it is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who has made the point, and I hold him in the highest regard. The Milburn review says loud and clear that this is not about a fecklessness in young people, and neither are they proud of not being in education, employment or training. Young people want those opportunities, and it is a failure of the state and the system. Whole-system reform is needed, and we are determined to bring it forward.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Milburn report identifies a state failure to provide timely and appropriate mental health support—and this is just about child and adolescent mental health services, up to adult services. Most tellingly, it states that there are no waiting time targets for mental health services. Will the Minister have a conversation with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to supplement the jobs guarantee with a mental health support guarantee, and ensure that young people are not waiting more than 18 months for mental health support?
Andrew Western
I will raise that with the Department of Health and Social Care and come back to my hon. Friend.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We have excellent alternative learning providers in Bristol, from the Enemy of Boredom Academy, which is about developing video games, to the Wheels Project, which is about stripping down cars and rebuilding them. They are a lifeline for young people who are struggling with mainstream education. As part of the Milburn review, will the Government look at supporting ALPs so that young people can be set back on the right path towards a job in the future?
Andrew Western
We are still waiting for the recommendations, but I will feed in my hon. Friend’s suggestion because I think it is a good one.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
One legacy of the previous Government was that it is easier to keep disabled people on an education, health and care plan until they are 25 because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Equally, other young disabled people became NEETs, because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms need a cross-departmental approach to support disabled young people into work and ensure lifelong work opportunities for them?
Andrew Western
I agree with my hon. Friend: sometimes this can feel like a vicious circle for young people with disabilities, and we must ensure that we get this right.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My generation and the generation after me have been systematically failed. The scale of the NEETs crisis is not because of young people but, as the Minister said, due to a widespread problem across education, health and the welfare system. May I take this opportunity to welcome the report, praise the work of the excellent jobcentre staff in Castlemilk in my constituency, and invite the Minister to come to a jobs fair for young people that we are hosting later this year?
Andrew Western
I join my hon. Friend in his praise for local jobcentre staff. He knows that I would never refuse him, and I look forward to that visit.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was disappointed earlier to hear the condition of anxiety being downplayed, and we must accept that it can be absolutely debilitating. To solve the problems presented in the Milburn report, we will have to break down silos within Government, and work with the devolved Governments. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline his approach to doing that. Also, there is a tendency—
Andrew Western
As I said in response to an earlier question about conversations with the Welsh Government, I am due to meet my Scottish counterpart next week. Such conversations take place regularly and routinely, and we will ensure that there is a joined-up approach so that everybody across these isles can benefit from the changes.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I recently visited the jobcentre in Bournemouth town centre with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, and we saw the great work it is doing to build skills and confidence in young people through work experience with organisations such as the National Trust. I am delighted that we are also getting a youth hub, but will the Minister please tell us how young people in my constituency will benefit from that?
Andrew Western
Youth hubs are an incredible way for specialists to reach out and work with young people through a range of different interventions. They provide a single space from which we can drill down and target the needs of individual young people, in individual communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment enjoyed her visit, because she told me so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
In my constituency, major Government-funded infrastructure projects are providing strong opportunities for young people, including skills training, permanent jobs and careers. Does the Minister agree that as we renew our homes, bridges, crossings, railways and infrastructure, we have to maximise the opportunities for young people?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree. That is significant Government investment that presents a significant opportunity to do just as my hon. Friend suggests.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The report identifies the importance of the home learning environment, a dry term that recognises that children do not grow up in isolation but are in rich relationships, and that parental skills, parental relationships and secure attachment all matter. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on family hubs, I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s investment in family hubs. With the new guidance, they are set to be a rich network of partnerships to support families. Does he agree that that should be cause for us to double down on our plans to roll them out quickly and successfully?
Andrew Western
I agree, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Department for Education lead on family hubs.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The majority of young people not in employment, education or training in West Dunbartonshire want a job or training, but they are not getting the support they need. Does the Minister agree that one way to tackle the challenge of youth employment is through our youth hubs, such as the one in West Dunbartonshire that is opening this month, which is one of 10 across Scotland? Will he come and visit the youth hub in West Dunbartonshire?
Andrew Western
It sounds like I will be having a day out in Scotland, so yes, I will take that in at the same.
Murder of Henry Nowak
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.
Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.
I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.
With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.
I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”
I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me
“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.
There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.
Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.
The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.
On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.
Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death
“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:
“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”
I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.
Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.
I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that
“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”
Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today.
The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.”
Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said:
“Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.”
We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man.
We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was
“an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”.
The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class.
This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same.
I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said:
“Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.”
It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.
I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.
This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.
We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have
“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.
My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This is a heartbreaking case of a young man who should be alive today with a happy life ahead of him. Because of the forces of evil, he is not. On behalf of my party, I extend my sympathies to Henry’s family and friends, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement.
The independent investigation should uncover how one evil individual was not picked up despite apparently exhibiting disturbing behaviours that saw him ejected from his place of worship and having an obsession with weapons. Of course, police officers work under high stress and must make split-second decisions, and we rely on their good judgment every day. Tragically, in this case the officers made a clear and terrible mistake—one that failed Henry and has broken the hearts of his family. The investigation must ensure that recommendations are made so that nothing like this can happen again, but as the Home Secretary said, there must be no doubt that the police officers we see on our streets must be treated with respect.
Before going any further, we must acknowledge that Digwa betrayed his faith and his community, and he deserves his punishment. Regardless of that, when we in this House discuss this issue, it is incumbent on all of us to bear in mind the words of Henry’s father Mark:
“We do not want Henry’s murder to be used to create further hatred, division or tension.”
Since the sentencing and the release of the harrowing video showing the sickening incident, the vast majority of politicians have responded to this matter with due sensitivity, and that reflects well on this House. It is therefore all the more disturbing that we have seen the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once again using tragedy to divide British communities. We all know why he does this—he has made a career out of it, and has become rich as a result—but we are also well aware, as is he, that his actions are divisive, dangerous and fundamentally un-British. The rights of British people to observe their faith are hard won; they cannot be contingent on the colour of any individual’s skin. Those rights come with a responsibility, one that Digwa has betrayed, and he must now serve his well-deserved punishment.
Of course, as other Members have said, we are too aware of the tragedies of knife crime and the problem it represents in this country.
Max Wilkinson
That must be tackled, as Mark Nowak has rightly said. The judge’s remarks in this case tell us that the knife being carried by the murderer was different from that typically carried by British Sikhs as a part of their faith.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Wilkinson, it is no use holding your hand up as though you are some policeman. I am policing this statement on the basis of the time allowed, and you are quite a bit over. I hope you are coming to the end of your question now.
Max Wilkinson
I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.
As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and associate myself with his words about the family and their reaction to what has happened. I am not sure there was a specific question in there for me, but if there are other things that the hon. Member wishes to pick up with me, I would be very happy to engage with him on other points of detail that he maybe was not able to come on to.
For the benefit of the whole House, I reiterate that anyone who uses this tragedy—this horrific, vile act of murder—to stoke further division in our country should be rejected by everyone across this House. Political grandstanding and further division are not what is needed; clear-eyed action and a commitment to ensuring that all of our citizens are equal before the law of our collective land is what is needed.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This is a terrible incident, and my heart goes out to Henry’s family. Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that some have said that the Macpherson inquiry has caused the police to hold back when dealing with people who perpetrate crimes and who may be from an ethnic minority? Does she agree that nothing in the Macpherson inquiry suggests that the police should behave in that way or excuses the extraordinary behaviour of the police at the scene of this crime, and does she think that what needs to be reviewed is the way in which police are trained to deal with incidents of this sort? It seems to me that what happened at the scene of this crime falls way below what we expect of the police.
Shabana Mahmood
Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”
Shabana Mahmood
I have made it very clear from this Dispatch Box and over the course of my tenure as Home Secretary that all are equal before the law, and the police must always act without fear and without favour towards any one group. I do not think it is helpful for us to start pitting either majority or different minority communities against one another; that is not what this moment requires.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is always a balance to be struck—there must not be underreaction or, indeed, overreaction. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the police get that balance right, and as I say, our police officers run towards danger every single day to keep us safe. I will always scrutinise all these actions to make sure that our police service is functioning as it should, so that every single citizen in our country, regardless of the colour of their skin or the faith that they have or may not have, can be absolutely certain that they will always be treated equally, and that whatever complaint they have will always be investigated in the way we would all expect.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am deeply saddened by the murder of Henry Nowak, and my heartfelt condolences go out to his family, whose pain was made all the worse by the police wrongly handcuffing Henry, believing the lies of the violent murderer. That stripped Henry of his dignity in his agonising final moments, and is something that should never happen again. It is very galling that the likes of Reform, Restore and the far right decided to politicise people’s pain, attacking the Sikh community for wearing the kirpan and wanting it banned, even though the kirpan was not used in this violent attack. [Interruption.] They have decided to scapegoat and throw under the bus an entire community based on the actions of one violent murderer. [Interruption.] Let me also give them a history—
Mr Speaker
Order. You are meant to be speaking through the Chair, not across the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
Order. I started this Session by calling for tolerance and respect. I do not expect Members to be pointing at each other and attacking each other. Members speak through the Chair. We want an orderly Chamber that is respectful. This does nobody any good.
Mr Dhesi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hundreds of thousands of Sikh soldiers bravely fought alongside British soldiers in both world wars. Tens of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice, proudly wearing their turban and their kirpan. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give to the Sikh community, who are horrified and ashamed by this brutal murder and fearful about their right to freely and peacefully practise their faith?
Shabana Mahmood
I reiterate for my hon. Friend that religious freedom is an important principle that this Government respect. It has been respected by different Governments of different party political persuasions, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. As I said in my statement, we are not a country that collectively punishes an entire group of people for the actions of individuals. The responsibility for this murder rests with the murderer, and he has now faced justice and been sentenced. That is the right way for these matters to proceed.
I will also say something about the tone of this debate. It is right for the whole House to remember that Henry Nowak’s family and friends are watching. The way that we conduct ourselves in this place can be passionate, but it must not result in name calling and in just shouting different political views. I do not think we should stand for the politicisation of this murder. There are lessons to be learned and further issues to be drawn out from what has happened, once the IOPC has concluded its investigation. I am sure that we will debate that here in the future. The way that we conduct the debate matters just as much as what is said.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the IOPC is investigating this matter. It will be free to conclude that investigation using all the powers it has and all of its evidence-gathering abilities. He will know, having reviewed such footage in the past, that what is publicly available is three minutes of a much longer incident, but the IOPC will be able to review every bit of bodycam footage in its totality, as well as other evidence that sheds light on the context of the incident, what the police officers saw and how they reacted to it. The IOPC is free to make recommendations not just on specific conduct, but on wider lessons that should be learned. I reassure him that once the IOPC has reported and made its findings, I will make sure that I personally update the House.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituent, Henry Nowak, a bright young man at the start of a life that held so much promise. The turnout at his funeral and the outpouring of community support show that he had an impact well beyond his young years. I pay tribute to his family, and in particular to Mark Nowak, his father. Many here have quoted his words calling for Henry’s death not to lead to more division and hatred. Henry’s sister, Olivia, made space in the early days of her own grief to support his friends. That speaks to the family and their courage, bravery and dignity in dealing with one of the most tragic and devastating things that any of us could ever imagine going through.
Like many in this House, I have watched the body-worn camera footage that was released last night, and I watched it with horror. I cannot imagine what Henry’s family felt seeing that, knowing that it was their son’s last moments. They expected help from the police, but when Henry lay dying, what he got was accusation and he was disbelieved. This can never happen again. What will the Home Secretary do to meet Henry’s family’s calls to tackle the national emergency that is knife crime? Like many families who have suffered a loss from this appalling crime, Henry’s family have called for his death not to be in vain and for lessons to be learned, so that they can go forward to see that his legacy is that no one else has to suffer that grief.
I would welcome the Home Secretary’s assurances that the IOPC investigation will be thorough and fully resourced and that no stone will be left unturned, so that the family can have the answers they need and deserve, and can know why their son was treated as a criminal while the criminal was treated with much more dignity than their son. Will she ensure that the family’s needs, wishes and voices are heard throughout this inquiry?
Shabana Mahmood
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.
I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.
It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. As many hon. and right hon. Members have said, no one can fail to be moved by watching the footage and seeing a young life being wasted like that. The inhumane and degrading treatment that Henry had to go through in his last few moments is something that will stay with the family when the news coverage has moved on and those police officers have been prosecuted, because when someone is killed by a murderer who is intent on killing— regardless of race—it is the families and communities that have to deal with the long-term impact.
Many of us in this Chamber have had to comfort constituents who have lost a family member through knife crime. This epidemic across the UK has to stop. How is it possible that the killer was allowed to roam the streets with a 21 cm knife, freely stab someone and then lie? It is really important that we make sure that this Government get to grips with that. As soon as the IOPC concludes the findings of its investigation, will the Home Secretary come back to the House and make sure that the Government adequately respond, so that we are not back here again and do not have to console another family whose life has been taken by knife crime?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While the investigation is taking place, it is right that we give the IOPC the space it needs to do its important work. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to pre-empt what findings might be made in the future, but as soon as those findings are made, I will ensure that the Government respond.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?
Shabana Mahmood
The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.
The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The death of Henry Nowak is a horrifying tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and community. We must honour the words of his father by not using this tragedy to create further hatred, division or tension, and the House should not go against those wishes. Henry’s family want action so that no other family goes through what they are going through right now. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that she will go further and faster to tackle knife crime, so that no one fears walking the streets of the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Yes, I will.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Can the Home Secretary please make sure that the findings of the IOPC report are shared with Police Scotland and all police forces across these islands in order to ensure that any recommended structural or procedural changes are made, and that lessons can be learned by all forces and then implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Although some of these responsibilities are devolved, I hope that other legislatures in our country will show an interest. My Ministers and I certainly engage with our partners in the devolved Administrations. We will continue to do so, and we will discuss this matter as well.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Nanaksari Sikh, I wear the five Ks every day as part of my religious observance, including the kirpan, and as a Sikh, I really struggle to express the feelings of sheer horror that this case has generated within me, my family and my friends. It absolutely has been a horror.
The senseless murder of Henry Nowak should be condemned in its entirety by everybody. A young man’s life has been taken in his prime, and I wish to express my and my constituency’s full sympathy with and condolences for the family of Henry Nowak, who have shown incredible dignity in their grief. I totally condemn the action of Vickrum Digwa, the mindless, senseless murder and the lies. There is simply no religious justification for his actions. I am relieved that our criminal justice system and the courts came to the same conclusion, and that sentiment is shared universally across the Sikh community.
This case has raised many aspects of concern for my constituents—Sikh and non-Sikh—including issues of safety and knife crime, and the freedom to practise one’s faith. Will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss these issues further?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Let me again emphasise the dignity and the grace shown by Henry’s family. Their response has been something I do not believe I would have been capable of, if I had been in their shoes, and it is an example to us all.
On the broader issues, and there will be many issues in relation to this case, once the IOPC investigation has concluded we will be able to draw further conclusions on the facts, the police response and the wider problems. I am always happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the different issues raised in this case, and in particular how we get the right balance between the religious freedoms he and I both enjoy as members of faith minorities in our country and the need to make sure that public protection is never compromised.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is, sadly, stark proof that we have become a country where we no longer treat everyone as equal under the law. Does the Home Secretary agree it is time to put a stop to the political correctness that has overpowered common-sense policing, and will she commit to ending the nonsense of police cultural competency training being put ahead of protecting every citizen regardless of race?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.
Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?
Shabana Mahmood
We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.
My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable.
Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.
Shabana Mahmood
There can, of course, be no suggestion of two-tier policing; we would never—no one would ever—stand for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the police respond to danger every single day and have to make quick decisions, usually in very difficult circumstances. In the vast majority of cases they do get things right, and it is important that we acknowledge that broader picture of policing. Of course, when things go wrong or the balance is not struck correctly, that should be investigated and scrutinised, and lessons must always be learned.
I would not want us to be in a position where we just accept that there are big problems with how our police, generally speaking, approach their job. I do agree that any instances where it looks as though something has gone wrong cost public confidence in policing, but that is why we have the independent arrangements with the IOPC to investigate fully and make findings of fact, on which the Government and others can take action.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Henry Nowak’s murder was a senseless, evil act, a criminal act, which Vickrum Digwa bears responsibility for. It is horrific that he made false claims to evade that responsibility. The actions of a perpetrator do not represent the whole community, and I know the Sikh community in the UK wholly condemn them. Many of us are deeply distressed about the circumstances of Henry’s death and his treatment in his final moments. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those lessons are learned, and that Henry’s family are put first and fully considered? On knife crime, how will we ensure that the root causes are dealt with and that resources are provided to agencies and to communities?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?
Shabana Mahmood
On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.
On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s fierce rejection of two-tier policing and of any suggestion that people should be judged differently according to their colour. The footage is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen, and my heart goes out to the Nowak family who had to witness it. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we must wait for the IOPC investigation, but if it does turn out that some kind of misguided application of the culture of policing has led to the victim not being believed while the murderer was believed, what more will she do to ensure that every single police officer hears loud and clear her message that everyone deserves to be policed in exactly the same way, regardless of the colour of their skin?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.
I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.
On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for the way they introduced this very sensitive issue.
The murder of Henry Nowak was a wicked act of brutality. His family and all those who loved him have been left with unimaginable grief, mourning their brother, their son and their friend, who they will never, ever get back. I know Members across the House share my devastation at this vile murder by this vile individual. However, some Members have been using this horrific incident for political capital, spreading disinformation for their own gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that politicians have a responsibility to act with decorum, and to focus on Henry, who lost his life, and his grieving family, who have lost a son and a brother, rather than fanning the flames of division?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that on this matter we should take our lead from Henry’s family, who have set an example for us all to follow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
“I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have already made in this debate: there can be no suggestion of two-tier policing in our country. In the vast majority of cases the police apply the law fairly and without fear or favour, and they must always do so. Once the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the specific lessons from the circumstances of this case are learned and acted upon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should
“not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”?
Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree with him; he is right to refer to the words of Henry’s father. Many Members have rightly referred to those words today and we should all bear them in mind. Let me reiterate that I will ensure that all the lessons that must be learned from this case are learned and acted upon properly, but this case must turn on its own facts and its own circumstances. It is not to be used, in my view, to unwind other changes that were made to rebuild public confidence in policing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This cowardly murder is not a reflection on the Sikh community, which has integrated itself into the UK with honour and modesty. I understand that the weapon wielded was not that traditionally carried by Sikhs. However, I believe this murder may give reasonable grounds to review existing exemptions to knife legislation on the grounds of religious reasons and national dress. I know that the Home Secretary wants to halve knife crime within the next 10 years. What message do the exemptions give? Is she honestly going to rule out even a review?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said earlier, our religious freedoms and the arrangements we have are of long standing and have been designed to strike the right balance between religious freedom and public protection. I said earlier that the wider question is worthy of serious consideration, which is what I will give to it, but I would want to start that process by discussing the matter with the Sikh community themselves, knife crime campaigners and the police. I think that is the right way to proceed, rather than launching a formal review. As the judge found in this case, this was not an act of religious observance. The minute the knife was unsheathed to be used, it became a murder weapon and the murderer has now faced the full force of the law.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak. It was absolutely gut-wrenching to see the video footage from the body-worn camera. In Hampshire, the murder has left people deeply shocked not only by the violence of the act, but by the circumstances as he lay dying. I am pleased to hear that the IOPC will have the resources it needs to fully investigate. I am also glad to hear that the Hampshire police and crime commissioner has said that she will ensure the recommendations are fully implemented. Mistakes have clearly been made, but will the Home Secretary ensure that Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary receives any support needed to implement the IOPC findings in full, and that lessons on victim recognition, officer judgment and impartiality are acted on swiftly?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to
“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the historical context of policing in this country and the question of racism itself. Many minority communities have been on the receiving end of that treatment in the past. It is right that the system as a whole has sought to learn those lessons and to deliver a policing service in which we can all be confident so that we know we will all be treated fairly under the law. I will ensure that continues to be the case going forward.
On his question, when accusations are made—whether in a legal and policing context or throughout other parts of the public sector—they are just that: accusations. We should remember the principles of our broader justice system when it comes to innocence, findings of guilt and the fairness of procedures to give people a chance to explain themselves without findings of fact being made against them before that has happened. I expect to see that happen throughout the criminal justice system, but also throughout wider society.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?
Shabana Mahmood
The reaction of the police officers attending the scene to the circumstances they faced there is what the IOPC is investigating. Once that investigation is complete and findings of fact are made, I will be happy to discuss the further lessons with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I join colleagues across the House in offering my thoughts and prayers to Henry’s family over his vile and disgusting murder. Unfortunately, far-right groups in Blackpool and across the country are weaponising Henry’s death to create more hatred. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those in Blackpool and across the country and ensure that we honour the powerful call from Henry’s family, who do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.
It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?
Shabana Mahmood
The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I offer my condolences to Henry Nowak’s family, who have been through an appalling ordeal. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that Henry’s family’s concerns about the initial police response are being fully considered by the relevant authorities and that lessons will be learned from this terrible incident, so that no other family has to see their loved one doubted in their final moments by those who should be helping them?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?
Shabana Mahmood
Speculation online is not just irresponsible, but wholly unacceptable. As I said earlier, we should all take a stand against that. First, it is putting at risk people who are not connected with this case. Secondly, with regard to the officers who have been connected with this case, there is a proper process that must be allowed to take its course to investigate their conduct and make the appropriate findings in the proper way. Everyone in this House should stand up for the independence of that process and give it space to conclude so that once it has concluded, we can thoroughly debate the lessons that must be learned.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May, during business questions, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) asked a question relating to the murder of my constituent Henry Nowak. At the time, the case against his murderer was still ongoing. The right hon. Gentleman gave numerous details of the crime itself, including accusations that had been made by the now convicted murderer. I am led to believe that matters subject to ongoing criminal cases are considered to be sub judice and that Members should not speak about the details of such cases due to the risk of prejudicing proceedings and, in the worst-case scenario, causing a mistrial. Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the impact on my constituents of going through the trauma and horror of a trial only to have to go through it again because a politician had been impatient and reckless?
I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members should conduct themselves when wishing to raise matters that are sub judice and whether the right hon. Member for Newark owes an apology both to Members of this House, who have abided by this convention, respecting the family’s right to justice, and whom he has repeatedly castigated online, and to my constituents, who refrained from publicly voicing their justified horror at the initial police response until the trial concluded so that their loved one could receive justice?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving prior notice of my point of order, but it pertains to the answer given to me by the Minister during the statement. Could she advise on whether the record can be checked to see whether this House discussed the murder of the three little girls in Southport and the case of Sir David Amess before the murderers in those cases were sentenced? I believe that both those cases were brought to the House before the murderers were sentenced.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House.
Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
Committee of the whole House
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day.
(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 371 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 8 and 9.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who —
(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.
(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.
(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.
(4) Under this section, “a plan” means —
(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;
(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;
(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;
(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”
This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.
Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—
(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,
(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and
(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.
(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”
This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.
Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—
(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and—
(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.
(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—
(a) the transfer of patient records,
(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.
Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—
(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,
(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and
(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.
(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.
Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) the time and costs associated with current practice,
(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendments 10 to 24.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendment 25.
Clause 4 stand part.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
Government amendments 26 to 30.
Clause 7 stand part.
Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert—
“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police
(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force.
(3) In this section—
“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;
“relevant offence” means—
(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or
(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendment 31.
Clause 13 stand part.
Clauses 14 to 19 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.
Clause 20 stand part.
Government amendment 32.
Clause 21 stand part.
Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.
Government amendments 33 and 34.
Clause 25 stand part.
Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.
Government amendments 35 to 37.
Clause 29 stand part.
Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.
Government amendments 38 to 41.
Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations.
(2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes.
(3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.”
This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A.
Amendment 6, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Notice periods for recall
(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days).
(2) For the purposes of this section, “Army Reserve Group A” has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”
This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days.
Clause 33 stand part.
Clauses 34 to 41 stand part.
Government amendment 42.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clauses 43 to 51 stand part.
Government amendments 43 to 46.
Clause 52 stand part.
Government amendment 47.
Clause 53 stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Clause 54 stand part.
Clause 55 stand part.
Government new clause 4.
New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—
“A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”
This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.
New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—
“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.
New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—
“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—
“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).
(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.
(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—
(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;
(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;
(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;
(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;
(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.
(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may —
(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;
(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;
(c) publish reports and recommendations.
(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.
(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and
(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.
(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.
(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of —
(a) incapacity,
(b) misbehaviour, or
(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.
(11) In this section—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””
This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.
New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—
“11A Fees may not be charged
No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.””
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces.
New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—
“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—
“14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations
(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.
(2) In this section—
“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;
“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””
This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.
New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—
“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) catering provisions,
(b) personal hygiene provisions, and
(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).
(4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.
New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.
New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.
(3) The retention strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,
(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and
(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”
This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces.
New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,
(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,
(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and
(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.
New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—
“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.
(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.
(4) In this section—
“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;
“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.
New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—
‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.
(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.
(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.
(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’”
This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer.
New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards—
“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.
(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—
‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.
This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.
New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—
‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards
(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).
(2) The national standards must—
(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,
(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and
(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.
(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.
343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.
(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—
(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,
(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,
(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and
(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.
(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.
343AEC Reporting and measuring framework
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.
(2) The framework must include—
(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,
(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,
(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and
(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’”
This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.
New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—
(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,
(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and
(c) include recommendations for improvement.’”
This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.
Government amendments 49 to 56.
Schedule 1.
Schedule 2.
Government amendments 57 to 84.
Schedule 3.
Schedule 4.
Government amendments 85 to 87.
Schedule 5.
Schedules 6 and 7.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to speak in Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill. I start by placing on the record my thanks to the members of the Select Committee on the Bill for their thorough and constructive consideration of the Bill, and their extensive special report.
There are a considerable number of amendments and new clauses before the Committee. I will speak first to the amendments in my name, and then I will focus principally on other amendments. I will endeavour to address as many of the new clauses as possible in my closing remarks, after listening to the points raised in the debate.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.
The Chairman
Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.
Al Carns
I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards.
Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The amendment to bring the Greater London Authority within scope of the covenant duty focuses my mind on the fact that this Bill applies the covenant to all local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom, except the district councils in Northern Ireland. Why is it that the only councils excluded from the ambit of the covenant are in Northern Ireland? Why has the Minister not tabled an amendment—I have previously raised this with him—to include those councils?
Al Carns
I have continued to engage with the devolved Administrations on this matter. I strongly recommend that district councils buy into the covenant and abide by it, though there will be nuances in some cases on how the covenant is practised in Northern Ireland, as regards security arrangements relating to armed forces personnel and charities.
Government amendments 10 and 11 focus on defence housing. They extend the powers in clause 3 of the Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the defence housing service can acquire land through compulsory purchase not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are historical UK-wide powers, but they are not fit for purpose as modern powers of compulsory purchase. New powers are sought for this reason. Importantly, in the case of the defence housing service, these powers will be exercised only with the authorisation of the Secretary of State; that will ensure proper oversight and accountability.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent speech. I apologise for intervening so early on, but I want to put on record my thanks to him for the work that he has done to support housing for veterans. I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, where we had a number of veterans who needed this support. Does he recognise that as well as the massive upgrade that this Government are making to veterans’ housing, it is really important that we support veterans with their mental health, particularly those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, to ensure that they can continue their tenancies in the long term?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of veterans, cadets and all in his constituency. Recently, £12 million has gone into reducing the number of homeless veterans, and the Op Fortitude programme continues to run; it tries to get as many veterans into housing as possible.
Government amendments 51 and 54 ensure that Crown status is retained for defence housing and other critical property assets, in the event that they are built or bought by the defence housing service. This will ensure, for example, that service living accommodation remains outside the scope of housing and tenancy legislation that would otherwise apply.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the support that the Government are giving to veterans, and about improving their housing situation. In my constituency, the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, which provides really valuable support for local veterans, has just received a grant of half a million pounds to scale up its work, and convert disused office block accommodation in Hastings town centre into supported accommodation for over 14 veterans, which is amazing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done by the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, led by Bernard Stonestreet? May I extend an invitation to him to visit? He will be pleased to know that the hub has built a full-scale flight simulator that simulates Operation Black Buck, and I know that the veterans would be delighted to welcome him.
Al Carns
As an ex-Marine, I have never been known for flying, but I would love to visit East Sussex Veterans’ Hub. When I am going around the country, be it to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England, it always amazes me to find these little examples of pure community spirit that help our veterans out. Importantly, while the flight simulator may be fun, it also helps people to learn critical skills and get them back into work. I thank Bernard in particular for all his hard work. If I can come and visit, I most definitely will.
Government amendment 48 will ensure that the defence housing service provisions come into force on Royal Assent, so that there are no delays in standing up the service as early as April 2027. I remind the Committee that under defence housing strategy plans, nine in 10 defence houses will be modernised or upgraded for our family personnel—that is 40,000 across the entire estate. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with over 10,000 defence houses being refurbished or replaced over that period.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will like to pay tribute to Alabaré, which does great work for service veterans in and around my constituency. However, will he ensure that we do not give the false impression that all veterans are homeless and have mental health problems? Nothing could be further from the truth. Happily, the great majority of people leaving our armed forces are well sorted in their life, and in robust mental health. That is important, since we need to attract people to join our armed forces and our reserve forces, not deter them or put them off.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for that really useful observation. First, I support the work going on in his constituency; Alabaré is doing an amazing job. I think it might have recently received some Valour funding for that—a programme through which we are really trying to change the initiative that we take in looking after veterans. On his second point, I am a firm believer that when people join the military, they contribute to the most important function of government, which is to protect our people and our nation. When they leave as veterans, they go on to contribute to the economy. Actually, a large percentage of them go on to thrive across all sectors of civilian society, and go above and beyond in what they deliver. There is a percentage who need help, and a smaller percentage who need lots of help. That is what we must focus on, and what Valour is there to do. I am sure that over the next couple of years, it will absolutely deliver and readjust our mechanisms for looking after veterans across society.
I turn to the service justice system. Government amendments 57, 59, 66 and 67 relate to the point raised by the director of service prosecutions to the Select Committee. They will ensure that service protection orders can be made by a service court in relation to a service offence, even if the person has left the armed forces.
Government amendments 80 and 84 will make provision for the post-service management of service stalking protection orders in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that such orders can be effectively recognised and enforced, once an individual leaves service. Government amendment 30 will provide for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances.
New clause 4 will introduce a new power for service courts to make a service image deletion order. The new deletion order will enable the service courts to require offenders to delete and destroy any images or films in their possession or control that are connected with specific offences, and which depict a person in an intimate state. Government amendment 31 will remove the limitation of the powers to search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant to relevant residential premises only, and instead applies the broader concept of “relevant premises”, which are any premises occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but those premises need not necessarily be occupied as a residence.
It is worth the Committee noting that since 2021 we have created the defence serious crime command and a witness care unit. We are moving forward with the tri-service complaint system, and are putting in place the violence against women and girls taskforce to improve standards and the culture within defence.
I turn to Government amendments 33 and 34, which will make small but important changes to clause 25. The clause will require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to help a victim reach a view on their preferred jurisdiction. The Select Committee highlighted the importance of victims receiving information in an objective and impartial way, so that they have an informed view. The Government recognise that need, and amendment 33 reflects that. The amendment will also ensure that the needs of victims and the circumstances of the events are taken into account in providing that information, and that an appropriate record is kept of that information. Amendment 34 will add the Lord Advocate to the list of consultees. That will ensure that she is consulted when the Secretary of State issues or revises the new guidance.
Amendment 37 will extend the provision in clause 29 that requires a disclosure of spent cautions for the purpose of administrative action. Cautions are not issued in Scotland as in England and Wales. The amendment will mean that clause 29 applies to spent alternatives to prosecution issued under the Scottish justice system.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?
Al Carns
As the hon. Member will know, there is a multitude of different reserves in the system, with different liabilities, different pay and different pensions. Indeed, I have often described it as a spaghetti junction of different policies that have been layered on top of each other over the last 60 years. This is the first move to simplify that, as well as the funding mechanisms and recall processes for it. By removing the 18-year liability, we simplify it at 65 years, which creates our ability to zig-zag those roles within the military so that people can leave, rejoin and leave again depending on their personal circumstances and the liability available within the armed forces.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This weekend, just over two years after leaving the military, I received my recall notification. I managed to update the details within it. At the same time, I was presented with nearly 60 pages-worth of forms to complete just to take on a reserve service commitment. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is still some way to go and that the amendments should perhaps speak of movement between reserve forces and regular forces, rather than the other way round?
Al Carns
That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well.
We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward.
All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill.
I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development.
Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are exceptionally important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation. The systems are different, the legal frameworks are different and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.
Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support.
Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system.
Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction.
Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards.
Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total.
Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels.
Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?
Mr Francois
I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech.
I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April.
The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I reiterate the fact that there are no Members here from the party led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in particular because so many of the local authorities responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant are led by that particular party. It is grossly incompetent that they are not here to listen and learn.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.
Mr Francois
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor).
During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system.
I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have
“the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.
Mr Calvin Bailey
The right hon. Member is making a powerful point, and it is something I hope that I can expand on as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. We have worked extensively with the Department for Education on this matter, and I hope to be able to address the right hon. Member’s concerns in my speech later. Does he recognise that special educational needs and disability policy should fall under the Department for Education, and that the point of the armed forces covenant is that we can have some leverage over the Department for Education rather than placing this detail in the Bill?
Mr Francois
There has been a leak: the hon. Gentleman has clearly had access to my speech. He has put a lot of work into this issue, so perhaps I can meet him halfway with what I am about to say.
In fairness, there are already DFE guidelines that can facilitate the portability of an EHCP from one local education authority to another. The crucial point, however, is that that is by voluntary agreement, and there is no guarantee that if service personnel are transferred at the behest of their commanders, the LEA into which they will move will accept the EHCP on transfer. The essence of amendment 2 is that it would ensure that that process does take place, rather than leaving it as a matter of discretion for the receiving LEA, which itself may be under considerable pressure to meet the demand for SEN support.
Amendment 3, which relates to adoption and fostering, is similar in spirit. It would mean that service personnel who have begun the fostering and adoption process under one local education authority would not have to go again to the back of the queue, as it were, if they were to transfer to another. The spirit of both amendments is the same.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I place on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the APPG and others for their work on this matter. I have constituents—I am very proud to represent Weeton barracks—who have had to make that choice because of the postcode lottery to which my right hon. Friend refers. Whether an LEA accepts the transfer is down to its discretion. That is such an important point, and I thank him for making it.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is bearing out the point that there are real-world examples of this issue coming into play, and he has done the Committee a service by reiterating that.
The Minister for Veterans and People kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) last month to discuss whether the Government might be able to do more on this subject, and in fact the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to that meeting in his remarks a few minutes ago. During the meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People, we suggested—here is the leak—that, given the announcement in the King’s Speech that there would be a new Bill on the whole topic of special educational needs, one way of achieving the aim of the amendment might be to include such a provision in that Bill—in a DFE Bill, rather than an MOD Bill. That would still, at the end of the day, achieve the same desirable outcome. The Minister undertook to go away and look at the matter, including potentially in consultation with colleagues from the DFE. Having received her letter of yesterday, I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I was extremely disappointed in its tone. It was a classic civil service boilerplate reply that bore little relation to the discussion that we had in the Minister’s office. I can only ask her to look at this again, perhaps in the context of the new DFE legislation, as I have just suggested.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Rather than the shadow Minister extending his speech, I urge Members concerned with this area to perhaps listen to what I will explain, which is the work that we have been doing with the DFE. We have had members from the armed forces community from across the country liaising directly with the Department for Education and the Minister for Veterans and People. I will try to put that across in my speech.
Mr Francois
I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there.
If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).
Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.
Dr Murrison
One area that will blight the lives of many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents as it does mine is, of course, primary care dentistry. People can move from one end of the country to another into a dental desert—Wiltshire is one of those. Does he think that there is a case for putting a duty on integrated care boards to translate people’s position with an NHS dentist—where they are lucky enough to find one—to their new area? I am thinking particularly of Wiltshire and the shortage of places, especially for service children and the partners of service personnel.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal.
I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very indulgent. I agree with him and—with respect—not with the Minister, because my recollection from being the Minister at the time was that there was a shortage of officers to populate court martial boards. When in office, we ensured that the process was service agnostic, which gave a bigger pool from which to draw. Would it be a compromise to allow retired officers of a certain seniority or length of time out of service, since that would maintain the currency that clearly is troubling the Minister? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister is right to require OR-7s, as well as warrant officers, to serve on court martial boards since that would expand the pool of people available?
Mr Francois
Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve.
When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.
Mr Francois
They told us as a Committee—I am looking round the House for nods of assent from others who were on the visit, and I am getting them—that it was a problem, and it was cramping the ability to hold court martials. All we were trying to do was justify the cost of the train ticket to the taxpayer and prove that we had listened to what we were told on the visit, so I do not quite take the Minister’s sanguine approach that there are plenty of officers to go round. I will not hammer the nail any further, but I respectfully ask him to look at this one more time, particularly after the contributions today.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee.
The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The measures on the armed forces covenant are one of the most impressive things about this Bill, not just UK-wide, but for the 115,000 veterans in Wales and their families who will now benefit from the legal duty on public services to take into consideration their specific circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in wishing a very happy Armed Forces Day to Prestatyn Royal British Legion branch, as I will when I celebrate and commemorate this special day with them later this month?
Mr Dhesi
I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community.
The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may.
The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views.
The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system.
The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system.
The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later.
While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do.
In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two.
Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Bill makes great strides in Ministry of Defence housing standards, and the enshrinement of the covenant is to be lauded. However, I cannot help but feel that there is a sense of strategic lethargy, with a lack of serious worked-through policies to tackle the crisis in recruitment and retention. For example, from what I can see, there is no mention of incentives or bonuses. Is that an oversight or a deliberate decision to put those issues on the back burner? To put it another way, are the Government now simply content to sit on their hands while the crisis deepens?
James MacCleary
My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years.
In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals.
New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.
Dr Murrison
I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We have the continuous attitude survey, which does its work every year and delivers to Ministers a clear account of what is keeping people in and what is driving them away. Is he seriously proposing another set of reviews, which would add very little to what we already know?
James MacCleary
The continuous attitude survey is a survey of service personnel, but a review is quite different, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. We are talking about an independent review, which is not the same thing.
On housing, I want to be specific. The Government’s commitment to improving service family accommodation is welcome, but new clause 13 exists because single living accommodation has for too long been treated as a secondary concern. For a significant proportion of serving personnel, that accommodation is not temporary—it is their home. It is where they recover after deployment, where they live between postings and where they begin and end each working day. If it falls below a reasonable standard, that is not merely a welfare issue; it is a retention issue. We cannot speak of our people as our greatest asset while declining to apply that in principle to where they sleep.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Veterans’ mental health challenges can be significant, for obvious reasons—trauma, stress, spending a long time away from friends and family, and so on. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, devastatingly, veterans under the age of 24 have a suicide rate that is two to four times higher than that for the civilian population of the same age. Given that mental health problems are so significant and less visible than physical health needs, does my hon. Friend agree that establishing the role of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer, as outlined in new clause 12, would ensure that mental health support is robust?
James MacCleary
Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling.
We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable.
I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind.
That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations.
The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced.
Finally, amendment 90 would require that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse occurring in the United Kingdom be referred immediately to the civilian police, and those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. Let me be clear: this amendment is recognition that when serious crimes are committed by someone in service—crimes that would, in any other context, be investigated by the police, and would be cases heard in a Crown court—the victims are entitled to the same confidence in the justice system as any other civilian. The Bill introduces new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very welcome, but they do not fully answer the question of whether victims have sufficient confidence that a system embedded in a single institution can handle the most serious offences against them with complete independence.
Sexual offences and domestic abuse are not matters of military discipline; they are serious criminal matters. When they occur in the United Kingdom, there is no compelling reason why investigation and prosecution should default to a separate system. Amendment 90 would remove that ambiguity, give victims clarity, and demonstrate that justice for individuals takes precedence over institutional processes.
Dr Murrison
The question is surely whether victims are given a choice. At the moment, they are. The prosecutors’ protocol usually means that these cases are tried through the civilian criminal justice system. That is fine, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied? Through the service justice system, these cases are brought to a conclusion far more rapidly than they currently are in our civilian criminal justice system.
James MacCleary
I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
So that I can understand, could the hon. Gentleman explain slightly more carefully why he is proposing to remove the choice that the victim has? They can say which of the two systems—the service justice system or the civilian justice system—they have more confidence in. Why would it be better for the victim if that choice were removed, and they had to go down the civilian justice system route?
James MacCleary
As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill.
We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.
Mr Calvin Bailey
I welcome the many amendments tabled to this Bill, the first of which is the Government’s amendment to include the Greater London Authority among bodies that must apply the covenant duty. As a London MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community, which has supported the campaign to ensure that military compensation is not treated as income for the purposes of welfare means-testing by local councils, I strongly welcome this step to ensure that the covenant applies to all local and regional authorities. I also recognise the changes that both Redbridge and Waltham Forest councils made to their treatment of military compensation last year as a result of that work.
The GLA has responsibility for critical aspects of everyday life in London, including transport through Transport for London and oversight of the Met, and it plays an important role in skills development and housing. We must ensure that all levels of government, including combined and mayoral authorities, have obligations under the covenant duty, so I welcome the GLA’s inclusion. However, I am concerned that some policy areas that—as our casework shows—intersect with local government, such as immigration, citizenship, pensions and armed forces compensation, are excluded from the local government scope. This risks current and future inconsistencies in the application of the covenant duty. Likewise, I remain concerned that the current draft of the statutory guidance makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ofsted and HM Prison and Probation Service are not covered by the covenant. Those institutions have critical roles in taxes and income support, education and the justice system, so I would welcome it if the Government could explain why those Departments are not included and say whether they will make changes to include them.
I turn to some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I understand and welcome the intent behind the amendment dealing with special educational needs and disabilities, but this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such changes. SEND policy falls within the remit of the Department for Education, which is now rightly covered by the covenant extension, including in this legislation.
The APPG on the armed forces community has contributed to the Department for Education’s SEND consultation, with particularly notable contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who has been leading on this area for members of the Army and her local community. Drawing on a number of meetings that the APPG held with the Minister for School Standards, we hosted a roundtable involving civil servants from the Department, researchers from Oxford Brookes University and Edinburgh Napier University, the three armed forces family federations, the Royal British Legion and the SSAFA. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the well-evidenced and distinct challenges faced by our service children arising from frequent relocations across borders—challenges that the SEND White Paper did not adequately recognise. However, the solution is not the automatic transfer of plans. Our devolved education system means that an education, health and care plan in England is not equivalent to a co-ordinated support plan in Scotland. In England, around 5% to 6% of children with additional needs qualify for an EHCP, but only about 0.2% qualify in Scotland.
Making one legislative change in this Bill will not automatically make our disconnected SEND systems conform to the needs of our service children. Instead, we need the standardisation and timely transfer of records. Children’s SEND documentation must move with them. Records from devolved Administrations and overseas postings must properly be considered and accepted by receiving authorities, and this must be accompanied by a greater understanding of the different education systems from which service children may arrive, including overseas systems. The amendment does not address that. We have raised that issue with the Minister for School Standards.
Training about armed forces life should be embedded in mandatory SEND teacher training. There must be stronger cross-nation co-ordination between the four Education Departments to establish shared principles for the transfer of support, particularly as all four systems are undergoing reform. That work must be led first and foremost by the Department for Education. The repeated and genuine engagement we have had with Education Ministers gives me hope that these changes will come forward.
New clause 5 would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I strongly welcome the intent of the amendment. As its author, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), knows, this policy was included in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and it must be delivered by the Home Office. While I understand that the Home Office is working on the issue with the Ministry of Defence, we are nearly two years on from the general election, and there is still no clarity on when this change will be introduced. In the meantime, the families of service personnel are struggling to afford to stay in this country, and that is plainly wrong.
As many members of the armed forces community APPG know—they support this amendment—we have repeatedly sought clarity from the Home Office on how the new immigration rule changes will affect service personnel and their dependants. I have repeatedly requested meetings with Home Office officials over months, but—this is in contrast to the position with the Department for Education—I have made little or no progress. I am therefore pleased that I have been granted a meeting on this matter next week. Responses to my letters state that the views of the armed forces community will be considered, but that does not mean that they are being heard.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to my fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way. If he supports new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), will he vote for it?
Mr Bailey
I hope to provide the detail on why new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, is not appropriate in this Bill. The Home Office must take on this work and responsibility, which is why the armed forces covenant has been put in place. We must make sure that all Departments take their responsibilities seriously, but this Bill is not the mechanism for doing so.
Mr Francois
I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?
Mr Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. One thing that came up very strongly in the APPG’s discussions with the Department—we had military families from all three services, and representatives of all the service organisations—was that this problem is faced by all people; it is just that service families and service children manifest the issue most specifically. The problem has to be fixed for all people in the United Kingdom, which is why the changes were taken on board as part of the SEND work. We received a great amount of care and support from the Department, and I hope that the work will prove beneficial. Where I see a bit of a failing is that, in taking that on, the Department could perhaps have noted that work, so that service families could have seen that it had been part of the considerations. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made to the Minister, and I hope that it will be addressed in the next iteration of the SEND work.
Mr Francois
The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?
Mr Bailey
The right hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I agree with him entirely. That is why it is so important we make sure that the armed forces covenant works. The covenant will have to do a lot of work and heavy lifting, just as it will in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but we will have the legal power and we will have recourse to those Departments. We hope to hear from Ministers today that they will press home the legal advantage they now have in that regard.
Finally, this debate reminds us that the Armed Forces Act 2006 was itself forged in the context of its time. It brought together a number of separate pieces of legislation and created a framework suited to an era in which the size and scope of the armed forces were reducing and many of the strategic assumptions underpinning our national security appeared to be settled. The measures in this Bill are all welcome and necessary, but they remind us that much of the heavy lifting now sits elsewhere. Questions about mobilisations, reserve integration, military aid to the civil authorities, the legal protections offered to service personnel acting on behalf of the state, and wider national resilience sit largely beyond the scope of the Bill, yet those issues are becoming increasingly important as the strategic environment changes around us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legal frameworks governing our armed forces continue to evolve alongside those changes. This Bill makes important improvements, but it should also encourage us to think carefully about the work that remains to be done and ensure that future legislation is ambitious enough to meet the realities of the world as it is, rather than the world as it once was.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it.
We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show.
During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend.
Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough.
We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces.
From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair.
It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country.
What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life.
Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would:
“extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.”
The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating:
“We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.”
So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told:
“We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.]
In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update
“on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”.
He told me:
“We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.]
That was a year ago.
On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are
“working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”.
She went on to state:
“it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”.
In April, she informed me:
“This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”.
In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power.
I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having.
After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it.
A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.
Mr Calvin Bailey
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech, the majority of which I agree with. Does he recognise, however, that the armed forces covenant places a legal responsibility on all Departments to remove those barriers and impediments to service life? As a service member, I engaged with the Royal British Legion and Cobseo from about 2017 to try to address those barriers and impediments and failed to do so numerous times under the previous Government because of the nature and approach of the Home Office in addressing these problems. Perhaps the problem we have today is not whether the Department wants to address the issue, but a wider cultural problem. Would the hon. Gentleman join with the all-party parliamentary group to ensure that we apply and enforce the armed forces covenant in the way it is designed in order to achieve the outcomes on which we both agree?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now.
I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.
Mr Calvin Bailey
I just want to amplify what this means for our service people, as I know there is a slight conflation of issues here. As our service people approach the end of their time in service, if they are not a UK passport holder—the majority of those people may be Americans and not Commonwealth personnel—they will not have access to work and to credit during the final six months of their service. This impediment has been in place for decades; as I said, I fought to change it through Cobseo when I was in service, and we are trying to deal with it again now. That is why this matter is broader than the hon. Gentleman’s new clause.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way.
We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP for a Cornish constituency with a strong military heritage. More than 30,000 Cornish residents have served or are serving in the armed forces. That is more than 6% of the population—nearly double the national average.
I am also proud to have sat on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses, who informed our report, and I am pleased that the majority of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Government. Government amendment 9 deals with paragraph 19 of the Committee’s report:
“We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority”.
Our report recommended that the Government consider whether the definition of “local authority” needs updating. The Ministry of Defence agreed with that conclusion, and an amendment has been tabled, but unitary authorities and single foundation authorities still do not appear to be specifically included in the definition, so I would like the MOD to go back and look at that again.
I am very proud to have contributed a clause to the Bill. Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, incorporates the proposal in my ten-minute rule Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary service personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I hope this is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA, and on retention and recruitment within the service, which is so valued and valuable.
I would like to speak about housing. I made my home in Cornwall because my then husband was posted to RNAS Culdrose. I know that many families move for the same reason. Even over 20 years ago when I experienced it, military housing was not in a good condition. In 2023-2024, two thirds of service family accommodation was in such a poor state that it was not fit for purpose. Clearly, that is not acceptable.
That is why I am so pleased that this Government are creating the publicly owned defence housing service and providing it with a 10-year investment of £9 billion. That will benefit over 12,000 houses in the south-west, many of which are in Cornwall, by bringing them back into public ownership after the disastrous privatisation in the mid-1990s, after which they degenerated.
I am pleased that the consumer charter includes commitments to improve military housing, such as a better move-in standard, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer. We discussed this on the Select Committee, and our report highlighted that, as private contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs are to remain in place until 2029, there is a need for robust mechanisms in place to hold contractors to account for their performance.
I turn now to the modernised accommodation offer, which has been promised for many years and would extend entitlement to service family accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. It is true—I know it—that a lifetime of service can put a strain on relationships, sometimes culminating in divorce or separation, and in 2024, 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children. They should have a home where their children can come and stay or live with them some of the time. That was identified as a long-term objective in the housing strategy, but I appreciate that military families will want clarity. The Select Committee brought that up, and the MOD acknowledged it, saying that it will be a commitment for the Department.
Our Committee recommended that within six months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timetable for widening entitlement to SFA to include those in long-term relationships. The MOD supported the call for the DHS to clarify and accelerate those plans to better reflect the realities of modern military life.
The Committee’s report also covered single living accommodation—in paragraph 52—and recommended that the MOD commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA within twelve months of the review’s completion. The MOD agreed with that recommendation too, which is positive.
The Bill extends the armed forces covenant to cover central Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and, hopefully, all councils, as well as new policy areas such as employment and social care, so that no one falls through the gaps. This is very welcome, and I know that the covenant has had a positive impact so far, particularly in Cornwall.
Witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee raised the need for clearer guidance and support, and highlighted lack of consistency in implementation of the covenant across the country. Public bodies are not always clear about what is expected of them.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Given Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the armed forces over many decades, the Minister’s answer to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister)—on the armed forces covenant being made compulsory within councils in Northern Ireland— does not really cut it. Sadly, in Northern Ireland we still have political parties that completely oppose the armed forces covenant and its implementation there, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to go further and act to protect our veterans in Northern Ireland?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree. To support that, I would say that the MOD is updating and strengthening the statutory guidance—as far as possible, it should cover all parts of the United Kingdom—to include that clear and prominent explanation of what having due regard to the covenant principles means. The guidance should explain how service-related disadvantage may arise in practice and how special provision can be applied within relevant policy areas.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. Linked to her point about the armed forces covenant, she may be aware that one way in which the United States supports its military personnel is through encouraging membership of the world’s biggest credit union, Navy Federal. As she will know, we have military credit unions here in the UK, but more could be done to raise awareness among military personnel of the benefits of helping recruits to manage their finances both during military life and afterwards in civilian life. Does she share my view that it would be good to hear from Ministers what more they are planning to do to help raise awareness of the military credit unions?
Jayne Kirkham
As a fellow Co-operative Member, I agree that credit unions can do so much and are very important. I certainly agree that if members of the armed forces could be signposted towards them, that would be beneficial to them.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As we are talking about services and access, figures show that fewer than 31% of female serving personnel register as veterans, which makes it much more difficult for them to access services, particularly if they have faced problems such as violence or bullying in the armed forces. Does the hon. Member think that more needs to be done to encourage female veterans to come forward?
Jayne Kirkham
We discussed in the Select Committee that some people simply did not consider themselves veterans for certain reasons, including those she gave or because they had not served for long. An awareness campaign is important so that people can understand that they are entitled to all these things; on leaving the military, a lot of people do not think about it again and they have no idea that these options are open to them. I certainly agree with the hon. Member.
We have talked a bit about SEND provision, and hon. Members here who sit on the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community know much more about that than me. I simply point out that we know our SEND provision has been broken for a long time and that a White Paper is coming, which should deal with and standardise some of these provisions so that people do not miss out. It will not be a postcode lottery—that is the ideal—and our SEND provision should improve so that whether someone is in Basingstoke, Shawbury or Cornwall, the provision they need will be there and will be transferable.
Finally, and briefly, I would like to attest to the importance of the veteran question in the census, as raised in the Select Committee and in our report. Data from the 2021 census has been vital for the local authorities, including in helping them to find some veterans. It has enabled them to understand where veterans are, the challenges they face, and how best to deliver and design services to meet their needs. Retaining the veteran question in 2031 would allow for standardisation and the ability to track changes in trends. The question has also been essential for veterans’ charities and organisations that rely on the evidence to bid for funding. I very much support its inclusion in the next census.
Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving, making extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe. They obviously deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is included in the Bill and that I have played a tiny part in shaping it. I am also pleased that those who keep our armed forces moving around will be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are starting to deliver on that.
Dr Murrison
I am privileged to be called in this debate. I start by declaring my interests as a reservist and as the author of a book called “Tommy This an’ Tommy That: The military covenant”—which is sadly no longer in print, but is available, I am told, from good charity shops.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). said, the covenant is not about advantaging the men and women of our armed forces, but about not disadvantaging them. It is important to make that clear. Servicemen and servicewomen do not expect to be given anything particularly; they are usually the greatest pragmatists going and do not expect that at all. However, they do expect not to be messed around, if that can be avoided. Much of what is in the Bill, as is always the case now with armed forces Bills, is trying to mitigate some of the disadvantages that they necessarily have to put up with by virtue of the unique circumstances that they find themselves in.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I begin by offering my deepest thoughts and prayers to the family, friends and colleagues of the British soldier who tragically died in Iraq on Sunday.
The world we live in today is more perilous, volatile and unpredictable than at any point in our living memory. We saw that last night, when Russia fired more than 650 drones and 73 missiles into Ukraine, killing 13 people and injuring more than 100, including a little girl aged only 11. In this fragmented world, a strong, modern, highly capable military is not a luxury; if we are to secure Britain’s future, it is a necessity. National security must always come above all else. That is why I strongly welcome the decisive steps that this Labour Government continue to take to rebuild our defence after it was hollowed out by the Conservative party, and why I support the Bill and the Government amendments tabled to it.
Week after week, this Labour Government are getting on with the job of investing in our defence. Just yesterday, the Government announced a vital new munitions deal, supporting 700 jobs in Belfast. Last week, the Government signed a joint missile programme with Poland and a new Swedish fighter jet deal to strengthen Ukraine and boost British jobs. We do those things not simply because those are security agreements and deals, but because it is the moral duty of this Government. Doing so also creates highly skilled jobs right across the United Kingdom, including for the people of my Paisley and Renfrewshire South constituency.
The substance of the Bill begins the urgent work of undoing years of systemic damage. I will focus my comments on two areas where the legislation delivers the deepest, most vital changes: defence housing and justice for victims of abuse. First, I warmly welcome the armed forces covenant, for which the Royal British Legion has been calling for more than a decade, and which is finally being delivered in full by this Labour Government. In the words of the Royal British Legion, our armed forces covenant “will ensure the needs of the Armed Forces community are considered when making decisions”. It goes on to say that it welcomes our decision to fully implement the covenant in law. This matters immensely, because it delivers directly on our manifesto commitments to our armed services.
The brave men and women who dedicate their lives to defending our country deserve far more than our gratitude. They deserve the peace of mind that while they are serving our country around the world, their families are safe in secure, high-quality homes. Instead, we inherited a shocking legacy. Between April 2022 and December 2023, service family accommodation fell into disrepair: more than 20,000 heating failures were reported in military homes, nearly 7,000 properties completely lost hot water and more than 1,100 families were forced out of their homes entirely due to severe maintenance issues. Is it any wonder, then, that the previous Government missed their military recruitment targets every single year that they were in office? If we cannot guarantee a soldier that their child will not grow up in a house without a working heating system, how can we expect them to stay in the ranks?
That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to a £9 billion investment in defence housing, the measures set out in the Bill to establish the Defence Housing Service, and the generational renewal of military housing, which will see nine in 10 military homes modernised or upgraded. The Royal British Legion has rightly welcomed the Defence Housing Service, calling it crucial to ensuring that armed forces personnel and their families are provided with the high-quality housing they deserve. The strategy will directly benefit our forces, including those living in the 43 service accommodation homes in my constituency. That is no less than our personnel and their families deserve.
Secondly, I strongly welcome the Bill’s protections for victims of sexual harm and domestic abuse. Every single victim of sexual harm deserves justice, yet for too long, the experiences of too many victims have been ignored. The Bill will change that. By introducing a strict legal duty on commanding officers to report serious offences to civilian authorities and the service police, we are ensuring that there can be no scope for anyone to look the other way. We are ensuring that, when those heinous crimes have been committed, nobody can say, “I didn’t know.”
The Bill will give the service police increased powers for their investigations and the service courts more powers to deal with perpetrators and improve the experience of victims. We are bringing our system into line with the civilian sector by introducing service domestic abuse protection orders and service stalking protection orders, and by strengthening sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. By doing that, we are ensuring that we protect victims and target predatory behaviour head-on, and ensuring that survivors get the unwavering support and justice that they deserve.
The Bill proves that this Labour Government are cleaning up the legacy of neglect left by the Conservatives. We are getting on with the task of building a military fit for the future, and with restoring absolute dignity to our armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I speak in support of amendment 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It would require the Secretary of State to review the way that former service personnel are communicated with about their pension entitlements, and I support that wholeheartedly.
I want to use this opportunity to raise again in this Chamber an injustice that goes far deeper than communication; it goes to the heart of what this country owes its veterans. I want to share with the House, for the sixth or seventh time, the story of legendary Eastbournian Pauline Cole. Pauline was a staff sergeant, and served this country with distinction during the conflict in Aden in the ’60s. As a direct result of her service, she suffered solar skin damage, resulting in cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. After years of tribunals, the Government recognised her sacrifice and awarded her military compensation in the form of a war disablement pension.
Before receiving that compensation, Pauline had been in receipt of £76.96 a week in pension credit. After receiving that compensation, her pension credit collapsed to just £9.23 a week. That is because military compensation is considered income for the purposes of calculating pension credit, even though compensation awarded in a civil context is disregarded from such calculations. Indeed, military compensation is disregarded from universal credit calculations, but not from pension credit. In this case, the Government gave with one hand and took with the other. In order to sustain herself on that new income, Pauline was forced to seek lower-cost accommodation, and moved out of her Eastbourne home to somewhere else in the county of Sussex.
I raised the case with the Pensions Minister. Pauline came with me to the Department for Work and Pensions. I have raised the matter in this Chamber at Prime Minister’s questions, and Pauline sat in the Gallery. Sadly, she passed away a few months after having to move, in November 2025, never having seen this issue corrected. I have pledged to continue this fight around pension communications and pension entitlement in her honour, together with her sons Simon and Les Haffenden.
The Royal British Legion has been clear that the current state of affairs is, in its view, a violation of the armed forces covenant. When I raised this injustice with the Government via the DWP, they said that the Government have no plans to change this policy. When I asked a written parliamentary question on what it would cost to exempt military compensation from pension credit entitlements, the answer was that
“no formal assessment has been made.”
The Government say that they cannot afford to fix this, but they have not undertaken to find out what fixing it would even cost. They cannot hide behind affordability when they have never looked at the price tag.
The Government have shown that they can act differently: after the Etherton review on LGBT veterans, the Minister confirmed that those compensation payments would, as is right, be exempt from tax and would not affect benefits. The Government have accepted the principle; it just has not been applied to Pauline, or the thousands of veterans like her. It must be applied to them, and that must be communicated to all of them.
I urge the Minister to begin correcting this injustice by undertaking a financial assessment of this change, and communicating that to veterans in receipt of the war disablement pension. I urge him to meet me and Pauline’s sons, Simon and Les Haffenden, who are continuing the campaign, so that we can discuss provisions to correct this injustice before the Bill’s Report, and can ensure that no veteran is ever again penalised for serving our country.
Luke Akehurst
It has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee set up to scrutinise this important legislation, which, as Members will know, renews our mandate for a standing Army and takes important strides on the covenant, service housing and service justice. The thrust of my speech will be against new clause 2, which is an attempt by the Opposition to play a political game with the timing of the publication of the crucial defence investment plan.
First, I pay tribute to the armed forces community across my constituency. As I said on Second Reading, North Durham is home to a large number of veterans and families of serving personnel. As their Member of Parliament, I want to use my voice to stand up for those people in our community who are serving, or have served, our country. That is why I was so keen to play a role in the passage of this Bill. The Select Committee also allowed me to highlight the work of the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street. I welcome the provisions to better integrate cadets into our armed forces by transforming the reserve forces and cadets associations into a non-departmental public body.
I turn to new clause 2. I would like to think that there is no one—with the possible exception of my hon. Friends the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence—who wants the defence investment plan tabled more than me. As I said in the defence estimates debate in this place on 4 March to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry:
“My message to the Minister is to take back into the Whitehall system the support on both sides of the House for seeing the defence investment plan sooner rather than later”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 895.]
We cannot afford more delay, because in the event of a war with a dangerous opponent, every month we delay could, in just a few years’ time, be a month in which our troops do not have the right kit in their hands.
As a north-east MP, I am aware of the strong industrial case for providing certainty about the footprint of our defence spending, so that we can drive investment towards communities like the one I represent. Many of my constituents are proud to travel to work for BAE Systems in Washington, where they make munitions for the British armed forces and our gallant allies in Ukraine, or work at Pearson Engineering in Newcastle, making essential components for armoured vehicle programmes, such as the turrets for Challenger 3. My constituents also hope that future MOD contracts will lead to the north-east of England becoming a major centre for the space industry. We need to get this right. We only have one shot at dealing with the equipment implications of the strategic defence review. We do not have an infinite pot of money. In fact, all of us know that the state of the public finances that this Government inherited in 2024 means that the pot of money for many pressing priorities, including defence, is decidedly, and sadly, finite, so we must make the right decisions about where to allocate resources.
As I have now said three times to the House, the political commitment of this Labour Government to finding the funding for defence equipment and procurement should not be doubted, given the early decision to cut the overseas development budget by half in order to increase defence spending. That was extremely painful and politically contentious, given that the aid budget is close to the hearts of many Labour Members, but it was the right thing for the Labour Government to do. That represented a historic commitment to the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Given that, no one should be in any doubt of this Government’s preparedness to make the further tough political decisions needed to properly fund the defence of the nation.
Indeed, I am hopeful that the DIP will be published before the plan would be that new clause 2 is trying to bounce the Government into. The Defence Secretary confirmed yesterday in the House that the Prime Minister is determined to publish the DIP before the NATO summit, which starts on 7 July. The plan in new clause 2 would be left until the end of the year, which is when the Bill will complete its passage. The Conservatives lost the political and moral right to dictate the timetable for how we best prepare for conflict after the British people ejected them from office, following over a decade of the tragic underfunding of our armed forces. Indeed, in their first year in government, the Conservative party cut defence spending by £2 billion. That is in stark contrast to this Government, who are spending over £11 billion more on defence than in the last year of the previous Government. Rather than tacking a timetable on to the Bill—a Bill that will play a hugely important role in improving how the state delivers for our armed forces community—I will be supporting the Government in publishing a well-thought-out DIP, that is not rushed but is published as soon as possible, so that we can start directing investment towards those industries that will play a key role in defending our nation in the coming years.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly.
Today I will focus on one area.
“I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.”
Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and apologise for interrupting her flow. The point about consistency across the UK is important, and I support the creation of a veterans commissioner for England. In Scotland, the role is particularly important, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in the Scottish Government is not a veteran, but a career politician. I think he moved from working for the party to working for an MSP, so that is the difference. The commissioner is a really important role in Scotland, as it bridges that gap. Will the hon. Lady join me in encouraging the SNP Government to create a veterans Minister who is himself or herself a veteran?
Sarah Bool
All experience of military life is valuable, but speaking as someone without military experience, I still think that something can be brought to the table by those who do not have such experience. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Scottish Government will have heard it put on record.
The Royal British Legion launched a campaign to create the role of veterans commissioner for England back in 2023. The last Conservative Government accepted that request, and in 2024, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs began recruiting for the position. However, the 2024 general election was called shortly afterwards, and all progress was ceased. In the Select Committee, the response to that request was, “We now have an Armed Forces Commissioner, and Op Valour. That means that the role is not required.” We welcome former Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins CBE as the first Armed Forces Commissioner, and I wish her well in her role. However, that role was created to benefit serving personnel and their families. It will investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished, and its functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the commissioner. Veterans would only be covered by the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner if a complaint related to their time in service, when they were subject to service law. There are, however, time limits for submitting a complaint, so generally that will apply only to veterans who have recently left the armed forces.
We recognise the Government’s £50 million funding for Op Valour, which is the national programme designed to increase veterans’ access to relevant charities, services, and support across the UK. However, if Valour was the answer to all veterans issues, why has the position of Veterans Commissioner remained for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? There is still fundamental value in establishing a veterans commissioner for England too. It should be a question not of either/or but of both.
What would the veterans commissioner do? They would serve as an independent advocate and voice for veterans and their families in England, signpost veterans and their families to relevant charities and services based on their individual need, produce regular policy recommendations based on unmet need, work closely with Government agencies to develop and refine policies and services, and promote the community, leverage their skills and highlight what they offer to society.
Rachel Taylor
It was an honour to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and to help deliver on our general election promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government, to better support armed forces personnel and veterans. I was delighted to be joined on the Committee by so many veterans with experience, particularly the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for South Ribble (Mr Foster), the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) and, not to forget, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst)—I would not want to upset him as he is almost a neighbour. Their input to the Committee and the work that we were able to do, across parties and with good temper, was extremely valuable, and the time spent was worth while.
As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has mentioned, it was extremely helpful to visit veterans and armed forces housing, and to meet members of the armed forces justice system and ask them questions. While our recollections of some of those conversations may differ slightly, it was still extremely useful to see how that system works in contrast to how our non-military justice system works.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to placing a legal duty on public services to consider the circumstances of armed forces personnel and their families. My constituents want veterans to be supported and for those who serve to be able to do so with dignity and respect. It was encouraging to hear evidence from representatives of armed forces charities, the service families federations, officials from the service justice system and personnel from across the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. They all recognised the importance of the changes we are making to turn the tide after years of under-investment by the Conservatives.
Our armed forces are a source of national pride, and I want younger generations to see the armed forces as a future for themselves and an opportunity to do more for their country and contribute to the security of our nation. To make that a reality, armed forces personnel and their families need our full support and respect as they make daily sacrifices in their service to our country. That is why I am pleased that after years of military families being forced to deal with the lowest level of satisfaction with service family accommodation on record, we have brought 36,000 family homes back into public ownership, with the savings being reinvested in fixing and improving forces housing.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In my constituency, nearly 1,000 homes have been brought back into public ownership with the creation of the defence housing service. Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 13, which addresses the question of single living accommodation, threatens to undermine the new defence housing service before it has got off the ground? Although single living accommodation needs attention, that attention should be given within the armed forces umbrella.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention and for sharing her experience, with so many military families living in her constituency, and I agree with her. New clause 13 focuses on single living accommodation, which is often of a relatively temporary nature. Our focus really needs to be on the catastrophic situation in family homes up and down the country, which we both saw on a visit down south.
Service families deserve high-quality housing that meets military operational requirements while providing them with the comfort they need to support their family. The Bill’s establishment of the defence housing service will go a long way to meeting those needs with a generational renewal of more than 40,000 military homes, which will be modernised and upgraded, together with a historic programme of house building, with the potential for more than 100,000 new homes on surplus defence land for civilian and military families, with serving personnel and veterans coming first.
This is the most significant plan in 50 years and a stark contrast with the scandal of the botched Tory privatisation that cost us billions, let military families down and left the country worse off. It was a real eye-opener to see at first hand the standard of accommodation that military families have been putting up with and the work needed to make those properties fit for our heroes and their families.
I am immensely proud that in this Bill, we stand by our pledge to halve violence against women and girls. The service justice system is being modernised so that it can provide better victim support and ensure that the victims of the most serious offences have access to protection orders. Criminal behaviour does not belong in our armed forces. The UK has a strong record of cultivating the highest values and standards in some of the toughest conditions. We are bringing change to service justice, creating a victim-centred approach that will support personnel who are the victims of unacceptable sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment.
In a period of significant global instability, our commitment to the security of our country requires us to invest in our armed forces so that we can combat any challenges that we face as a country. Part of that must be about expanding our reserve forces. Individuals, including Members of this House, use their free time to make up an integral part of our armed forces, and I am incredibly proud when constituents of mine tell me that they are part of our reserves.
Bedworth in my constituency hosts the largest and one of the most famous Armistice Day parades in Britain, held always on the 11th day of the 11th month. We truly are a town that never forgets. I pay tribute to all the veterans and service personnel in my constituency and all those who work in the defence industry supply chains. My constituents are proud that this Labour Government are backing our armed forces and improving the lives of our country’s bravest while putting our nation’s security first. I will continue to do what I can to support military families and veterans from my constituency, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Before I close, I want to put on record at the start of Pride Month how proud I am to have seen the LGBT financial recognition scheme implemented, with a £75 million investment and a memorial, “An Opened Letter”, dedicated and unveiled by the King in October 2025. I recommend that everyone in this House and across the country makes a visit to the National Memorial Arboretum to see that memorial, which is a powerful reminder of the absolute injustice that was done to hard-working service personnel who were serving their country first to the best of their ability.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It was a pleasure to be a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and it is an honour to speak on the Armed Forces Bill for a second time. It is to the Government’s credit that the responds to a number of the key challenges that our armed forces face in the 2020s. However, today I want to argue the case for new clause 13, which addresses the need to give every member of our armed forces a safe, decent home whatever their family circumstances. That is something the Liberal Democrats pushed for in the Select Committee, and it is a cause that is very close to my heart. Some who serve live in single living accommodation for decades—for their whole career. Not everyone chooses to be in a relationship, and many live in single living accommodation away from their wives and go home at the weekend, so sometimes they are there for their whole career, not just as a stepping stone until they find a partner and move into quarters.
The Secretary of State has promised
“the biggest renewal of Armed Forces housing in more than 50 years.”
I echo his words—the least British forces personnel deserve is “a decent home”. Last year, the Government rightly agreed with our party that armed forces housing should meet the decent homes standard, and it was encouraging to see that commitment make its way into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. However, there are two types of armed forces housing: service family accommodation and single living accommodation. In 2021, the Public Accounts Committee estimated that the latter may support as many as 80,000 people, more than half of our armed forces personnel. At that time, more than a third of armed forces personnel were believed to be living in the poorest grade of service housing, and 3% in accommodation so poor that they were exempt from paying rent. Section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act misses out single living accommodation, despite many new recruits being young and too much of the defence housing estate being in a shocking state of repair. New clause 13 is our opportunity to begin to fix that.
I speak from personal experience, having lived in single living accommodation myself as a still-wet-behind-the-ears young airman posted to Braunton block at what was then RAF Chivenor in North Devon in the late 1980s—it is now RMB Chivenor, a Royal Marine base. The nicest way I can describe that accommodation is to say that it was basic, but before family life happened, it was home to me and my mates for at least the two years I was at Chivenor. My room on that base is still there, and whichever Royal Marine has it today has every right to be housed somewhere without mould or damp while they serve King and country.
We must ensure that by the time the next armed forces Bill comes before this House in 2031, the shameful findings of the last service accommodation report are a thing of the past. That is something that I believe this Government are attempting to do, as we saw on our visits as a Committee. As such, this Armed Forces Bill should amend the phrase “service family accommodation” wherever it appears in relation to the standard of forces housing, so that it also covers single living accommodation and any Ministry of Defence building being used for that purpose. Why should those serving who are single be treated any different from those serving who choose to be with their families?
The Armed Forces Bill will have united support from parties across this House, and so should new clause 13. I urge the Government to be bold, to accept no half-measures and to deliver decent housing for every member of our armed forces.
Dr Arthur
You will be pleased to hear, Chair, that I will be relatively short. I am proud to welcome this Armed Forces Bill. It represents a vital step towards renewing our contract with those who keep us safe. As an MP with Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton in my constituency, this Bill is of immense pride to me, but it is also of urgent necessity.
I will focus on new clauses 3 and 5, but I start by welcoming the increased investment that underpins this renewal. Our new £9 billion defence housing strategy will be the biggest renewal of military accommodation in half a century and our forces families will benefit. I can see that already in Edinburgh South West. For too long, the state of service accommodation, as we have heard already, has been a source of deep frustration, but now it is slowly becoming a source of envy in my constituency as people watch these homes being upgraded. I am happy that this landmark strategy will significantly improve the state of service housing up and down the country. I have to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for stepping in. The MOD was about to sell surplus homes in my constituency on the open market, but he stepped in to make sure that they were instead transferred to the council. Those ex-Army homes are now council homes, which is a fantastic outcome.
New clause 3 relates to support for veterans. The Royal British Legion has rightly highlighted the outstanding vacancy for a veterans commissioner for England, which was advertised just a few days before the last general election. That is something we have to question. In Scotland, we have long seen the clear impact of our veterans commissioner, which I spoke about earlier, and it is only right that England has one too. I urge the Government to think about the issue seriously, but two points have to be considered. First, we have to look at the existing Veterans Commissioners to understand what is working and what is not, and to build on best practice. Secondly, Operation Valour is being rolled out at pace and at scale, so we have to get the interaction right between the Veterans Commissioner and Op Valour. We want action in this area, but we also have to show a little caution to make sure that we get it right first time.
Through new clause 5, we have an opportunity to tear down some of the unfair barriers facing non-UK armed forces personnel. I welcome the intent behind the new clause, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications from spouses and children of current or former service personnel. A constituent recently raised with me the painful administrative hurdles affecting Commonwealth soldiers, veterans and their families who now call Edinburgh, Scotland and the wider UK their home. I met him at a fantastic open evening at the All Nations Christian Fellowship church on Oxgangs Avenue that culminated with some excellent food. He said that Edinburgh was his home now and he told me how proud he was to serve in 3 Rifles. I have never met anybody prouder to serve in our armed forces, despite the fact that he was not born in the UK. He also told me how he had lost some of his friends in Afghanistan. He is an amazing man in all sorts of ways, but I was ashamed to hear that he is expected to pay visa fees for his family to settle in the UK. He has left the forces now and is a proud veteran, but he is on a modest income. The fees he faces are incredible for him. He was not just advocating for himself—he is not a selfish person—but for others in his network too.
It is right that the Government take this issue seriously. If someone is prepared to lay down their life for this country, their family should not face a financial penalty to live in it. We must give these brave individuals a fair and dignified pathway to settlement. I accept that is best led by the Home Office, but this debate has shown that Members from across the House, and certainly those in the Chamber, want to see action—I do not think anybody opposes that. We have to remember that, and we have to demand action. I am hopeful that this Bill will finally deliver the settlement that our military deserves. The promise is there, but we must ensure that it is matched by our delivery of housing, recruitment and fairness.
I want to make three final points. The journey of this Bill will not be completed today; there will be other opportunities to amend it, and I hope that we will find space for the intent behind new clauses 3 and 5.
There is no bigger supporter of devolution than me, but there is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of the border when it comes to accessing services. Military families who move between England and Scotland really feel the difference in childcare. It has different impacts, depending on the children’s age. If someone’s spouse happens to be a teacher, moving from Scotland to England, and vice versa, can be a huge hurdle. As we think about amending this Bill to make lives better for our armed forces personnel, the House should think carefully about families who move between England and the devolved nations, and make sure that we have a safety net in place so that they are never disadvantaged through serving our country.
The last time I mentioned RAF Kirknewton, I made the point that it is the home of 661 Volunteer Gliding Squadron—the net zero fleet of the air force. It flies a fleet of four Grob Viking T1 gliders, and provides excellent experience for the Royal Air Force air cadets. What I did not say is that RAF Kirknewton is also the home of a meticulously recreated world war one Sopwith 1½ Strutter aircraft, which has been built by the Aviation Preservation Society of Scotland. I mention that because the big military installations in my constituency—Redford and Dreghorn barracks, and the airbase—have fences around them, but that does not mean that they are not well connected with the community.
When I am out in Colinton, I meet serving armed forces people at the bus stop, at the school gates and in Colinton Mains Tesco. I do worry about the diet of some of our younger servicemen, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. When Colinton primary school closed due to snow a few years ago, it was the Army that came down and cleared it. Perhaps the parents were desperate to get their kids back to school—we have all been there! When there was a barbeque at the school a couple of years ago, it was the Army that provided it. Service personnel brought with them the rarest piece of military equipment that I have ever seen deployed: the Army’s bouncy castle, which was fully camouflaged. I have no idea what the Army does with it the rest of the year—perhaps there is a written question there somewhere.
In my constituency, particularly around Colinton, the armed forces are fully integrated. This is something that I and local people cherish, and I really hope that this Bill and the covenant are about creating, maintaining and sustaining that kind of culture; all of us here have a duty to maintain that.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank everybody involved in bringing the Bill to this point today, particularly Ministers and members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It has been a serious amount of work, because this is not a typical Armed Forces Bill through which we are performing our constitutional duty in this House to renew our armed forces; it goes much further than that. It pushes forward our armed forces covenant and makes it real across the country, it finally gives our armed forces the housing and justice that they deserve, and it gives our reserves a true role to play in the defence our nation. That is why we have to pass the Bill. Some really important amendments have been tabled, and I particularly want to cover Government amendment 9 on the armed forces covenant, and Government amendments 48, 51 and 54, which relate to the new defence housing service.
First, the armed forces covenant goes to the heart of this country’s commitment to our armed forces. We have talked about it so much for so many years, but in reality is it justly applied across the country? This Bill goes to the heart of that question, and tries to put the covenant into practice. When we talk about our armed forces, we are talking about a community of those who have served of 4.5 million people, including 2 million veterans who are alive today. Yet for many of them, support has depended less on the principles, and more on a postcode lottery. For too long, the covenant has been the right idea, but too often the wrong experience on the ground.
We have had the principle of no disadvantage, yet delivery has been uneven and inconsistent. Let us take my county of Hertfordshire as an example. It has 11 councils, including four in my constituency. I can tell hon. Members from my own experience that the way those councils apply the covenant varies tremendously. Amendment 9 is so important because it applies the covenant to the new combined authorities, which we will soon have in my county. By expanding that legal duty, we are recognising the simple truth that the decisions that shape people’s lives—in housing, planning, local services—are not all taken in one place, and if the covenant is going to work, it has to exist everywhere that those decisions are made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech. The Minister knows this, because he has practical experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, but we want to see the covenant in its totality there. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) is right that want it to be the same, whether in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Portadown—or Newtownards in my constituency.
There are anomalies in Northern Ireland. For instance, a veteran who has served in and has now left the forces should be getting priority housing. That does not happen, but it should happen, because conditions in Northern Ireland are different from here on the mainland. There are other shortcomings and shortfalls too. In my council area of Ards and North Down, a fellow called Councillor Trevor Cummings is responsible for veterans, and he works very hard to make the covenant happen. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be fairness everywhere. The hon. Member for Stevenage is right to say that—I support him 100%. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes back in, will give us some reassurance in that regard.
Kevin Bonavia
As ever, the hon. Member speaks up not just for his constituents, but for the welfare of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland, and I am sure this Government will treat them with the respect they deserve.
In my area, Stevenage borough council has signed the armed forces covenant. However, this is not just about a piece of paper; it is about working to turn that commitment into something real. We are working with the armed forces community, including with initiatives such as the Muster Point—a grassroots mutual support veterans organisation, where veterans talk to each other. The group brings cases to the council and think, “Let’s work out a solution to make sure that this person is not left behind”, making sure that council staff understand the needs of the veterans who come to them. That work in Stevenage is led locally by our armed forces champion, Councillor Claire Parris, who works with veterans at the Muster Point—like Stu Mendelson, Steve Black and many others who have visited this place, including earlier today—to ensure they are not left behind, and that places like this and others across the country are truly for them too.
The reality, though, is that such joined-up, practical delivery has not been consistent across the country. For too long, service families have been told that the covenant exists, only to find that their experience depends on the postcode in which they live. When we look at the Bill, and at amendment 9, the question is not whether we need more frameworks, new office holders or more statements; the question is whether we finally ensure the covenant works everywhere in this country of ours, not just in the places where there is strong local leadership. The duty in this Bill embeds the covenant across the system and ensures that the approach in my constituency of Stevenage is not the exception, but the standard. After years during which the covenant was talked about but not consistently delivered, this Bill will start to make that consistency real.
Secondly, I turn to amendments 48, 51 and 54 on service housing. As we have heard in this debate, for too long service families were expected to put up with conditions that simply would not be tolerated anywhere else. Two thirds of service family accommodation needs major work, repair satisfaction has collapsed to as low as 16% and tens of thousands of complaints have been made year upon year.
Let us be honest about how we got here. That is the legacy of a failed housing model, a botched privatisation that left families living in substandard homes while taxpayers continued to foot the bill. This Government are now putting that right, making a £9 billion investment in our service housing, upgrading or rebuilding tens of thousands of homes and, crucially, bringing homes back into public ownership so that we can finally take back control of standards and delivery. It is not just about comfort; it is about capability too. When only four in 10 personnel are satisfied with service life and morale has fallen to record lows, housing is not a side issue. It is central to retention, readiness and the future of the armed forces.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As an MP who represents the west coast of Scotland—a large part of my seat is on the River Clyde—I felt it was important to contribute to this debate. In my constituency, there are quite a number of serving and retired servicemembers, and we have many families who settled in the constituency to work in the war effort during the second world war. It is a constituency with strong connections to the armed forces, and the veterans charity Erskine was founded there in the former Erskine veterans hospital.
The measures in the Bill will be welcomed across Great Britain. I was fortunate enough to join local service personnel to learn about the armed forces covenant shortly after my election and I have been greatly encouraged to learn of local employers signing it and embracing it. It is well past time that the Government did the same. I know, too, that the provisions on service family housing will be broadly welcomed across the country. I look forward to seeing the benefits of concerted efforts to improve housing for families in my constituency. Housing in our communities is so important, not just in providing a place to sleep, but for access to the local community, schools, health services and so on.
Our communities are open and generous, and they appreciate the sacrifices made by service personnel. I look forward to welcoming more retired and serving service personnel to Paisley and Renfrewshire North.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill and the Government amendments tabled today, which improve housing, strengthen protections for serving personnel and their families, and ensure that our armed forces are prepared for the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. Much of this debate rightly focuses on structures, powers and processes, but the strength of our armed forces ultimately comes down to the brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and the families who support them.
In South East Cornwall, we see that every day through the close connection between our communities and the Royal Navy. People arrive from across the UK to begin their service careers at HMS Raleigh, and many leave with lifelong friendships, skills and a deep sense of purpose.
The recruits of Gould 25/37 successfully passed out from their initial naval training just recently. I know the whole House will join me in congratulating them on this significant achievement and in wishing them every success as they begin their careers in service to our country. One recruit marked the occasion in particularly memorable fashion, by proposing to his now fiancée; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Cameron and Lexi on their engagement and in wishing them a long and happy future together. Their engagement is a reminder that places such as HMS Raleigh are not simply training establishments; for many, they are where futures are built and the values of service, commitment and community are lived every day.
As we consider the Bill, we must remember that behind every policy and every provision are the people who make our armed forces great. That is why I particularly welcome Government amendments to clause 3, which creates a new defence housing service, as I think about that young couple and the home they hope to build together. We cannot hope to strengthen recruitment, retention and national readiness if service personnel and their families are living in unacceptable accommodation.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, I have many serving folks in my patch. We have a particular issue in Plymouth related to South West Water, which I know she also deals with. Unlike their neighbours, when there are outages, people in service accommodation cannot immediately access compensation pay. While their neighbours who are not in service accommodation pay South West Water directly, those in service accommodation go through a kind of third-party service and therefore do not get that compensation immediately. The Minister is well aware of the matter, because he helped me out with some related casework last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at that in the Bill, to ensure that people in service accommodation get compensation just as quickly as their neighbours and are not disadvantaged by being in the forces?
Anna Gelderd
I agree that we must work together on these important issues. We cannot hope to strengthen our recruitment, retention and national readiness if the accommodation is unacceptable. The Bill delivers a landmark programme of investment to build, renew and repair military homes and put forces families first. The Tory privatisation of military housing cost taxpayers billions, while leaving many service personnel and their families in accommodation that simply was not good enough.
I also welcome amendments to clause 2 on the expansion of the armed forces covenant, which will extend to recognise that service life presents unique challenges, including frequent relocations, disruption to education, difficulties accessing healthcare and impacts on family life. Ensuring that public bodies properly recognise those challenges is an important step towards delivering the support that serving personnel, veterans and their families truly deserve. This issue matters to our armed forces. We know that military morale fell to deeply concerning levels under the previous Government—something that should worry every Member of this House.
I represent a constituency with proud military communities, and I know the challenges faced by serving families and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frequent moves can disrupt education and support networks at the very moment when stability is most needed. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work being undertaken in partnership with the Department for Education to improve continuity and support.
I am also particularly pleased to welcome the amendments to clause 7 to strengthen protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. Violence against women and girls remains one of the greatest challenges facing our society. No one should ever face abuse, intimidation or violence, and certainly not those who serve our community in this way.
In a few weeks’ time, I will have the privilege of attending another passing-out parade at HMS Raleigh. The Minister has previously joined me to meet veterans in Torpoint, home to one of the country’s largest veteran populations; I hope he will accept my invitation to revisit South East Cornwall at the earliest opportunity, to meet the recruits who represent the bright future of our armed forces and to discuss the vital role that my constituency continues to play in supporting our nation’s defence.
This Bill recognises that a strong armed forces depends on strong people, strong families and strong communities such as mine, and I am proud to support it. I look forward to seeing the difference that these measures will make for those who serve.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in.
As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness.
For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine.
Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery.
Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery.
Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind.
As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better.
That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Francois
Having addressed our amendments towards the opening of the debate, I will now speak to the new clauses. New clause 3 would create a veterans’ commissioner for England. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made a good case for doing so during the Select Committee on the Bill, and did so again this afternoon. She received cross-party support—certainly in principle—from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. He also gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) some support for new clause 5, which I will come to in a moment.
When I was debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—now the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025—with the Minister some months ago, he gave a commitment that the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be mirrored by the appointment of a veterans’ commissioner for England. However, that has still not come to pass. Could he explain to the Committee where the Government now sit on this issue? When can we expect them to honour their pledge to create a veterans’ commissioner for England? Have they begun any interview process, to at least begin to identify a suitable candidate for the role? The Government gave their word on this. The Committee would be grateful for an update from the Minister on where the Government are with this matter.
I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which has the support of over 20 hon. Members. The essence of the new clause is that no fees should be charged to serving or previously serving members of the armed forces, or their family members, who are applying for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules appendix for His Majesty’s armed forces. In practical terms, the new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 so that when members of the armed forces apply for ILR, in return for their willingness to serve the Crown, the attendant fees would be waived. This is a particular issue for Gurkha families, and foreign and Commonwealth personnel who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.
Rachel Taylor
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Gurkha community. I want to pay tribute to the Queen’s Gurkha Regiment and the 30th Signal Regiment, based just outside my constituency. The Gurkhas who served are an essential and integral part of our community; they offer great value, and integrate into the community. I thank him for mentioning them, and for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to those Gurkhas who live in or around my constituency.
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she may have been here just a few months ago when we had a debate about the history of the Gurkhas in British service. I echo everything she said about the bravest of the brave. I therefore look forward to her supporting the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening.
The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have campaigned on this matter for a number of years. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for taking up the cudgels so effectively on their behalf this afternoon. As he argued powerfully, Governments of both colours have indicated in the past that they were minded to make this change. Indeed, it is worth reiterating that this proposal was in both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s 2024 general election manifestos, but the change has yet to come to pass. Having re-examined the issue within His Majesty’s Opposition and consulted shadow departmental colleagues, I am pleased to tell the Committee that should my hon. Friend seek to press the new clause—and should you grant that request, Madam Chairman—we on the Opposition Front Bench will support it. We encourage all hon. Members to do so, too. There would be a cost to the process, but we believe that, in return for service to this country, the Ministry of Defence should absorb that cost in its wider budget. The annual cost would be a very modest outgoing, given the scale of the defence budget. In other words, the Department would bear the cost, not those who have served or their families. People should not be disadvantaged for having offered to serve this country in uniform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon put the case very well, and I will not try the House’s patience by repeating it. Suffice it to say that I believe that there is a strong moral case for doing this, and I very much hope that the Government might be prepared to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his amendment to a vote, and in that case, I hope that the whole House will find it in their heart to support it.
New clauses 1 and 6 relate to the European convention on human rights and its effect on armed forces personnel, including, potentially, reservists who might be mobilised under the auspices of the Bill. How did we get to a situation in which the convention has spread to the battlefield, not just in Europe, but globally? The history is significant here; it lies behind why we tabled the two new clauses. This all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created back in 2009. The al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq during Operation Telic, and was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, Shiner was subsequently convicted of fraud and struck off as a practising solicitor.
Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over that, because when we highlighted the matter in the Commons, she was adamant that he had not been working for Shiner. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant appointed and instructed—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. The Minister had the embarrassment of having to come to the Commons in February to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true.
Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, Keir Starmer was not acting in that action. Shiner won, so the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, an industry was effectively created, which Shiner then massively exploited. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel. Many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid, and were completely and utterly fabricated for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that.
In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently, there must be, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer, a former Member of this House, when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, who led a sub-Committee investigation into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot of money, and leading to Shiner’s career ending in disgrace.
To come to the present day, what if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian troops who had made an incursion across the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel would not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, after some second-guessing by a human rights lawyer, perhaps with Russian assistance?
In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk, either now, in the future or historically, and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue will not go away, and at some point, the Government will be forced to address it, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I should like to quote a few words from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), speaking just a couple of months ago in this Chamber:
“This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 842.]
It was not the ECHR that put British soldiers’ lives at risk in Iraq, but it was the ECHR that provided the legal basis for the families of those victims to seek justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this one. By seeking to remove us from the ECHR, he is potentially putting British service people at greater risk, rather than offering them protection.
Mr Francois
It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to conflate two completely different issues, and I suspect that anyone who actually served on Operation Telic would understand that.
Having made that point, let me turn to the Opposition’s new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan before Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act, if it had still not been published by then, which, for reasons I will come to in a minute, is not as fantastical as it might seem. For context, today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. There is a lot of good in the document, but one of the criticisms made at the time was that much of the programmatic detail on which new equipment the Government intended to purchase for our armed forces was omitted. For instance, the Government talked about buying “up to” 12 new nuclear attack submarines. That could mean two.
All that detail was going to be provided in the defence investment plan, but one year on, it has still not been published. This has drawn serious criticism from right across the defence industry, and also from the authors of the SDR. Indeed, the lead author, Lord Robertson, a lifelong Labour man to his fingertips, has accused the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” because of the ongoing delay in saying how the Government will fund the strategic defence review and its attendant equipment requirements. When we were in government, we used to publish a 10-year plan for the purchase of military equipment, universally known as the equipment plan.
Mr Francois
In a moment. The plan allowed industry to make rational decisions about where to invest, helped to improve the morale of our armed forces by letting them know about the new equipment they could expect to come into service, and had an important deterrent effect on our potential adversaries by laying out exactly what we intended to buy for the defence of the realm. All those things have now been put at risk by a year of the Government’s endless prevarication and inaction.
Mr Bailey
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Labour’s arrival in government, the National Audit Office stated that the previous Government and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) had left an equipment plan with a £7 billion to £28 billion gap? Is that correct?
Mr Francois
As a matter of fact, that is not how I interpret what the NAO said—not at all.
Mr Francois
No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go.
The Committee may remember that we were promised that the DIP would be published in the autumn; then, we were faithfully promised it by Christmas; and then we were absolutely, definitely going to get it in the new year. But here we are in June—and, incredibly, still no DIP.
Dr Murrison
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the report published by techUK, which represents a lot of small and medium-sized companies in the defence tech sector, and seen what it has to say, objectively, about the number of jobs that are being lost in the sector, the lack of investment in the sector, the pressure that its members are coming under and the sector’s lack of viability given this continued, unbearable delay? It needs certainty. When are we going to have it?
Mr Francois
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We would all like to know when we are going to have it, but the reason we do not have it is simple. It is not that the staff work has not been completed—it has. It is not that the programmes have not been costed—they have. The fundamental problem is that while Ministers say they are working flat out and knocking themselves out on it, and are reduced to euphemisms about how hard they are working, it was actually done months ago. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adamantly refuses to sign it, because if she signed it, she would have to say how she is going to pay for it. That is why MOD Ministers are completely hide-bound: the Prime Minister will not force the Chancellor to sign the equipment plan for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The delay is becoming a farce. Indeed, we are now being widely criticised by our international partners, including, just the other day, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
At Defence questions, the Secretary of State was adamant that the Prime Minister wanted the DIP published by the NATO summit. That raises two questions: which NATO summit, and which Prime Minister? Assuming he means the summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July, this vital document will be delayed for yet another month. What is worse, last year there were £2.6 billion of in-year operational cuts to the defence budget, and this year there are £3.5 billion of in-year cuts.
We will press new clause 2 to force a vote on a backstop plan to produce the DIP, to remind His Majesty’s Treasury that the first duty of government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. We cannot defend the realm with a lot of bluster and an equipment plan that does not exist.
Al Carns
I thank all Members who have spoken today for their contributions and for upholding cross-party support for our armed forces. The Bill takes significant steps to improve the conditions of service life, and renews the contract between our nation and those who serve. It delivers on a manifesto promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government—from three to 12 policy areas. We will go further, backed by a £9 billion defence housing strategy, to build, renew and repair tens of thousands of military homes. We are modernising and improving victim support and ensuring that the service justice system can protect the victims of the most serious offences from further harm. We will expand the reserve pool by changing the maximum age limit at which some personnel can be recalled, so that we would, if needed, be able to call on some of the most experienced volunteer reservists. These are significant but necessary changes to boost preparedness in an era of ever-increasing threat.
I will now address some of the major issues highlighted in the debate, starting with new clause 5. I have served all over the world with Gurkhas, Fijians and broader Commonwealth troops. They serve our country, and they serve it with honour and courage. The very least we can do is help them and their dependants by scrapping visa fees after four years of service. This is not about politics or a difference of opinion; it is about language and bounding the commitment in legislation in the correct way.
There is already a settlement fee waiver in place for serving personnel, introduced in 2022, to recognise the burden of settlement fees at the point of discharge for those who have served for six or more years or been medically discharged due to their service. However, that fee waiver did not extend to dependants or recognise serving personnel who become eligible for settlement after four years of service. That is why this Government have committed to scrap visa fees for non UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, and Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver it; my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People met the relevant Home Office Minister just recently. We remain firmly committed to this manifesto pledge and will deliver it fully.
I understand the intention behind new clause 5 and the desire to make progress quickly. However, as drafted, it would not clearly achieve the intent set out in the explanatory statement, which appears to be narrower. While the explanatory statement refers to “spouses or children”, the new clause itself appears to waive fees for serving personnel, previously serving personnel and “their family members”, using broad and undefined categories that would create significant uncertainty and a lack of clarity about who precisely was within scope. It also contains no clear link to length of service or a time limit after discharge. Taken together, that risks creating a broader and unclear statutory entitlement with unintended consequences, rather than a targeted and coherent measure that families and dependants can easily understand.
In addition, section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 provides that fee exceptions should be set out in secondary legislation. By introducing a fee exception into the 2014 Act, new clause 5 would cut across that existing statutory framework and reduce clarity in the fee structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full, and it is important that Ministers retain the ability to determine the appropriate scope, eligibility and delivery approach so that it is implemented fairly.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?
Al Carns
We need to move this legislation forward in the right manner and as fast as possible. I recommend that the hon. Member continues to push this case. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and I have heard him loud and clear, we have heard the armed forces community loud and clear, and we are committed to delivering this in line with the intent.
Al Carns
I will make some progress.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to lay a defence investment plan before both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit, and we are working hard to finalise it. I recommend that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reads the NAO report which says that when we came into government, we were left a huge deficit and 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on budget or on time.
Lincoln Jopp
Have the Minister and the Veterans Minister now seen the defence investment plan?
Al Carns
I commend that fantastic question. Yes, I have seen the defence investment plan. Importantly, we are primarily focused on learning the lessons from Ukraine and acting upon them—something that the last Government failed to do at the right scale, hence why I left the military.
New clauses 1 and 6 seek to exempt members of the reserve forces deployed on operations from the ECHR, and would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15. The UK has binding international obligations under the ECHR, including in limited extraterritorial circumstances where we exercise control over individuals or areas. Those obligations have implications for the way UK forces, including reserve forces, conduct UK operations. I will not shy away from the fact that we hold our armed forces to the very highest legal standards, and time and again they deliver.
New clause 1 seeks to change domestic law, but it would not remove our international obligations. The UK cannot opt out on a case-by-case basis; doing so would simply shift cases to Strasbourg. New clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR. I will read that again: new clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision does not provide them with any additional powers. I do not want to be in the same club as Belarus or Russia.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Ukraine has derogated from the ECHR. Does that put it in the same bracket as Belarus and Russia?
Al Carns
I remind Conservative Members that clause 12 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, introduced by the previous Government, would have required any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 in relation to significant overseas operations. The previous Government removed elements of clause 12 during the Bill’s final stages, because concerns were raised that the provision risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law and being committed to human rights. It was the previous Government who did that. Clause 12 was also seen as unnecessary in that the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision did not add any additional legal powers.
New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England, and it sets out the functions for the proposed office holder. I acknowledge the sentiment behind the new clause, which is to ensure that those who have served receive the recognition and support they deserve. The Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not statutory offices, so such a role would not in itself require legislation. We are putting in place the Valour programme, which will first look at digital. There will be a Valour lead and a digital headquarters, and there will then be Valour officers and centres. Once that is in place, we will need to consider whether we need a veterans commissioner for England, how that docks into the Valour programme, and how it docks into the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We will update the House in due course once that is in place.
Mr Francois
On new clause 5, we do not yet have the date for the second day on this Bill for Report and Third Reading, but it seems likely that it will be before the summer recess on 16 July. Taking the Minister at his word, and knowing where his heart lies on this issue, will he give the House an assurance that when we get that second day—whenever it is—and we table a similar amendment on Report, he will be able to come back to us with some progress, including with the Home Office?
Al Carns
We will provide an update on progress once we have spoken to the Home Office and when the Bill comes back to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who makes fantastic efforts with the Defence Committee, highlighted the binding commitment across Whitehall Departments that the covenant will be expanded from three to 12 different policy areas. That is a fantastic move for the armed forces community, and it places a duty of care on Government to consider the armed forces in almost everything we do.
The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) highlighted recruitment and retention. I remind him that we have seen a 12% increase in recruitment and a 9% decrease in outflow. We have put in retention payments for critical roles and made two inflation-busting pay rises. Morale is up and satisfaction with housing is up, as indeed is satisfaction with pay.
When it comes to using the civilian justice system or the service justice system, the onus must be on giving the victim the choice over their preference—that has come through time and again. The Atherton report was in 2021, and a huge amount of change has been put in place. I have spoken to a variety of different individuals across defence, and they always return to ensuring that there is preference at the point of choice.
Al Carns
No, I will make some progress.
The advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and his support for the armed forces has been remarkable. The Minister for Veterans and People has met Ministers from the Department for Education and the Home Office to discuss both the points that my hon. Friend raised. His support for the covenant, and for ensuring that other Government Departments abide with it, is essential.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) that we will bring the language up to date to reflect the unitary and single authorities. I thank her for her support in ensuring that the RFA comes under the Armed Forces Commissioner. That was truly outstanding work. I also remind the House that the credit union service for the participation of service personnel and MOD civil servants celebrated its 10-year anniversary last year—so the offer to take part in the credit union service is already there.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause 5 formally.
Mr Francois
I will move it, Ma’am!
New Clause 5
Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—
“11A Fees may not be charged
No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” —(Mr Francois.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
London Borough of Bromley’s membership of the Greater London Authority
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I am delighted to present my petition to the House today, “Keep Bromley in London”. In Bromley, which I represent, our continued membership of the Greater London Authority secures critical economic, social and cultural benefits for residents, including the older person’s freedom pass, Zip travel passes for young people, free school meals in primary schools and investment in our area, including the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. However, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Reform UK want to take us out of London and gamble with those crucial benefits. That is why I started the campaign to keep us in. Nearly 10,000 people have now signed the petition, and I am proud to present it here today. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bromley Council and other relevant bodies to maintain the London Borough of Bromley’s status as an integral part of Greater London, safeguarding the public services, capital investments, and transport infrastructure that residents rely upon.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge,
Declares that the London Borough of Bromley’s continued membership in the Greater London Authority (GLA) secures critical economic, social, and cultural benefits for its residents; and further declares that any proposals to remove the Borough from the GLA would threaten vital public services, including transport lifelines like the Over-60s Freedom Pass, free primary school meals, and major investment projects such as the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bromley Council and other relevant bodies to maintain the London Borough of Bromley’s status as an integral part of Greater London, safeguarding the public services, capital investments, and transport infrastructure that residents rely upon.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003203]
Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In addition to all your work in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so much behind the scenes, you are also a constituency MP. Like me, like the Minister, and like the other Members here this evening, you will be written to by your constituents, and I am sure that you and your team will know how incredibly frustrating it is when we cannot get Government systems right. That is why we are here this evening, and I hope the Minister will provide some constructive responses about departmental improvements.
The issue I want the Minister to address is the fact that Department for Work and Pensions systems are continually failing to understand and correctly account for Scottish carers who have an underlying entitlement to the Scottish carer support payment, but who do not receive the payment itself because of income—for example their state pension or part-time work. I am currently supporting two constituents who see continual wrongful deductions. One has passed state pension age, and the other receives employment and support allowance. They do not receive any payments for the carer support payment from Social Security Scotland, but the DWP continues to make those deductions from their universal credit—I hope colleagues are keeping up.
I want to pause at this point and reflect on how long it has taken for us to know what is causing the confusing and distressing deductions from my constituents’ payments. My fantastic caseworker Neve has spent literally months trying to unravel payments and deductions, while being told different things by different DWP and Social Security Scotland caseworkers. I have met the Minister for Social Security and Disability in relation to one of those cases, and he is aware from previous correspondence of the myriad communication problems that we had in one particular case, with DWP officers calling my constituent and causing considerable distress.
My constituent was inadvertently misled—I like to think it was inadvertent—about where and when voicemails could be left, and there was a general refusal to engage with my office, despite requests to do so because my constituent, in addition to having learning difficulties and being a carer for his family, was also going through cancer treatment. Those are all underlying issues within the Department for Work and Pensions and do not specifically relate to Social Security Scotland, but we see similar confusion with almost every case that comes through our office, and we need it to be sorted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate—I spoke to her about it beforehand, just as I spoke to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland we see the same breakdown in communication, the same bureaucratic black holes, and the same administrative friction when trying to cross-reference entitlements between devolved local structures and the central DWP database. Vulnerable carers and elderly citizens transitioning to the state pension are being left without income, simply because fragmented public services cannot talk to one another. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that the most vulnerable in our care are protected with greater success, UK-wide?
Wendy Chamberlain
I agree with the hon. Member, and it is important to remember that on many occasions we are talking about our most vulnerable constituents. No doubt there is an onus on us as MPs, and indeed on the Government in Westminster, but Administrations in other parts of the UK also have a responsibility to ensure that they are working as constructively as possible.
I understand that the Department has recently recruited more complaints handlers, which I hope will go some way to improving things. I have a case that we raised in March, and we were told this week that it has not yet been assigned to anyone. I am deeply concerned about the state of the DWP, and by extension the welfare of the vulnerable constituents who the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.
There are two key issues with the carer support payment that the DWP needs to help address. First, DWP staff need to be trained in what that payment is, how it works, and why keeping the underlying entitlement to it is important. That includes early stage call handlers, in addition to the specialist teams to whom difficult cases are allocated. I hope that the Minister, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, are fully across this, but let me put on the record that the carer support payment is the benefit that replaced carer’s allowance in Scotland—we know there have been major issues with carer’s allowance in other parts of the UK.
Like carer’s allowance, earnings over a certain level remove someone’s eligibility to the payments. Carer support payment can also be awarded as an underlying entitlement that acts as a gateway for additional support. That should be a familiar concept. We see it with the DWP carer’s allowance, but also with other support such as child benefit. Parents are encouraged to apply for child benefit even if they are not eligible for the payment, because it is a gateway to the non-working parent getting national insurance credits.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how frustrating it is when DWP case handlers give advice, as they have done to us, that the issue with deductions would be resolved by asking Social Security Scotland to remove the underlying entitlement. It fails to demonstrate any understanding of how many benefits work, and frankly demonstrates a willingness to let people be worse off because the DWP’s own rules are complicated to apply.
Secondly, DWP systems need to be set up to process correctly the information being provided to them by Social Security Scotland. I will not claim that Social Security Scotland is perfect by any stretch, and it is not within the purview of this place, but I would like to see more joined-up working from all sides. However, I have been assured, as much as I can be, by Social Security Scotland that its computer system is communicating properly with the DWP, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.
However, from the DWP side I have been varyingly told that its system shows a claimant in receipt of a payment of carer support payment, despite them never having received it, and that it is DWP policy to deduct carer support payment as standard unless explicitly told otherwise by Social Security Scotland. Worryingly, while acknowledging an issue in March, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us in writing that wrongful deductions
“may cause confusion to customers and that they are exploring ways to make the process clearer”.
My view is that yes, DWP mistakes can be confusing, especially given the communication issues that I have already outlined; but that statement misses the point by stating the problem is the claimant’s understanding. We need a system that does not make these systemic errors in the first place, and I would argue that that is very squarely for the Department, not claimants, to sort out.
Just finally last week, the specialist DWP complaints team has either worked out, or come clean with us and owned up to, the systemic error impacting many Scottish carers. It wants to find a fix, but it does not have a timescale in which that will be achieved. Until then, it will be up to a claimant to realise that there is a problem and ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. Let me repeat that: the DWP wants the claimant to ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. We all know that unpaid carers are among the most overstretched groups in our society, yet the DWP is telling them to take on the burden of correcting its failures every single month. Carers Week is next week, and I do not think that that is the message that we want to be sending from this place, or indeed from the DWP.
That may all sound a bit dry and complicated, but benefit applications, overlapping payments and underlying entitlements have a real human impact on the lives of our constituents. Having their universal credit payment reduced to nil when they have food to buy and bills to pay is very difficult. There is no buffer to help them out while they battle with the DWP to find out why. I have seen constituents relying on credit cards for basics, or going without, to the detriment of their own health. The stress and distress that this situation causes are immense. The DWP’s computer error is the reason one constituent has been suicidal, and it is causing extreme anxiety to another. They are not alone, and fundamentally this is not their fault.
I will make a final addition to my remarks before I come to a conclusion. I had mainly prepared for this debate when we received an update this morning on one of the cases. My constituent had received a letter saying that he would be receiving a back payment of the best part of £3,000. He was confused—we were confused. My office had spelled out as clearly as it could to the DWP that he just needed his universal credit paid back for the period of December 2025 to February 2026, in which carer support payment had been incorrectly deducted. Being given a confusing payment of too much money can be just as distressing as receiving too little. I cannot stress enough the fear of relying on the DWP, spending the money and then being told that it has to be repaid—I am sure that we all, as constituency MPs, recognise that.
As it turns out, the DWP had got it wrong again. Despite everything it had been told, despite the months of investigating the claim, it thought that my constituent had never received carer support payment, which he had until December, and had repaid him for the whole period of the deduction. Now a further investigation has to be carried out, and then my constituent will have to pay back more than two thirds of what he has just been paid, so he needs to keep that money until then. I am sorry, but I find that unacceptable. What on earth is going on?
My constituents spotted the problem, came to my office and after months of back and forth we have understood it, but there are more than 30,000 carers across Scotland who have this underlying entitlement and could be missing out on universal credit as a result. It has been a battle to get to where we are today, and I would not be surprised if many carers in Scotland gave up their underlying entitlement to this payment if they were told by the DWP that that was the best thing to do—but there are consequences to that decision. I therefore hope the Minister can use his time to set out what the Department is doing to ensure that its staff properly know about and understand Scottish benefits.
What engagement is the Minister’s Department having with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can get working together? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, how will the Department ensure that that happens on a UK-wide basis? What is the current understanding of the underlying error? What steps are being taken to fix it? What will the timescale be for that? Crucially, what steps are being taken to identify carers who are being underpaid or wrongly advised to drop their entitlement, and to offer proper support while those errors are rectified?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Let me begin by saying that I hope the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) saw me taking extensive notes. The speech I was planning to give is perhaps not as bespoke to the issues that she raises as she would like, so at the outset I will make it clear that if she wants to escalate specific cases to me, I am very happy to have a look at them. She has clearly been escalating cases through the usual channels to departmental complaints teams and so on.
Wendy Chamberlain
I want to put on record that the Minister for Social Security and Disability has been very keen to work with me to understand the problems we have, and I have been very grateful for the support. We are looking at the fact that the issues are still happening, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking an interest in that.
Andrew Western
I understand that. I am the Minister with responsibility for the relationship with the Scottish Government and, therefore, Social Security Scotland, so if the hon. Lady would be kind enough to let me know about the issues, too, I would be very happy to see what we can do to seek a resolution. I think it would be helpful to set out a little bit of the background and context to this issue, before saying what I am able to say about the peculiarities of the system that she highlights, and the impact that they have had on some of her constituents.
We should all expect our welfare system to deliver for people as a safety net in difficult times, and to give people the opportunity to build better lives, wherever in the UK they happen to live, so it is only right that we pay attention to this issue. The hon. Lady is a powerful advocate for her constituents, but wherever colleagues are around the country, they should expect an effective and efficient service from the Department, as should their constituents.
Following the devolution of significant social security powers through the Scotland Act 2016, responsibility for the delivery of welfare support to people in Scotland is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That means that many people in Scotland receive social security support from both the UK Government, provided by the DWP, and from the Scottish Government, delivered by Social Security Scotland.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on raising a very important issue that our constituents face. Does the Minister agree that the prolonged confusion and delay in Social Security Scotland taking over the administration of devolved benefits from the DWP has contributed to a sense of confusion among people about who is responsible for providing the support that they receive?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat, in terms of determining responsibility between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, but it is certainly fair to say that the agency agreements we have entered into have been extended, in some cases on more than one occasion. That can lead to it taking a protracted amount of time for us to deliver as we would hope, and in the most aligned way possible.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on the debate she has had tonight. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) on her new position in the Department. Does the Minister agree that at £600 million—or the cost of 5,000 motorhomes—the set-up of Social Security Scotland is a national scandal?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend tempts me. I agree that it is not alone in being a national scandal up in Scotland—if, indeed, that is what it is. For the purposes of seeking to maintain a constructive relationship with my counterparts in Scotland, I may swerve the broader steer of that question. The focus should always be on ensuring that both systems work for those who use them, and that people get a clear, reliable and efficient service, even if they receive support from both DWP and Social Security Scotland.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always constructive and helpful, and we look forward to his contribution and his answers, which I am sure will help the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. I know the debate is about Scotland, but as I have mentioned, we are having similar problems in Northern Ireland. If we highlight our problems to the Minister, will he take them on as well?
Andrew Western
I certainly will. As I said earlier, I am the Minister responsible for devolution, and I have regular conversations with Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities. I am very happy to pick up any specifics, where there are kinks that need to be ironed out. I am happy to do that for any Member.
By March this year, DWP had completed its role in the transfer to Social Security Scotland of customers in receipt of four major devolved benefits. That involved around 730,000 benefit awards for personal independence payment, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance customers. This was a hugely important undertaking, not only because of the number of people affected, but because of how vital that support so often is to people. It required close operational co-ordination, robust data sharing, careful communication with customers, and a shared commitment to ensuring continuity of support. I hear what the hon. Member for North East Fife says about her constituents’ experience of that transfer. Her point is well made, but crucially, in broad terms, it did deliver for people in Scotland; payments continued without interruption at point of transfer, and people were supported and kept informed throughout. That was a significant achievement by both organisations, and a clear demonstration of what effective, co-operative working can deliver.
Throughout that complex process, it was very important that Scottish customers should know how to access information, and who to contact about devolved benefits. DWP operational staff also needed to know how to signpost and support customers correctly—I will take away the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening training, because if that has not been delivered to full effect, we need to make sure that that happens going forward. To achieve this, DWP and Social Security Scotland worked together on customer communications, ensuring the messaging was clear and consistent wherever possible, with detailed information on the changes to devolved benefits published on both gov.uk and gov.scot. DWP operational guidance has been updated to ensure that DWP colleagues are aware of those changes, and of where procedures have been updated. Colleagues received specific guidance on handling customer queries about Social Security Scotland’s benefits and payments. Both organisations agreed that each would signpost to the other where appropriate, but should avoid providing guidance or advice on each other’s benefits. The hon. Lady also made a point about the level within the organisation that that training had been cascaded to. I will check and confirm that for her, to make sure it has rippled through to all levels.
While both DWP and the Scottish Government’s devolution programmes closed in March this year, nobody should take that as an indication that we do not continue to work together extremely closely. As I have already said, it is vital that co-operative relations continue. That is why DWP has created the Social Security Scotland liaison unit, a new function to support the ongoing relationship with Social Security Scotland. That liaison unit will ensure that future changes to devolved and reserved benefits are co-ordinated, and will support DWP business areas with any Social Security Scotland-facing matters. Alongside the work of that unit, DWP, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland continue to join up at many levels. Senior leaders agreed to establish a joint forum for Social Security Scotland and DWP operations to exchange feedback, support continuous improvement and jointly resolve issues. The joint operational working group provides an opportunity to discuss the customer experience and the journey our shared customers are navigating to receive the financial support they are entitled to.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that the problem we have identified—and potentially the scale of the problem, given the number of unpaid carers receiving an entitlement to this allowance—should be looked at by that working group?
Andrew Western
If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will come to the broad thrust of the problem she has identified later in my speech. It is quite complex, in that there are also some challenges in this space in England and Wales that were identified by the Sayce review, but I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. There is also continued ministerial engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments through the joint ministerial working group on welfare. That is a long-standing forum, providing oversight of the devolution of social security powers. That is in addition, of course, to bilateral meetings as required, and I am the Government’s representative on that working group.
Turning to the thrust of the hon. Member’s contribution about the plight of her constituents in receipt of carer support payments, she is correct that the number of complaint handlers has increased recently. It is also worth mentioning, for the benefit of all colleagues, that I have personally moved into holding a series of regular meetings on complaints and MP correspondence. It is fair to say that the Department recognises that more must be done urgently to get a grip of that. In the past two weeks, I have had two or three such meetings already, and they will continue until we reach acceptable levels of complaint handling and timeliness of response. In that vein, if she would like to send me the details of the case from March that she referred to, which she has been told is yet to be assigned to a case handler, I would be happy to look into that for her.
This issue has clearly been distressing for a number of the hon. Member’s constituents, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that there will sometimes be cases where someone is given the wrong information by either my Department or by Social Security Scotland, or where our IT systems could join up more effectively. Where that happens, we need to work together to put that right.
Where I slightly disagree with the hon. Member is on the suggestion that this issue exists only in Scotland. I think the situation is rather more nuanced. From what she has said, there are clearly some issues that I need to take away and look at, but we have some of the issues that she has identified in England, too; I probably do myself no favours by saying that. I think that we have a broader DWP issue, rather than something I would pin directly on Social Security Scotland. For example, as I have just referenced, the issue with how carer’s allowance and universal credit work together was identified in the Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in England and Wales. In respect of carer’s allowance, we are committed to delivering a change, in line with our plans to modernise DWP services. It will be for me as the Minister for devolution to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements also supports the Scottish mechanisms.
Work to automatically offset benefits, which is where we want to get to, will begin in the next financial year and is intended for completion within this Parliament, but I have heard the specifics of what the hon. Member has said for the first time today, and I will take that issue away. I am not able to make the commitment that this will be quickened up, but I want to see whether there is anything we can do. We will work specifically on CSP with Social Security Scotland, and will look at any issues around data sharing and the processes necessary for alignment that are specific to Scotland.
Briefly, the implementation of the social security powers in the Scotland Act 2016 has been a significant programme of work, underpinned by strong co-operation between the DWP and Social Security Scotland at every level. Ongoing work will be required to keep the two systems working effectively together, but my Department is committed to doing that work, in the spirit of a productive, customer-focused relationship with the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland.
The hon. Member has outlined many issues today—as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am happy to look at those in Northern Ireland, where he has them, too. Where issues arise, we will work together—in this case, as Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions—to learn the lessons from navigating the complexities of creating a shared social security landscape. We will find solutions that are respectful of devolution, that maintain our commitment to working together constructively, and that always keeping in mind what really matters, which is the people who, the Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland are here to help, and their experience of our services.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 March.
This Government are fully committed to fighting people’s corner to tackle the cost of living crisis across the United Kingdom. We are taking action on the matter as a priority and we are supporting devolved Governments to act when that is within their purview. I work closely with Ministers in the devolved Governments, including the Northern Ireland Executive. That covers work on the Budget commitments we are discussing, and more widely on the situation for energy consumers across the UK.
At last year’s Budget, alongside several positive changes to help working people across the country with the cost of living, the Chancellor announced significant changes to the cost of energy for households. Let me first set out the implications of those changes for consumers in Northern Ireland, before I turn specifically to the draft regulations.
The Budget set out that we would remove certain costs from energy bills in Great Britain, which led to energy bills in GB falling by 7% from 1 April this year. That reduced costs on bills related to the renewables obligation and the energy company obligation. Northern Ireland is in a different position as part of the single electricity market across the island of Ireland. Energy affordability is largely a transferred matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. From the outset of the Budget, however, we were clear that we would support the Executive to develop a comparable offer and that, subject to a business case, the Treasury would make such funds available.
The Northern Ireland Department for the Economy has since developed a proposal to remove costs—about £30 a year—from electricity bills, totalling £81 million of support over three years. That figure arises because in Northern Ireland, the starting point of policy costs on those bills is different from in Great Britain. In official-level discussions in the wake of the Budget, my Department and the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy worked closely to share learning about the policy design and its legislative basis. That joint working has supported the Northern Ireland Department’s development of its parallel policy.
On 2 March, the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, wrote to me to ask that we take forward regulations to support delivery. We laid the draft regulations before Parliament a fortnight after receipt of that letter, and we are discussing them today. Although we are making the regulations to ensure that the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy has the powers it needs, I should be clear that it is entirely for the Northern Ireland Department to exercise those powers, and for the Executive to announce further details on the policy that they are taking forward.
Let me briefly set out precisely what the draft regulations do. They do not give the Northern Ireland Department any new powers that it did not already have in March; they amend the period in which various Energy Prices Act 2022 powers are available to the Northern Ireland Department. Those include a spending power and a direction-making power analogous to those we have used to deliver reduced costs on bills in GB. The effect of the amended time periods is that those powers will now be due to expire in February 2030. They should therefore be available to the NI Department for the duration of the transfer of the renewables obligation cost to the Exchequer.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Apart from the fact that, because we are in effect under the EU-controlled single electricity market, our prices are so much higher than those in GB, I am particularly intrigued to understand the thinking behind a point made in the explanatory notes. It indicates that the extensions apply only so long as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are in office. What is the correlation and why is that correlation there?
Martin McCluskey
That was part of the Energy Prices Act, as passed into primary legislation in 2022. It was intended to ensure that the powers were functioning at the time when the Executive were formed. I will go into more detail later.
As I was saying, the EPA powers available to the Northern Ireland Department include a spending power and a direction-making power analogous to those that we have used to deliver reduced costs of bills in GB. Those powers will now be due to expire in February 2030. I do not expect my Department to need to take further legislative steps in relation to policy in Northern Ireland, with the Executive now taking on its implementation.
Before I close, I repeat what I said when discussing the parallel regulations on the Secretary of State’s power: this is being taken forward in an international environment that is different from the one in which last year’s Budget took place. That difference reinforces the importance of what we are doing, but we also recognise that further steps may be needed. We have set out what we are doing in relation to heating oil, and contingency planning is under way in case further responsive and responsible action is required.
Ultimately, the draft regulations amend the period in which powers will be available to the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy, following a request from that Department to ensure that it can act as it needs to in order to reduce energy bills. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alec. The regulations, as already mentioned, extend the period for the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to exercise existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 from 26 months to six years. In itself, that is not controversial; no new powers are created through this instrument and we do not intend to obstruct its passing today. The Minister has explained the reasoning for the extension: to empower the Northern Ireland Executive to parallel the British Government’s autumn Budget commitments.
The Minister referred to the transfer of 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply, which will instead be funded through general taxation. As a result of that transfer, from April, only 25% of the renewables obligation cost is being recovered from consumers—but moving costs from energy bills to tax bills is a sleight of hand.
Let us also not forget the recipients of this taxpayer money: those extraordinary subsidies now flowing from households are giving wind farm owners three times the market price for their electrons. The Secretary of State’s auction process has locked this country, including Northern Ireland, into paying extortionate prices for wind power for the next 20 years—an extraordinary cost—and it is taxpayers who are now footing that bill.
The Minister espouses a commitment to lowering household energy bills, as per the Government’s manifesto pledge to reduce bills by £300, yet we have seen bills go up since they took office. A month ago, the Government adopted our policy to remove one of the carbon taxes on electricity generation—the carbon price support. While the Labour Government transfer renewables subsidies on to taxation, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the cost of energy and bring down bills by £200.
Before moving to my questions on that point, I want to follow up on the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Why is it that, as laid out in the explanatory notes:
“Schedule 5 to the EPA sets out the time periods in which certain powers under that Act are exercisable”
and that these powers will
“cease to be exercisable after a period of 26 months during which both the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland held office (currently 3 April 2026)”?
I have never seen such a measure in an amendment or a Bill before the House in the nine years that I have been here. It seems a remarkable paragraph. It is very strange to time limit the measures to the time in office of those two individuals. If the Minister could explain why that is the case, I would be very grateful—it is a genuine question on my part.
If the Minister is keen to see households relieved of the burden imposed by the renewables obligation, will the Government adopt our cheap power plan and scrap the subsidy altogether? And might I ask the Minister when we will see the elusive £300 off all our bills?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. It was a positive step by the Government to remove the renewable obligations and ECO policies from consumer energy bills in the autumn Budget. Consumers in Northern Ireland should also be able to benefit, as consumers in Great Britain did, from the Government using the powers available to make energy bills cheaper. That is especially important as energy prices are expected to continue to increase for the rest of the year, and as households and businesses face the Trump tax on their bills after his reckless and illegal war with Iran, leading to the closure of the strait of Hormuz and soaring oil prices.
The Minister mentioned oil prices. We know that Northern Ireland has been particularly hard hit by rocketing heating oil prices, because almost two thirds of households there use heating oil. The Government need to take urgent action to set a price cap that shields off-grid households, but if this legislation enables anything that the Government do to then be taken forward by the Northern Ireland Assembly, can the Minister elaborate on how that will work?
Jim Allister
I certainly am not going to object to consumers—my constituents—having a £30 bill reduction per annum, though I recognise that that is within the context of Northern Ireland electricity consumers paying excessively more than is paid in Great Britain, because we are held within the single electricity market governed by the EU, not by UK provisions.
I do not think the question that I asked in my intervention has been answered, although it was reiterated by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine: why is there a nexus in the original Act, carried forward in these regulations, between the availability of the power and the holding of office by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister? Surely we are not saying that if there is not a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the people of Northern Ireland should be punished by virtue of the absence of this power, so are we saying that, in the absence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the powers would be exercised here by this Department? Is that what this means? What exactly does it mean? On the face of it, it looks pretty incongruous and unexplained to me, and I would like to understand it, as I am sure my constituents would.
Martin McCluskey
Let me first turn to the point that has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. As I understand it—we were obviously not in government in this period; the party of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was—during the passage of the 2022 Act, that section was formulated in such a way in order for the powers to be implemented once the Executive were formed. It does not mean that if there were not to be a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the powers would cease.
If I am incorrect about that, I will come back in writing to Committee members, but it is my understanding that the section is like that purely because, at the time that the 2022 Act was being discussed, there was not an Executive formed. The previous Government therefore took powers to take action directly, but the section was written in the way that it is to make sure that the Northern Ireland Executive were able to take action once they were formed. If I have said anything this morning that needs to be clarified, however, I will happily write to Committee members.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine asked when we will see the £300 off bills. We stand by the commitment to have £300 off bills by the end of this Parliament. We have been very clear about that—I have been very clear about it and the Secretary of State has been very clear about it. Bills were on a downward trajectory before 27 February, when the situation in the Middle East started. We did not expect to be where we are today four months ago, and we do not know what the situation is going to look like four months from now. We hope that the strait of Hormuz reopens as soon as possible, so we have a free flow of goods through there and oil prices can reduce.
The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate asked how this will work. I apologise if I did not pick up all the details of her request, but I think she was alluding to heating oil regulation as well. This legislation does not affect the work that the Government are doing on heating oil, which is with the Competition and Markets Authority at the moment. The CMA is working to an expedited timeline to return to Ministers by June with an assessment of how that market is operating. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been very clear that they do not believe the heating oil market is operating in the way that it should, so after the CMA returns that assessment to us, we will study its conclusions to understand exactly what we need to do in terms of regulating that market.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
People in Northern Ireland are struggling: our bills are higher and, as has been alluded to and as the Minister has addressed, a number of folks use home heating oil. The £81 million has been allocated to a Northern Ireland Department—a Sinn Féin Department—that is sitting on spend. Will these regulations allow that £81 million to be released to those who are hard pressed and hard pushed with regard to their energy? Will we be able to benefit exactly as folks in GB have over the last number of months?
Martin McCluskey
As I said in my opening speech, these provisions allow the Northern Ireland Executive now to take forward their own scheme and for that money to be released, pending the agreement of the final business case with the Treasury. As I also said in my opening speech, I have discussed this with the Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy, and we are taking forward these regulations at the Executive’s request to make sure that that funding can be released. Over the three years, it will amount to a £30 bill reduction, because of the removal of 75% of the renewables obligation, which will now be paid by the Treasury. Pending the Northern Ireland Executive coming forward with the business case—it is obviously for them to decide how it is disbursed—that £81 million will be disbursed to people across Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I hope he will forgive me for making the point that I have limited trust in the ability of the Sinn Féin Minister in Northern Ireland to get this £81 million out the door to folks. What oversight will the Minister have of that money actually getting to the people who need it? It is sitting there and it needs to be distributed.
Martin McCluskey
Oversight will be done in the ordinary way that all oversight of spending is done. As I said, however, the final business case will be approved by the Treasury before that funding is released to the Northern Ireland Executive. Oversight will proceed as it normally would in such circumstances.
To conclude, these regulations are an example of good, practical intergovernmental working. They support our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver reduced energy bills. To be clear, these regulations are enabling in nature. Policy decisions on the use of the powers are ultimately for the Executive, as I said, with the funds available to them.
Until February 2030, these regulations give the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy similar spending and direction-making powers to those we have used to deliver reduced costs on bills here in Great Britain. These powers will apply for the duration of the transfer of renewables obligation costs to the Exchequer. As previously stated, I therefore do not expect my Department to need to take further legislative steps in relation to the policy in Northern Ireland, with the Executive now taking on the implementation. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 436).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris. The regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, the UK has engaged with and supported the new Syrian Government to help build a secure, prosperous future for all Syrians. The UK has long stood by the people of Syria and will continue to do so as they rebuild their country, clear in the knowledge that a stable Syria is firmly in the interests of the region and the UK. That is why the Prime Minister welcomed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on his first visit to the UK on 31 March.
On 21 April, the Government laid a statutory instrument to amend the Syria sanctions regulations. The instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy—namely, gold, diamonds, precious metals and luxury goods, including cars. That action allows British companies to trade with and invest in those sectors in Syria. Sustained investment in those and other sectors supports British industry and Syria’s economic recovery. This is the latest step in a series of actions designed to change our approach to Syria, supporting its economy and allowing UK businesses to contribute to and benefit from the country’s economic recovery.
In February 2025, shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence, allowing payments to support humanitarian delivery. That provided essential sanctions relief to Syria at a time when the country faced staggering humanitarian needs and a broken economy. We followed that in April 2025 by revoking a number of sanctions on energy, transport, financial transactions and trade.
We also delisted Syrian organisations that had been used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people. That included the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines, several energy companies and, indeed, media companies. We were at the forefront of western countries lifting sanctions on Syria, recognising that enabling the flow of investment into Syria was essential for the country’s recovery and reconstruction.
In parallel, we have actively engaged with British companies to understand their barriers to market entry and to support their re-entrance into the Syrian market. During his visit to London in March, President al-Sharaa joined my colleague the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa at a UK-Syria business reception, where he heard investment proposals from a range of UK firms, as well as the Government’s support for British companies wanting to invest in Syria.
The amendments we made to our sanctions regime last year have allowed us to continue to use sanctions as a tool to promote peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for the rule of law and protection of human rights. That is why sanctions remain in place on those who committed gross human rights violations with or on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The amendments the Government have made to the Syria sanctions regime, both this year and last year, reflect the momentous changes that have taken place since the fall of the Assad regime. They will support the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy and ensure that our regime is up to date. We keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure they are used as a responsive tool and target those who bear responsibility for oppression and human rights abuses.
Members may rightly raise concerns about violence we have seen in Syria since the fall of Assad, whether in the coastal areas, Suwayda or the north-east. The UK remains committed to holding those responsible for violence against civilians in Syria to account. In December of last year, we sanctioned individuals and organisations involved in coastal violence and Assad-era atrocities to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses. Additionally, two individuals who financially supported the Assad regime were sanctioned.
In our engagements with the new Syrian Government, we consistently emphasise the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians and an inclusive political transition. Meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities is crucial to strengthening Syria’s social fabric and underpinning a better future for the country.
The past year has seen significant strides forward in Syria. We welcome the progress made by the Syrian Government to open Syria to the world, attract investment and reduce the threat from terrorism and insecurity. President al-Sharaa’s visit to the UK in March was his first, and his meetings with the Prime Minister and indeed His Majesty the King cemented a new era for the UK-Syria relationship.
I would like, if I may, Mrs Harris—particularly as we are coming up to a significant anniversary—to recognise our dearly loved and lost colleague, Jo Cox, who worked with me and many other Members on many occasions during her time in this place to raise the issues affecting the Syrian people. I am sure she would be looking on today with some hope and optimism, although not without some concerns. She would have held us all to account, but with hope and optimism for the future of the Syrian people after what were truly dreadful times.
A stable Syria is firmly in the UK’s interests, and we will continue to stand with the Syrian people. We will work with the new Government to support Syria’s stability, promote regional security and protect UK national interests, including by reducing the risks of irregular migration, terrorism and other threats to our national security. This package, however, reflects the changed environment, and it is another important step in finding a new way forward for Syria. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Before I start, I add my thoughts on Jo Cox. She was a dear friend right across the House, and had that often unique ability to bring the whole House together on certain topics of mutual interest. Some aspects of international development in Syria were certainly among those.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I do not intend to keep the Committee long, but I have a number of questions because further clarity would be helpful to the Committee and the House. I will come to those shortly, but I want to make it clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the suffering that has been endured by the Syrian people after years and years of conflict, repression and instability under the Assad regime. We all want to see a more peaceful and stable future for Syria.
Sanctions relief in a fragile and uncertain environment inevitably carries risks, and Parliament is entitled to proper scrutiny of how those risks will be managed. The regulations revoke restrictions on the trade of gold, precious metals, diamonds and luxury goods, including automobiles, or cars. Given the obvious concerns about illicit finance, corruption and malign networks in post-conflict environments, I have to say that I was a little surprised that no formal impact assessment appears to accompany this statutory instrument. I listened to the Minister’s remarks, but will he explain why no impact assessment was considered necessary?
What assessment have the Government made of the likely financial and economic effects of the changes in the regulations, both within Syria and internationally? Related to that, I would like to understand what mechanisms the Government will use to monitor the consequences of the sanctions revocations. In particular, how will Ministers assess where any resulting financial flows ultimately go? Who will benefit from them, and is there a risk that funds or assets could be diverted towards destabilising activity?
Will the Minister say a little more about whom the Government expect the principal beneficiaries of the changes to be? The Government must surely have undertaken some assessment of which sectors or groups inside Syria are likely to gain most from the reopening of trade in high-value goods. They have suggested that sanctions easing may create opportunities for British businesses seeking to engage with the Syrian market, which is good, but if that is the case, what guidance will be issued to UK businesses to help them navigate what remains a highly fragile operating environment? Many firms will understandably be concerned about sanctions compliance and the risk of assets or investments ending up in the wrong hands.
I also want to ask specifically about the provisions relating to petroleum products and kerosene-type jet fuel. Will the Minister clarify precisely what the Government seek to achieve through the amendments in the regulations? Are the measures intended primarily as technical corrections to civilian aviation measures, or do they carry wider security implications?
Finally, while there have been some positive developments in Syria, serious concerns remain about sectarian violence and the protection of minority communities. We all want to see a stable Syrian state that is capable of countering ISIS and reducing wider regional instability, but progress must be accompanied by proper safeguards and oversight.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses. The Conservatives do not intend to oppose the regulations, but I hope he can provide the Committee with greater reassurance on how these measures will operate in practice.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments on the anniversary of Jo Cox’s murder and her friendship to the people of Syria? Once again, her spirit is very much alive, in that we have more in common than that which divides us.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the power that lifting sanctions can have to enable the rebuilding of Syria following a decade of civil war and the collapse of the brutal Assad regime. However, it is vital that the new transitional Syrian Government under President al-Sharaa affirms their commitment to political inclusion and religious and sectarian tolerance. They must take concrete steps to promote and protect the rights of minority groups and to ensure that they are represented in the new Administration. The Liberal Democrats therefore call on the UK Government to outline an explicit strategy supporting the promotion of political inclusion and the protection of minorities in Syria and how that will be linked to any future lifting of sanctions.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Opposition and Lib Dem spokespeople for their remarks and questions, and for their broad support of the regulations. They both reflected on some of the things that are still leading to instability and risk in Syria, which I referred to in my opening remarks. They can be assured that we are keeping these measures under close monitoring.
On the risks the shadow Minister raised, we keep those under review at all times. She knows that I do not comment on future designations, but sanctions can always be reimposed where we see anything we are uncomfortable with or that puts security and stability at risk. We have been clear that the violence and other issues we have seen are unacceptable. We want an inclusive, stable future for Syria, and we took action in December by introducing new sanctions on those responsible for those issues. I emphasise to the Committee that 344 designations remain in place relating to human rights violations committed under the Assad regime. They include certain trade measures, including prohibiting the export of goods that can be used for internal repression, chemical or biological weapons, and other matériel.
That is the approach that the United States and our partners in the EU have taken. The EU adopted legal acts in May last year to lift all economic restrictions, with the exception of those based on security grounds. In June last year, the US repealed the Caesar Act, which led to the eventual removal of many of the remaining US and secondary sanctions on Syria. In the measures we are setting in place today, our action very much aligns with what the US and the EU are doing. The regulations are aimed at not only normalising economic trade and engagement with Syria but creating opportunities for increasing trade and commercial links between the UK and Syria; automobiles are a huge opportunity.
Our latest trade statistics show that the total trade in goods and services between the UK and Syria was £10 million in the four quarters to the end of quarter three of 2025—an increase of 400% since the same time the previous year. That is in the context of the Syrian economy remaining in need of significant support. The humanitarian situation obviously remains acute, there are reconstruction needs and the economy has contracted by 83% since 2010 as a result of the horrors under the Assad regime. The costs of that have been estimated by the World Bank at $216 billion, which is 10 times Syria’s current GDP.
These regulations are part of a series of measures. We focused on some of the most important sectors first, but this is a series of phased normalisations of our trading and commercial relations with Syria. Those are aimed at stabilising the economy, providing opportunities and creating a more stable economic footing domestically in Syria, as well as providing opportunities for the UK and Syria to trade and work together in many different areas. But there is the caveat that sanctions remain in place, and they can be reimposed and more actions can be taken if we see illicit finance or other groups seeking to subvert this for their own purposes.
The shadow Minister asked about kerosene. I will write to her on that point to give her the most accurate information. I hope that that satisfies the Committee that the regulations are a natural next step. We all want to see a stable, prosperous and secure Syria, not just for the Syrian people and the wider region, but for the security and prosperity of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Community Pharmacies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of community pharmacies.
It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know how committed he is to his brief, and I am grateful for the conversations we have had on a number of important issues. The timing of this debate could hardly be better, coming as it does in the wake of the Government’s announcement just before the weekend. That announcement provides the perfect context within which to couch my remarks. I would like to believe that I have developed a reputation for constructive criticism, and I hope to offer a fair-minded but frank scrutiny of the Government’s plans for community pharmacies. There are positive moves, which I welcome, but there is also considerably further to go.
It is clear that the national picture for community pharmacies is one of an incredibly fragile system, and I am sure that much reference will be made this morning to the damning headline statistic that since 2016, over 1,000 pharmacies have been lost across England. Funding was cut that same year and remained flat in cash terms until 2024, even as the volume of NHS pharmaceutical care and the cost of providing it surged.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. When I met the Minister in April, we were going through the consultation on the pharmacy contract, but we are yet to hear any announcement. Does the hon. Member agree that the pharmacies we all rely on need certainty about when their contract negotiations and the associated funding will be completed?
Rachel Gilmour
The hon. Member makes a good point, which I shall return to in due course.
The community pharmacy network has had to absorb real-terms cuts of 30% in Government funding. For most community pharmacies, NHS funding accounts for 90% to 95% of their annual income. That is simply not a sustainable business model; it is a slow strangulation. The Government’s own independent economic analysis, published as recently as March this year, found the gap to be £2 billion a year. More recently still, the Government have admitted that pharmacies in England were funded £800 million less in real terms in 2025-26 than they were a decade ago. It is important to be clear that those are the Government’s own figures.
Against that backdrop, I welcome the funding settlement for 2026-27.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
As a fellow south-west MP, will the hon. Lady welcome the fact that the Minister came to the Concord pharmacy in Little Stoke in my constituency just last week to make the welcome announcement about £340 million more to boost our vital community pharmacies? Does she agree that when the Minister winds up, it would be helpful for him to share how he finds these visits valuable in forming his work in the Department and showing him more about the support that pharmacies need?
Rachel Gilmour
As I said at the beginning, the Minister is a very hands-on Minister, and I am sure he finds every visit absolutely fascinating.
The community pharmacy budget will increase by 10.3% to £3.636 billion. The introduction of independent prescribing into some pharmacy services later this year is a positive step, as are the measures aimed at stabilising the volatile medicines supply system. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I will certainly give credit where credit is due, but we must be honest: the settlement is still far short of what pharmacies need to keep their doors open. Over 600 branches closed last year alone.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Pharmacists such as Max, who runs South Petherton pharmacy, are taking care of constituents from the other side of my constituency. Our pharmacies in rural areas are expected to do more and more with little extra help. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside greater funding, we need to see the Government use the NHS workforce plan to properly expand the pharmacy workforce?
Rachel Gilmour
As a rural MP myself, I certainly have a grasp of what my hon. Friend addresses, and I shall come to that in a minute.
Analysis conducted by the Independent Pharmacies Association shows that an average pharmacy dispensing around 10,000 items a month will face a shortfall of approximately £56,000, even after the settlement. Without a commitment to continued above-inflation funding increases year on year, patients will face an acceleration of service reductions and closures. Those closures will fall hardest on communities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend, as I will explain.
My constituents have lived with these difficulties. At a cursory glance, there are 16 pharmacies across Tiverton and Minehead, serving a population of approximately 91,200. On average, they dispense 113,000 prescriptions every month because they are busy, essential, community institutions. Yet a survey of 3,000 people in Tiverton, conducted by a local GP surgery, found that 30% of respondents were unable to find a pharmacy. That should simply not be the case in 21st-century Britain. It cuts to the heart of a fundamental truth about rural healthcare and much more that successive Governments have neglected to confront.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I recently visited Weldricks pharmacy in Rossington and saw the amazing work done by the team there. My constituency is in quite a rural area and provision is patchy. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be good to map all community pharmacies, understand where there are gaps, and make targeted interventions? That would ensure provision for the number of people living in that area.
Rachel Gilmour
I agree that a strategic approach is always best. The distances, the limited public transport and the dispersed nature of rural populations mean that the closure of a single pharmacy can represent a genuine healthcare crisis for thousands of people. I see that directly in my constituency; the loss of a fully fledged pharmacy with all its associated services in Bishops Lydeard in March 2024 was a blow to the community. In its place there is now a dispensary, but solely for patients of the surgery. The same thing happened in Norton Fitzwarren. Transport woes, which so often hold back my constituents, sever a vital link to the health service.
Jhoots, the previous provider of pharmacy services in parts of Tiverton and Minehead, had operated poorly for some time. Constituents lamented the missing medicines, unexpected closures and queues stretching down the street. Under the new stewardship of Allied Pharmacies, things have improved markedly. That is a testament to what good management and proper investment can achieve.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend raises the spectre of Jhoots, which resulted in the closure of the Bridport and Lyme Regis pharmacies in my constituency. Jhoots exposed serious concerns around contractual failures, unsafe practices, staff treatment and service continuity, leaving staff in my constituency relying on food banks. When I met the Minister, he told me that officials were reviewing whether additional regulatory powers were required to prevent another Jhoots scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Government to bring forward legislation to deal with such a scenario?
Rachel Gilmour
I have had that discussion with the Minister, who reassured me that the Jhoots scenario has been at the front of his mind and he will seek to resolve it.
There is also the question of business rates. It seems manifestly unfair that community pharmacies, which are frontline NHS providers in every meaningful sense, are required to pay full business rates, while GP surgeries and dental practices do not face the same burden. I ask the Minister how that disparity can be justified and whether the Government intend to address that.
Pharmacies are the engine of community care and offer an opportunity that the Government have not fully grasped. The thrust of the Government’s health strategy has been care in the community, devolving healthcare back to local settings, with neighbourhood health structures and a shift away from hospitals to primary and preventive care. All of that is absolutely right but cannot be delivered without the community pharmacy network. Pharmacies are already doing the work the Government say they want the NHS to do: local, preventive, accessible care, delivered by trusted professionals in the heart of communities. The funding must match the words.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech about the importance of community pharmacy. There are pharmacies on the edge of my constituency, serving Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. The inconsistency of integrated care board delivery can create problems for local communities trying to get medicines. Does the hon. Member agree that we need consistency of approach?
Rachel Gilmour
I assure the hon. Lady that some of the most frustrating conversations I have are with my local ICBs. Properly resourced pharmacies could release a staggering 51 million primary care appointments through an expanded Pharmacy First service, prevention services and a greater role in managing long-term conditions. That is 51 million appointments freed up in general practice, allowing more people to escape the infamous 8 am scramble. Pharmacies often meet people where they are, offering more accessible services to those who might not otherwise engage with the health service at all. They are arguably the most accessible arm of the NHS.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I have been fortunate to have a pathfinder within the independent prescribing programme in my constituency. Its data shows that only 5% of patients who use the independent prescribing pathway need to be referred to their GP, so it is exactly as she says: there are huge savings to be made. I must push the Minister, because Community Pharmacy England has said that it is
“not persuaded that sufficient investment is being made to enable the full and effective introduction of independent prescribing.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister should look at that carefully to make sure that we are getting as much as we can out of community pharmacy?
Rachel Gilmour
I shall come to just that point in a minute. This sounds strange now, but I am going to say it: take obesity, for example. One in three people in the UK are currently classified as obese. Obesity is estimated to cost the NHS over £11.4 billion a year, with wider societal costs to the tune of £74 billion a year. Community pharmacies are ideally placed to provide wraparound support for those prescribed weight-loss medicines as part of an NHS-commissioned service, but they need the resources and the commissioning framework to do so.
There is one aspect of this debate that receives insufficient attention, and I want to raise it briefly. The ongoing situation in the middle east has hit the pharmaceutical supply chain as much as any other sector. There were a record 219 price concessions announced for community pharmacies in May alone, with further negotiations still ongoing. The cost of medicines has risen sharply. I understand that some cancer drugs have reportedly seen elevenfold increases. Crucially, medicine shortages and record-high price concessions reflect an instability in the supply chain that is being intensified by geopolitical pressures. I put it to the Government that the growing medicine supply crisis poses serious risks to Britain’s preparedness and resilience.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
I met with a pharmacy manager in Denton who told me that NHS reimbursement for medicines is not keeping pace with rising costs. They are dispensing medicines at a loss, paying more to suppliers than the NHS then reimburses them and absorbing the shortfall. Does the hon. Lady agree that independent pharmacies need to be fairly funded if they are to continue acting as the front door to the NHS?
Rachel Gilmour
I agree wholeheartedly.
I want to turn to two issues that I consider to be the systemic failures underlying all others: workforce and integration. On workforce, the community pharmacy network lost 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists between 2021 and 2025. That is not a sustainable trajectory. There is a specific incoherence in current policy that I must name. If one arm of the national health service is funded to recruit pharmacists away from community pharmacy while community pharmacies are simultaneously expected to take pressure off the same system, that is not joined-up workforce planning; it is quite simply the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
The introduction of independent prescribing is laudable and long overdue, and I note that it is expected to come later this year, but I ask for more specificity from the Minister. What is the Government’s current timetable for making independent prescribing a routine, commissioned part of NHS community pharmacy services? If we train pharmacists to prescribe and then fail to commission services that let them do so in community settings, we will have wasted a major opportunity, and we will have trained a cohort of professionals whose skills are systematically underused.
On integration, Pharmacy First will not reach its full potential if GPs, hospitals, NHS 111 and patients all have a different understanding of how it functions. The incongruence within the system is hobbling pharmacy practice. What is required is proper system-wide integration, with pharmacies recognised as a fundamental pillar of our NHS. As the NHS modernisation Bill progresses through Parliament, that must be recognised.
Pharmacies are already doing the work that the Government say they want the NHS to do. They are the first port of call, the most accessible point of contact and the trusted face of healthcare on high streets and in rural communities across this country. The Government have taken some positive steps, and I reiterate that the 10.3% uplift is very important. The direction of travel towards community care, independent prescribing and neighbourhood health is right, but direction without sufficient resource is just aspiration.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Although I also welcome the funding uplift, community pharmacies were already in crisis after years of real-term funding cuts, especially in rural areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to scrap unfair budgetary pressures on community pharmacies and commit to a funding model that will put them on a sustainable financial footing for years to come?
Rachel Gilmour
Of course, I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, and I laud her good work in her constituency. I urge the Government to commit to above-inflation funding increases year on year in order to close the £2 billion gap identified by their own independent analysis, deliver proper integration across the NHS and address the workforce crisis before it becomes irreversible. Pharmacies are ready, they are willing and they are already delivering. The question is whether the Government will match that commitment with the funding and the strategy that the sector and our constituents deserve. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called. In order to get everybody in, we will have an informal time limit of three and a half to four minutes. I will call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.28 am.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate on the future of community pharmacies. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the importance of community pharmacies across the country, especially in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. They are true anchors of support for my communities, providing not only specialist healthcare services but a friendly, familiar face for so many residents.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the many people who work in community pharmacies, including my constituent Sadie Jefferson, who is 90 years old and retired last week from the community pharmacy where she had worked for 75 years? Hers is an example of the commitment and effort in community pharmacies right across the United Kingdom.
Sureena Brackenridge
I extend my sincere gratitude and congratulations; 75 years working in a pharmacy is incredible. At the other end of the scale from Sadie, my very first Saturday job was in pharmacies in Wednesfield and Willenhall in my constituency. I also extend my thanks to the pharmacies, dispensers, frontline shop staff and delivery drivers whose dedication underpins that support. Community pharmacies are among the most accessible and trusted parts of our NHS.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Boots closed its pharmacy in Thames Ditton in 2024. An application was put in for another one, but it was decided following a pharmaceutical needs assessment that the need was met by the chemist. However, elderly residents have a 20-minute-plus walk to get to the chemist, and the high street around it has pretty much collapsed. Does the hon. Member agree that, beyond macro PNA figures, local circumstances are relevant?
Sureena Brackenridge
I agree. The absence of a community pharmacy leaves a vacuum on the high street that is felt by residents. I am sure that Members across this Chamber will appreciate that factor as well.
Some 1.6 million people walk through a pharmacy door in England every day; they are embedded in our communities. That is why I welcome the Government’s recent £340 million funding agreement for the sector and the expansion of Pharmacy First. It builds on a service that has already delivered more than 3.3 million consultations in the past year alone. Crucially, from autumn 2026, pharmacists with independent prescribing qualifications will be able to assess patients and prescribe medicines directly on the NHS. It is a significant step forward to deliver faster care right on our high street.
However, if we are serious about shifting care into the community, improving prevention and delivering on the ambitions of the NHS 10-year health plan, we must be honest about the challenges that the sector has faced. From 2010 to 2015, community pharmacy funding broadly kept pace with demand, but from 2016 onwards it was cut and then largely held flat in cash terms through 2023 as costs and workload increased. That resulted in a sustained real-terms decline of around 20% to 25%. Since 2024, funding has begun to rise again, but primarily to stabilise the sector after years of underinvestment, with a significant gap still existing between funding and actual costs.
Across England we have lost nearly 1,500 pharmacies since 2017—that is 15% of the entire network. Those national pressures are felt acutely in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East, where, since 2020, we have seen a net loss of six pharmacies. Yet, despite those challenges, my local pharmacies continue to step up. Through Pharmacy First alone, they have delivered more than 23,500 consultations. That points to the scale of the opportunities ahead.
Community pharmacies are central to the future of primary care. It is thought that they could release up to 51 million primary care appointments by doing more on prevention and helping patients to manage long-term conditions. Independent prescribing is a vital part of that vision. At present, many pharmacies derive over 90% of their income from NHS funding while facing rising staff costs and increasing business pressures. The sector has also lost more than 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists in recent years. I therefore ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to provide long-term sustainable funding and a road map for community pharmacies, and how will they address the workforce shortages and challenges?
In Wolverhampton North East, pharmacies have stepped up time and again for local people. Now I stand with my pharmacies to ensure that they can continue to serve my constituents for many years to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for placing this matter before us. I also welcome the Minister to his place. I very much look forward to his commitment to the pharmacies, and I welcome the Government’s commitment so far—it would be rather churlish of anybody to say that we do not appreciate that.
In January 2024, I called for a UK-wide roll-out of the Pharmacy First service, recognising increasing demand on pharmacies and the need for consistent access to healthcare across the United Kingdom. As the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, I continue to advocate for increased investments and support for the scheme as a means of decreasing pressures on our already strained healthcare system.
Across the United Kingdom, a significant proportion of GP workload is addressing minor ailments—conditions that can be appropriately treated in community pharmacies. I have always advocated for that; we should be doing more of it. Investing and increasing community pharmacies’ capacity to treat those conditions, and, in turn, highlighting to the public their ability to avail themselves of pharmaceutical services for such ailments, will improve ease of access to standard care, reducing unnecessary GP and out-of-hours contact. Broadening the capability of the scheme also allows pharmacists to build their clinical skills and creates a more experienced workforce that can more readily diagnose and treat conditions, so I believe that we should look at this as an opportunity.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do in debates. There are 508 community pharmacies in Northern Ireland, and their use is steadily increasing. In 2024-25, Northern Irish pharmacies dispensed more than 45.7 million items—a 0.7% increase on the previous year. That is the highest figure on record, which indicates that we need to increase support for pharmacies to meet demand. In Northern Ireland, community pharmacies would benefit from a more formalised version of the Pharmacy First scheme, as it currently diverges from England’s formalised Pharmacy First structure and depends primarily on a minor ailments service. What discussions can the Minister—who is always responsive, for which I thank him—have with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, to ascertain how we can work better with the system that has been proposed for England.
There is clear support for the scheme in Northern Ireland: 96% of respondents to a 2024 Northern Ireland Department of Health survey said that the informal Pharmacy First service should be recommended to others. The service improves patients’ confidence in the self-management of conditions, which is vital to a long-term reduction of unnecessary burdens on our strained GP services. As a result of the benefits of the service, in May 2024 the Department of Health’s community pharmacy strategic plan unveiled plans for Northern Irish pharmacies to treat six new conditions, offer two new services and run various pilots. Those improvements are to be introduced in the period up to 2030, but they are subject to the securing of the necessary funding.
Rural patients often travel significant distances to access GPs, but they are likely to have easy access to a pharmacy. It is estimated that, as of 2025, 99% of Northern Ireland citizens live within five miles of their local pharmacy. Pharmacies clearly play a big role for us in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. Many rural residents are older adults who live with long-term health conditions, so improving access to Pharmacy First services will support early intervention. The DUP recognises the pressure on GPs and hospitals, and recently welcomed the £42 million investment in pharmacy and digital reform, which has the potential to modernise prescription services to reduce the pressure.
I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. In particular, I ask him to share the information from England with the Minister in Northern Ireland, and to ensure that the UK-wide support for this vital cog in the health machine is endorsed and even increased.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to speak about rural community pharmacies. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important and timely debate.
In my constituency, from Haltwhistle and Haydon Bridge to Bellingham, Ponteland and the villages across Tynedale, the local pharmacy is not simply a convenient service on the high street; it is the frontline of the NHS and a core and trusted custodian of community health and wellbeing. As has been said, rural healthcare works differently. People face geographical access challenges. Longer travel distances and limited public transport are both huge determinants of health outcomes. They face digital access challenges, with more frequent broadband and mobile connection issues. More than 30% of the population of my constituency is over the age of 65, and about 20% of the people in the communities I represent live with a disability. There are considerable accessibility challenges, which require assurance and support from a friendly and locally minded in-person service that community pharmacies are uniquely positioned to deliver.
I want to touch more broadly on the challenges of delivering healthcare rurally. When we speak about modernising the NHS—from the conversations that I have had with the Minister privately, I know he is aware of this—we need to ensure that making the NHS more digital does not leave behind rural areas, where the access challenge continues. I hope the broader challenges posed by the Health Bill are taken up by other Departments in addressing connectivity issues.
Whether they are managing the specific symptoms of a condition, collecting a prescription or accessing emergency contraception, or are a parent needing reassurance about their child’s symptoms, those in rural communities rely on proximity to their local pharmacy, given that the journey to a GP surgery or hospital is often unworkable, inaccessible or costly. In providing a wide range of health services, pharmacies play a crucial role in the broader mechanics of care, easing pressure on GP practices and helping patients to get the care they need more quickly. That is exactly the direction of travel proposed in the Health Bill. We want care closer to home, a shift towards prevention and better use of the wider healthcare workforce. If we are serious about delivering on those ambitions in rural areas, we have to be equally serious about supporting the infrastructure that makes that possible.
The reality on the ground is that community pharmacies, particularly those in rural areas, are under real strain. In England, around 90% of the population live within walking distance of a community pharmacy, but that falls to just 20% in rural areas. We have seen closures and reductions in opening hours, and in places like my constituency, the loss of a single pharmacy is not easily absorbed—it is not simply numbers on a spreadsheet. There is not always another one down the road; the next nearest pharmacy could be several miles away, beyond the reach of those without a car or effective public transport links.
I welcome the recently announced funding package for community pharmacies in England, but we need to address the further challenges to close the gap between the rising costs facing the sector and their increased delivery of services, which leaves community pharmacies vulnerable and, often, in a turbulent operating environment. Nearly 64,000 community pharmacy weekly opening hours were lost between September 2022 and June 2024. We cannot afford to lose any more, especially in rural constituencies. We need rural funding models that reflect reality and a continued commitment to innovation in community pharmacy. I urge the Minister to take forward those points.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), on her resolute advocacy for pharmacy provision in her constituency. She is right to mention Norton Fitzwarren, which is in my constituency but serves many of her constituents. I pay tribute to Councillor Andy Sully for all his long-term campaigning, which eventually saw a pharmacy return to the village, and I thank Mo Idris, the pharmacist who took the plunge and opened the facility.
Yesterday’s debate on Second Reading of the NHS modernisation Bill included much talk about an NHS that works for people, but in Wellington, in my constituency, communities have had to scale the heights of bureaucracy in a system where patients have to work to the tune of the NHS, not the other way around. Wellington went from having four pharmacies to having just two. The Boots pharmacy in the medical centre closed, followed by Jhoots in September, leaving its staff in the parlous state that my hon. Friend referred to earlier.
That left only two pharmacies—Superdrug and Boots—for a town of 17,000 residents. Queues that were 15 people deep formed, Boots completely failed to scale up to meet the challenge, medicines were not ordered in time and patients became anxious. I challenged the decision of the NHS to refuse to support the opening of another pharmacy. I pay tribute to the Wellington Pharmacy Action Group. Its dossier, which was sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, was a 17-page challenge to NHS Somerset, which, alongside all the pressure brought to bear by myself and others, eventually changed the position.
The pharmaceutical needs assessment seems to be fundamentally flawed. How could it be prepared at a time when the town had four pharmacies, but also apparently demonstrate that two pharmacies were enough and no more needed to be opened? As I say, due to huge pressure, the situation was eventually turned around, but it should not be a matter of communities having to rise up against the challenges and rules of the NHS to get or restore pharmacy provision in a town of this size. Allied Pharmacies was granted a licence to open in Luson House, the former premises of Jhoots, which was a fantastic win for the community and came as a result of sustained community pressure. A fourth pharmacy at Westpark has also been approved, subject to appeal.
However, the job is not done. The action group says that a further pharmacy is likely to be needed as the town grows, with tens of thousands of new homes under the Government’s new planning rules and national planning policy framework. Wellington is a textbook case of a town where housing growth is outrunning the provision of infrastructure. Essential services should be built in from the start, not promised after the fact, and definitely not reduced by half—from four pharmacies to two.
Since 2017, England has lost 1,200 pharmacies. We Liberal Democrats would require developers to fund GP surgeries as a priority from the outset: “No doctors? No development.” The same must go for ensuring adequate provision of pharmacies and dentists if the Government’s housing plans are really to work for local people.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I must declare an interest as a registered pharmacist. I speak today wearing two hats: as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy and as someone who spent nearly two decades working as a community pharmacist. That experience is why earlier this year, as APPG chair, I wrote a vision for what pharmacy should look like in 2040 and put it directly to policymakers across Government and pharmacy.
Community pharmacy remains one of the most accessible parts of the NHS, with around 80% of the population living within a 20-minute walk of a pharmacy. However, as has been mentioned, nationally 1,383 pharmacies have closed since 2016, including six in North Somerset, even after two pharmacies were reopened in Portishead thanks to the hard work of Magna Pharmacy and Ramesh. Every single day, 1.6 million people walk through a pharmacy door, saving an estimated 38 million GP appointments every year.
That is why the funding settlement announced last week matters so much. The 10.3% uplift adds £340 million to the overall contract. More importantly, an increase in the margin allowance provides important support and stability for the sector. I thank the Minister, the Department and Community Pharmacy England. However, I have called this a down payment on a brighter future. It is just a start, not an end point. The 10.3% uplift is very welcome, but it comes against a backdrop of an around 9% yearly increase in costs.
Pharmacy First and the inclusion of independent prescribing are good starting points, but the next step is to map out what we want Pharmacy First to look like through to 2030 and beyond. It cannot simply remain a pharmacist-led service for a small number of conditions. Community pharmacy has the potential to play a much broader role across acute care, minor ailments and prevention. That ambition must be backed with the professional boundary changes to match, because it will mean nothing if the foundations are not right.
Pharmacies are receiving £800 million less in real terms than a decade ago. The Government’s independent analysis found a funding gap of £2 billion a year. Former colleagues are telling me that they are dispensing more and more medicines at a loss, spending hours sourcing drugs that should be available and managing patients’ anxiety when the supply chain fails. As a country, we have become addicted to cheap medicines in our NHS, which has created vulnerabilities right across our supply chain. Fixing the drugs bill in a way that supports wider investment and greater supply chain resilience will also strengthen community pharmacy services for the future. We must get this right.
My vision for pharmacy in 2040 calls for genuine integration into neighbourhood healthcare, as the 10-year health plan intends. However, integration works only if the infrastructure works. A true single patient record system with read-write access for pharmacists is the foundation on which everything else depends. Primary care, pharmacy and hospitals all need to work from the same picture of the same patient and sing from the same hymn sheet. There is no point writing a vision for pharmacy’s future that does not fit the wider NHS system it sits within.
The 10-year health plan wants to move care closer to home. Community pharmacy is already there. It is an incredibly efficient, high-value asset to the NHS. I urge the Government to match that ambition with sustained, multi-year funding, a workforce plan that unlocks independent prescribing and the digital infrastructure to make seamless care a reality. This could be a really bright future for community pharmacy. I believe in the future of the profession, but only if we have the will to see it through.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. She, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and all colleagues have dispensed some great ideas today. [Laughter.] Sorry, but it does not end there.
The Minister and Members may be aware—I might not have mentioned it enough—that I am one of the only practising optometrists to be a Member of Parliament, and optometrists share many of the concerns and challenges that our pharmacy colleagues face. I surpass the hon. Member for North Somerset in having been a community-based optometrist for nearly three decades.
I want to address many of the points that have been made. First, our GPs are facing real burnout. There is a lag in the number of GPs who are qualifying and taking up positions. In lower socioeconomic areas, of which there are many in my Leicester South constituency, there are 1,985 patients per GP. There are 300 more patients per GP in those areas and, as has been mentioned, pharmacists really do plug the gap, saving 38 million GP appointments and doing incredible work. The Government’s 10-year health plan is built on the bold premise of shifting care out of hospitals and into our communities. We all support that ambition—of course we do—but we cannot deliver care in the community if we are not allowing community infrastructure to thrive, and that is precisely what is happening to pharmacies at the moment.
Since 2017, England has lost more than 1,400 bricks-and-mortar pharmacies, which is a net loss of 15% of the entire network. In Leicester, five pharmacies have shut down in the last calendar year alone. There are now fewer than 10,000 pharmacies open in England, and nearly 64,000 opening hours a week have disappeared since 2022. Between 2021 and 2025, the sector lost 3,000 full-time equivalent pharmacists. Funding was cut in 2016 and held flat for eight years, and the sector has absorbed real-terms cuts of 30%. Pharmacies, unlike other businesses, cannot pass on their costs to their customers. They cannot manage demand by extending their waiting lists, and 90% to 95% of their income comes from the NHS. They are, in effect, trapped.
We all welcome the £340 million uplift announced for 2026-27 and the decision to begin integrating independent prescribing into Pharmacy First and the Pharmacy Contraception Service. Those are welcome steps, and everything of that nature is going in the right direction. However, NPA analysis shows that 8.9% is needed simply to allow pharmacy budgets to stand still—to absorb the national living wage, employers’ national insurance contributions, inflation and business rates. The settlement is just 1.3 percentage points above that threshold; it does not close the £2 billion funding gap that the NHS’s independent review identified a year ago. Much of the uplift will be swallowed by costs before a single patient sees any benefit.
I am not just here to outline the problems, as there are positives. Community pharmacies represent one of the greatest untapped opportunities in modern healthcare, and I say that as someone who has seen community-based clinical practice at work. Independent prescribing is, as the sector rightly calls it, a generational opportunity. Pharmacists already have the clinical skills. With the right framework and investment, they can manage long-term conditions, initiate and adjust medicines and take pressure directly off GPs—not as a stopgap, but as a genuine, permanent part of the primary care team.
Beyond prescribing, pharmacies are ideally placed to deliver integrated healthcare and lifestyle services, such as smoking cessation, weight management, hypertension case-finding and alcohol interventions. In my experience in community eye care, the closer we embed clinical services in high street settings, the better the uptake by patients who would never otherwise engage with the NHS. Pharmacies are trusted, accessible and visited regularly—far more than any GP surgery.
Medicine optimisation is another point. With an ageing population on complex polypharmacy regimes, pharmacists conducting structured medication reviews can reduce harm, cut millions of pounds in waste and improve outcomes. This is not aspirational; it is proven. We are simply failing to fund it at scale.
I have a repeat prescription for the Minister. First, publish a road map to close the pharmacy funding gap with above-inflation increases—not in one year, but as a sustained multi-year commitment. Pharmacies cannot plan, invest or recruit without it. Secondly, match investment in retained margins with real action on medicine pricing. The UK is an unattractive market for global suppliers, and medicine shortages flow directly from that. That is a patient safety issue. Thirdly, be genuinely ambitious on independent prescribing. The autumn roll-out into Pharmacy First is a start, but we need a shared vision of what full deployment looks like in this Parliament, with the funding to match. Finally, address the workforce crisis by setting out concrete steps to grow the pharmacy workforce in parallel with any expansion of services. New services on the backs of a depleted workforce will fail.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this timely debate.
Community pharmacies and the people in them are the backbone of our NHS. They are a fixture on our high streets, dispensing our medicines, providing confidential, expert advice and helping people with everything from colds and tummy bugs to allergies and ear infections. Increasingly, through Pharmacy First, they are also prescribing prescription medicines without patients having to see a GP, which absolutely has to be the way to go.
I am four-square behind Pharmacy First, with one small caveat: I have to say to the Minister that I think it has completely and utterly the wrong name. We could say that it does what it says on the tin: “Go to the pharmacy first.” However, to me it is a name that has been dreamed up by health insiders, not by people thinking about how patients actually see our services. When I think about going to the chemist, I think about a place where we probably pay for our prescription and maybe pick up some shampoo or, if it has suddenly started chucking it down, an umbrella. I do not think enough people will be thinking of highly trained clinical professionals who are on their doorstep. Crucially, they will not be thinking NHS.
My suggestion for the Minister today is to change the name of Pharmacy First to something else, maybe “NHS+”, and to include compulsory rebranding in every contract, so that the shopfront would scream NHS. NHS means free, trusted and quality, and the plus sign would look a bit like a chemist’s anyway. A knock-on effect would be sprucing up our high streets, creating pride in place, which I know this Labour Government stand four-square behind. I would absolutely shout about it from the rooftops.
Ahead of today’s debate, I went on the NHS pharmacies website to find out which of my local pharmacies provide Pharmacy First services. I am afraid that I came away none the wiser, but I did learn the seven common conditions that Pharmacy First chemists can help me with, from sore throats to shingles. Before that, I did not know that there were seven. I tried this out at a meeting of party members recently, and it turned into a terrible round of “Family Fortunes”. No one had the faintest idea what they were.
We absolutely need a nationwide campaign so that people understand what services they can get from their pharmacies. If people do not know that these NHS services exist, they just will not use them. We have to stop hiding them in plain sight, and ensure that people understand what every community pharmacy already is: the NHS front door on every high street.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) not only on securing this debate, but on the manner in which she introduced it. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, which keeps this and other issues under constant review, I have been listening very intently today, and I will certainly be taking messages back to the Committee. I particularly welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and his—pardon the pun—prescription for the better health of pharmacies.
I welcomed the announcement in the Minister’s written statement to the House yesterday, but it is notable that Community Pharmacy England has said that even with that extra investment, many community pharmacies will remain in financial peril. Although it softens the blow, it will not remove the threat or the peril hanging over many pharmacies around the country.
As for my constituency, there are 15 pharmacies in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which seems to be about average compared with other constituencies that have been mentioned, and Pharmacy First saves approximately 2,500 GP appointments per annum. That initiative is certainly delivering but, as previous speakers have said, it could deliver a great deal more.
It is telling of the times we live in that one of the tragically many pharmacies that have closed—I will not say where—has been replaced with an apothecary. I hope that that is not a sign of a continuing trend, but perhaps it says something symbolic about the way things are going. We are well aware that pharmacies should be at the frontline of one of the most important of the Government’s three shifts: the shift from hospital to community. Building up and strengthening the resilience of our community pharmacies is essential for the Government to deliver that shift.
One of the many brilliant community pharmacies in my constituency is Hall’s in Helston, in the south of the constituency. The pharmacy dispenses between 9,000 and 12,000 prescriptions per month, representing about 70% of the dispensing activity in the hinterland of the Helston area. Despite that critical role in primary care delivery, it is under increasingly severe financial pressure. It does not believe that yesterday’s announcement will relieve that pressure, because of how medicines are reimbursed.
As others have said, a key issue is the growing number of medicines that are being priced above the drug tariff. Essential medications, such as—I will get the pronunciation wrong—ramipril, bisoprolol and Creon are frequently being supplied at a loss. Price concessions are sometimes introduced, but they are often delayed, inconsistent and insufficient to reflect real-time market prices.
That creates a situation in which pharmacies must either dispense at a financial loss or deny supply. They use a system called e-CASS, which tracks real-time drug pricing. On any given day, there are between 16 and 40 lines that cannot be ordered through standard systems because the purchase price exceeds the reimbursement tariff. That number has increased significantly over recent years, indicating a worsening trend. As a result, independent pharmacies such as Hall’s are increasingly being forced to subsidise NHS dispensing from their own funds just to maintain patient care. That is simply not sustainable.
The situation is further complicated by ongoing medicine shortages. There are growing concerns that elements of the current reimbursement system are actively impacting timely patient access to medicines. Pharmacies are left simultaneously managing supply chain disruptions and financial risks, with limited systemic support.
We are also witnessing troubling behaviour in the sector. Some large corporate pharmacy chains are redirecting patients to independent pharmacies for medicines that are above tariff, incorrectly stating that those medicines are unavailable when in reality they are unwilling to supply them because of the financial loss involved. That shifts both the clinical and the financial burden on to independent contractors. Regrettably, that has begun to force difficult decisions across the sector as more medicines fall off tariff.
In addition, the continued closure of pharmacies is placing further strain on other parts of the NHS. It is putting further pressure on emergency departments and GP services, which is the exact opposite of the direction in which services should be going.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate. I also thank the staff at community pharmacies across my constituency, particularly the staff at the Well pharmacy in Denton Holme who have given exceptional care and support to my family for many years.
Pharmacies and their staff provide a vital accessible health hub in our communities. However, this year Community Pharmacy England has reported that 55% of pharmacy staff experience abuse, often triggered by medicine shortages, prescription delays, long queues and other issues entirely outside their control. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that, whatever the prompt, abuse of that nature is completely unacceptable. I will therefore be grateful if the Minister can briefly outline what action the Government are taking to protect pharmacy workers from abuse.
Sadly, under the previous Government too many community pharmacies were lost. Between 2019 and 2024, 1,633 community pharmacies closed. In the same period, about 400 opened: just one for every four that was closed. In communities such as Carlisle, the closure of a pharmacy has a significant knock-on effect on the remaining pharmacies. Two pharmacies in the Harraby area of Carlisle have closed in recent years, placing additional pressure on the sole remaining pharmacy, on Central Avenue, and resulting in longer waits for prescription collections. It is therefore doubly frustrating that efforts to open a new pharmacy in the same community have so far come to nothing because the premises’ landlord, the Riverside housing association, has failed to respond to representations from both the prospective pharmacist and me since last October.
Ms Minns
In the meantime, ironically, the shop next door, a former pharmacy, has been refurbed and opened as yet another barber’s and mini-mart. It is simply not good enough. That is why I very much welcome this Government’s prescription for our community pharmacies: not just £3.6 billion in funding for community pharmacies, but the Government’s high street strategy, the recently announced crackdown on dodgy vape shops and mini-marts and the plans to integrate community pharmacies as key local healthcare hubs. These actions are not just vital for the health of local people; they are vital for the health of our high streets, too.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this fantastic and timely debate. I also note the expertise of my friend the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan). Not only did he provide some really good insights—I thought his point about the importance of a single patient record all the way from pharmacy to hospital was especially meaningful—but I love how enthusiastically he agrees with everyone else’s points.
Dr Chambers
Yes, the good ones.
There has been a general consensus that pharmacies are often overlooked as a source of care for those in the community. I have visited many pharmacies in my Winchester constituency: there is Eric, who runs Springvale pharmacy up in Kings Worthy; there is Colden Common pharmacy in Colden Common; and there is the Wellbeing pharmacy on Winchester High Street, which gives me my flu jab every year. The people there actually make having a flu jab a lot of fun; we always have a great laugh. I never thought having a vaccine would be something I would look forward to, but I love going in and seeing them.
We know about the 8 am rush for GP appointments, so the fact that a high street service exists where one can drop in for advice and consultations is absolutely brilliant. Pharmacies allow us to siphon off some of the pressures on GP services, but—as pharmacists have been telling me repeatedly since well before I was elected—pharmacies are currently under immense pressure.
Adding to that pressure is the increase in national insurance contributions, which has saddled pharmacies and GP surgeries with additional costs. As a consequence, many local pharmacies have had to limit opening times and staff numbers. In Alresford in my constituency, the hard-working staff at Wessex Pharmacies have had to close shop on Saturday afternoons. That service will be sorely missed, particularly by those who are in full-time education or work during the week and who relied on being able to pick up their prescriptions at the weekend.
In addition, shorter opening times mean that if a patient sees their GP later in the day, the required prescription is delayed by a day if the paperwork is not registered in time. For a patient with an urgent need for medication, that extra day can be extremely frustrating and worrying.
Although we really do welcome the recent 10% increase in Government funding to community pharmacies, it is worth pointing out that that is giving with one hand and taking with the other. In the wake of rising costs for energy, staff and medicines, this funding increase was the first in 10 years, so it was sorely needed, but unfortunately, it did little to alleviate the extreme pressures heaped on community pharmacies in the Budget.
That point comes into focus when we consider the rise in drug costs: a 20% to 30% rise for things like paracetamol and hay fever medications, and an elevenfold rise in the cost of cancer drugs since February, while the funding provided to community pharmacies has dropped by more than 20% in real terms since 2015. That is why we are calling on the Government to invest in pharmacies in smaller towns, particularly in villages and rural areas such as mine in the Meon valley. In places such as Bishop’s Waltham and Colden Common, people need access to a community pharmacy, and not only for convenience: Conservative-run Hampshire county council has cut vital bus services to the nearest big towns, which means that people without a vehicle, especially older people, absolutely rely on local pharmacies for their medication.
We are also calling for a new, long-term, sustainable model for pharmacies and an expansion of Pharmacy First to give patients more accessible routine services so that we can free up GPs’ time. We want an exemption for pharmacies from the national insurance contributions increase so that funds can be spent on patients and vital medications.
I come to my final, key point. I have spoken to many pharmacists since I was elected and before that, and I have had very long, in-depth conversations with them. I have also attended events in Parliament organised by the Royal College of Pharmacy and the National Pharmacy Association and I have discussed their issues with the NHS pharmacy contract. Given my professional background, I am used to sourcing, dispensing and prescribing drugs. However, the contract is so complicated that, despite my extensive conversations with those organisations, I do not fully understand it. The key message that comes out is that it costs pharmacists to dispense NHS medication in many cases, and that NHS medication is sometimes being subsidised by other sales in shops. I even met two pharmacists who said that their personal finances are subsidising some NHS dispensation. That is clearly not tenable in the long run.
Lee Pitcher
Standardisation and consistency in services are really important. A person in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is living with poor mental health. His pharmacy has stopped doing nomads, and it is too far for them to travel to the next pharmacy, where those are not paid for. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that consistency in how we support pharmacies is massively important to help people such as my resident?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree. All businesses need predictability and stability. It appears that, week to week, pharmacists are trying to work out how to source drugs with changing prices, and there is an NHS contract that is not meeting their needs.
When we talk about community healthcare and provision, it is important to remember that having good, well-run pharmacies means that people are being kept out of GP practices and that they are less likely to turn up at A&E. That is even better value for money for the NHS and, ultimately, for the taxpayer. There is no downside from a Government point of view to investing and heavily supporting community pharmacy, because the savings made upstream will be hugely significant. At the moment, we are treating people with conditions that should be treated in the community with the most expensive part of the NHS, in A&E and hospital, when they could quite possibly have avoided going there in the first place.
Monica Harding
Accessibility is paramount. The costs that are pushed on to pharmacists mean that they cannot remain sustainable and that they resist opening pharmacies in smaller places, because it will take away business from them. Therefore, those pressures take away accessibility, which is needed.
Dr Chambers
That is another legitimate point, and it was made in my second to last words, so I thank my hon. Friend for contributing. I thank the Minister for listening to our concerns.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this important debate. It is important that we discuss community pharmacies, given their place not only in the health landscape but in the hearts of many of my constituents and people across the nation. I, too, have visited multiple pharmacies, both in my shadow role and as an MP, and I, too, went to my local pharmacy for my flu jab, back in Newbold Verdon. I am very grateful to them because I found the system very easy to use and to get into. It is really important to see that system change that makes it more accessible and easier for people to make the choice to improve their own health and protect others.
There are positives in this debate that we must celebrate. Community pharmacies are one of the most accessible parts of our health service. For millions of patients, particularly older ones, those with long-term conditions or those living in rural communities, the local pharmacy is often the front door to the NHS. They provide expert advice, dispense vital medicines, support prevention and increasingly deliver clinical services that help to reduce pressure on GPs and hospitals—as a former GP, I am very grateful for that—and that is why this debate is so important.
Ministers want community pharmacies to do more, but I worry that, at the same time, they are actually making it harder for pharmacies to survive. This debate is timely, given that the Government agreed the community pharmacy contractual framework for 2026-27 last Friday. I expect that the Minister will reference that, but I will let Community Pharmacy England’s response speak for itself:
“Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough—for this year or the future.”
It went on to say:
“It means the opposite…the sector is in a critical position, and that we now need urgent work on a sustainable long-term solution, including reform of the contract, funding and reimbursement model.”
Given the Government’s enthusiasm for reviews and long-term plans, I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on what meetings he will have to work on the framework and the wider funding model, along with what changes we can expect and in what kind of time.
The reality is that pharmacies continue to face mounting financial pressures, many related to the Government’s tax rises. Over the last two years, the Government have made a conscious choice not to exempt community pharmacies from their taxes and have even voted against that. In the first year of this Labour Government, pharmacies faced higher employer national insurance contributions alongside increases in the national living wage. In the second year, they have lost the temporary business rates support that they relied on, with the replacement not matching the rise in their costs.
The sector is clear that much of the additional funding announced through the new framework will simply be absorbed by those rising costs. The headline findings from Community Pharmacy England’s latest “Pharmacy Pressures” survey, due to be published later this month, show that 100% of pharmacies report that costs are higher than at this time last year and that three quarters are losing money, while 86% say that it is taking longer to procure medicines and 76% say that patients are already being directly impacted by the pressures on their businesses.
The National Pharmacy Association put it plainly last Friday when it said it was concerned that much of the funding increase will need to be spent on increased costs, including national living wage contributions, inflation and business rates rises,
“rather than addressing chronic under-funding”.
Those figures tell a simple story. The Government are asking pharmacies to do more while making it more expensive for them to keep their doors open.
What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor regarding business rates for community pharmacies? Has he even raised the sector’s concerns with the Chancellor, and if so, what response did he receive? Will he press for a package of support similar to that made available to other sectors such as pubs, to help with those pressures?
The rising costs also cast a shadow over the Government’s plan to expand independent prescribing through community pharmacy. We can all see that independent prescribing has enormous potential. It could improve patient access to care, make better use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise and help to deliver the Government’s ambition of shifting care from hospitals into the community. But the sector itself is not convinced that the necessary investment is in place. Community Pharmacy England has said:
“we are not persuaded that sufficient investment is being made to enable the full and effective introduction of IP…given the workload, enhanced clinical responsibility, clinical governance and infrastructure requirements that it will entail.”
It went on to warn that
“the addition of IP to the CPCF risked being set up to fail.”
That should concern us all in this Chamber. If pharmacies are expected to become a cornerstone of neighbourhood healthcare, as set out in the NHS 10-year plan, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary workforce, governance and infrastructure are in place to support that ambition? What response does the Minister have to those concerns, and what steps will he take to ensure that independent prescribing is the success we all want it to be?
Alongside the financial pressures, pharmacies continue to face significant challenges in the medicine supply chain. Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association earlier this year highlighted rising prices for a number of cancer medicines and concerns about the impact on availability. At the same time, the number of medicine price concessions has reached record levels. There were 204 concessions agreed in April, surpassing the previous record set only a month earlier. Community Pharmacy England has now confirmed a new record of 219 concessions for May, with further requests still under negotiation.
Behind those numbers are real patients facing delays, uncertainties and difficulties accessing the medicines that they need. Community Pharmacy England has warned that those figures reflect the continuing fragility of medicine supplies in the supply chain and that the wider instability from the middle east crisis is adding pressure. Of course, I cannot hold the Government responsible for that, but it is their duty to look at that volatility and to reassure patients and the sector that resilience is being put in place and measures are being looked at. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on what that looks like.
Before I conclude, I will raise an important point that is affecting dispensing practices. We have not talked about those today, but they are part of the real fabric of the community network. Dispensing GPs provide essential primary care medicine supplies to 10 million patients in remote, rural and coastal communities, where access to a community pharmacy is limited. For many patients, they are the primary point of access to medicines. Earlier this year, dispensing practices were informed that the central NHS England funding for the EMIS web dispensing module would cease and that the costs would instead be passed directly to the practices.
The proposal generated significant concern among dispensing practices, the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Concerns centred on the lack of consultation, the timing of the changes and the potential impact on the sustainability of dispensing services. Following representations from the sector, implementation has now been paused and central funding has continued. I welcome that decision. However, the uncertainty created caused understandable concerns for practices, their patients and the planning of future services, particularly for those in rural communities. When I wrote to the Minister to raise that issue, he responded that an assessment will take place this year of the long-term provision of dispensing modules and that NHS England will consult relevant bodies such as the Dispensing Doctors’ Association as part of that. Will the Minister provide further details on that assessment today? What criteria will be used? Who else is being consulted? If NHS England is going, who will take that work on? When can dispensing practices expect greater certainty about future arrangements?
I would also be grateful if the Minister addressed concerns about the discount abatement—what is called the clawback system. Dispensing practices continue to argue that the current arrangement creates inequalities for them compared with community pharmacies. Equally, community pharmacies are upset about the clawback, so there is an obvious tension. Given that the Government are looking at the long-term structure, I would be grateful if the Minister took that away and considered how we can modernise that aspect to ensure that there is equity in the system as well as an understanding from both sides.
Ministers have made it clear that they want pharmacies to play a greater role in prevention and neighbourhood healthcare and in reducing pressures elsewhere in the NHS. We in the Opposition agree, yet throughout this debate we have heard concerns from across the sector about rising costs, medicine supplies, independent prescribing and dispensing services. The question is whether Government policy is keeping pace with the expectations being placed on pharmacies, or whether Ministers are making it harder for the sector to deliver the growth and innovation they say they want to see. Community pharmacies have repeatedly demonstrated their value to patients in the wider health service. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to address those concerns and provide greater confidence to a sector that remains vital to communities up and down this land.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on raising this important issue. The number of hon. Members present shows how vital community pharmacy is right across our country.
Since coming into office, this Government have continued to reverse the decades of cuts to community pharmacy, and have frozen prescription charges for the second year in a row to help our constituents with the cost of living. Wherever they live in the country, women can now get emergency contraception from their local pharmacy free of charge on the NHS. That work has only been possible thanks to the tireless efforts and dedication of pharmacy teams in supporting patients in their communities, delivering a wide range of NHS services, not least in the west country. In fact, just last week, I was in Bristol visiting the fantastic Concord pharmacy, which is at the forefront of our efforts to shift care from hospital to community. I thank Saeed and his team for the warm welcome they gave me. I saw how they are delivering blood pressure checks, vaccinations and Pharmacy First services to the people of north Bristol.
For too long, community pharmacies such as Concord have been held back from realising their true potential. It is why the Government have given them a central role in our 10-year plan to shift the focus of the NHS from sickness to prevention, from hospital to community and from analogue to digital.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
An excellent example of community pharmacies in England embracing innovation is their interaction with the NHS app. My constituents in Scotland do not have access to a similar app because the Scottish Government have not got on with fixing it. Will the Minister join me in calling on the Scottish Government to produce a proper equivalent NHS app, so that constituents in Scotland can benefit in the same way?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. It appears that the Scottish Government are stuck in the analogue age, and we need digital solutions. I join him in encouraging the Scottish Government to get with the programme, get with the NHS app and get moving on some of these important initiatives.
We all know that we simply cannot make the shift from hospital to community without our community pharmacies. I am not the only one to see that—I am sure that all of us have made use of community pharmacies in our constituencies, and that colleagues will know the importance of the accessibility of pharmacies in towns and villages across the country. There are over 10,000 pharmacies in England. They are busy dispensing medicines, offering advice, and delivering care and services to support our communities. Patients across the country can also choose to access over 400 distance-selling pharmacies, which deliver medicines to patients’ homes free of charge, playing a vital role in reaching the most isolated members of our society. However, I acknowledge that access is not the same in all areas of the country. Rural areas often have fewer community pharmacies, so people have to travel further to access a pharmacy as well as other services.
Colleagues have also been right to raise concerns about pharmacy closures in the past. Local authority health and wellbeing boards are responsible for assessing whether local needs are adequately met by the existing providers, and what improvements are needed to ensure that people can access services. Those assessments inform integrated care boards’ commissioning decisions. In areas where there are fewer pharmacies, our pharmacy access scheme provides additional financial support to eligible pharmacies. The scheme helps pharmacies that are critical for patient access to stay open and provide local communities with continued access to medicines and excellent healthcare advice. In certain rural areas where there are no pharmacies, dispensing doctors can supply medicines to patients directly without the need for a pharmacy.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead will be aware that there are currently 14 pharmacies in her constituency. I am aware of the closure of two pharmacies in her constituency since 2017, and that the local population instead get their medicines from the neighbouring dispensing GP or from one of the over 400 distance-selling pharmacies available nationally. I also note that the latest data shows that there are 199 pharmacies in Devon, with 914 across the south-west. The Government are committed to supporting the critical role that they play in serving their communities.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister points to the important partnership between community pharmacies and dispensing GPs. There are concerns about the change in the EMIS module and the future for dispensing practices. If the Minister does not have the answers here, will he write to me about what is happening with EMIS and where he is looking to take dispensing practices in the future?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely commit to writing to the hon. Gentleman with more detail. He raises some important points, and I will get back to him.
The Government have always been clear that investment must come with modernisation, and our 10-year health plan and our three shifts set out a clear pathway to getting there. In her 2024 Budget, the Chancellor took important decisions that enabled us to give the sector a record 19% uplift across 2024-25 and 2025-26. It was the largest uplift of any sector across the NHS in that spending review period. I am proud that just a few days ago, we announced another significant uplift in funding for community pharmacies. That means a further £340 million uplift for the sector this financial year, to support the supply of medicines and delivery of vital services across our country. That will include supporting the introduction of pharmacist prescribing as part of NHS services in autumn 2026, to expand access to NHS care and strengthen support in communities across England, delivering upon the commitment made in our manifesto. That 10% uplift is almost three times the growth of the overall NHS budget, and it shows that when we talk about making the left shift, we are putting our money where our mouth is.
I will start with the shift from sickness to prevention, because community pharmacies will be vital in making sure that vaccine coverage reaches every part of our country. The NHS vaccination strategy in our 10-year health plan commits us to increasing vaccine uptake through primary care. One way that we are getting that done is through the national vaccinations programme. Alongside a core offer of vaccination in GP practices, we are making sure that vaccines are offered through sexual health services, maternity services, schools, health visitors and community pharmacies. Selected community pharmacies across the country have already been commissioned to provide MMR and RSV vaccines.
The expanded vaccination programmes make use of pharmacy teams’ expertise in delivering vaccines, releasing pressure on GPs and helping to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. We have also seen a significant increase in the provision of flu jabs within community pharmacies, with approximately 4.7 million people being vaccinated by pharmacists in the 2025-26 seasonal flu vaccination programme up to February 2026. That is up by around 600,000 vaccinations the previous year, showing the progress that has been made.
When we talk about prevention, we are not just talking about vaccines, because community pharmacies are also delivering the hypertension case-finding service, which spots people at risk and helps to prevent cardiovascular disease. Nearly 3.6 million free consultations were delivered in the 12 months to February this year. That is a great example of the sickness to prevention shift in action.
Turning to our shift from analogue to digital, so many pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are not working with technology that is equal to their skill, talent or ambition. I am afraid to say that it is a similar story across other parts of the NHS, where the outdated technology is holding staff back from realising their full potential. We are supporting pharmacies through digital transformation. Last year, a new Amazon-style prescription tracker went live on the NHS app across nearly 1,500 community pharmacies in England, enabling patients to check on their prescriptions through real-time updates.
This year, we want to make digital access even easier, with stronger links between pharmacies and general practice as we build stronger neighbourhood health teams across every community. That will make them match-ready for the introduction of pharmacy prescribing as part of NHS services from this autumn. Digital also has a huge role to play in our supply chains and improving the public’s access to the medication they need. That has included our secondary legislation to enable the expansion of hub-and-spoke dispensing between different pharmacies, to make it possible for more pharmacies to use automated dispensing, realise economies of scale and increase efficiency and productivity.
Additionally, GPs cannot currently see live national shortages when prescribing, but this year we will make it possible for GPs to be aware of these shortages in real time. That will mean that patients no longer have to go from pillar to post looking for medicines that are not available, because GPs will be able to prescribe an antibiotic unaffected by supply issues.
In the NHS that is fit for the future, pharmacies will play a key role in the shift from hospital to community. We have already begun making huge progress in rebuilding primary care and fixing the front door to the NHS by ending the 8 am scramble, whether through extra funding for general practice, hiring more GPs or the introduction of online services. We will go even further to ease the pressure on GPs by making sure that pharmacists are making the most of their clinical abilities.
That is why the Government have been promoting the Pharmacy First campaign, although I take on board some of the very interesting suggestions about the rebranding. I will have a think about that; I am not going to make any rash decisions today. The most recent data shows that the number of people polled who knew that their pharmacy would treat Pharmacy First conditions rose from 71% to 79%. Trust in the advice given by the pharmacy team increased from 61% to 70%, and intention to use the pharmacy if people had conditions covered by Pharmacy First went up from 32% to 37%.
Jim Shannon
I very much welcome what the Minister has said. There is lots of good stuff being rolled out across the United Kingdom, but I asked him to share some of the things that have been done with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, Mike Nesbitt. I know the Minister has regular contact with him, so perhaps he could say, “This is what we are doing here. Maybe you should do the same.”
Stephen Kinnock
We do indeed have an excellent relationship. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will go back into some of the discussions that we have been having and write to him with an update on the latest thinking.
A second public advertising campaign ran from October 2025 to this January, and I look forward to updating the House when data about its impact becomes available. Another thing to watch is the independent prescribing pathfinder programme, through which 200 sites have delivered 34,000 consultations. About 60% resulted in a prescribing decision, and 90% of those prescriptions were completed without the need to refer to a GP. When it comes to relieving pressure on other parts of the system, the pathfinder programme shows immense promise.
As announced last week, the new community pharmacy contractual framework for 2026-27 will focus on implementing what we have learned from the pathfinder programme as we roll out NHS pharmacists prescribing nationally from autumn this year. That will deliver the 10-year plan’s ambition for pharmacies to go beyond dispensing and to offer more clinical services as part of an integrated neighbourhood health team.
We have also introduced legislation to enable pharmacy technicians to manage dispensing processes that would otherwise be undertaken by pharmacists, and to allow checked and bagged medicines to be handed out in the absence of the pharmacist. That saves time for patients, who will not have to queue for as long to get their medicine. It is good for busy pharmacists, who will have more time for clinical services, and for pharmacy technicians, who will be able to use their skillset as qualified professionals.
Pharmacies are a massive untapped resource. The NHS that we are building puts them front and centre of care in every community, whether on the local high street or as one of the more than 400 distance-selling pharmacies that can reach across the country, including rural areas. This year, I plan to spend a lot more time with our partners in the sector to seize every opportunity to go further, and I am always keen to work with colleagues across the House on this.
As the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, there is a clear commitment to long-term reform. Some of the issues that are holding the sector back require fundamental thinking. We are in discussions, and I am looking forward to a meeting very soon with Community Pharmacy England. I want to put on the record my thanks to it and, in particular, to Janet Morrison, for the incredibly constructive way in which it has engaged with me and my team on the contract negotiations and the strategic thinking that needs to go into long-term reform. Our latest deal with the sector shows that this Government are in it for the long haul and are fully committed to putting pharmacies right at the heart of getting our NHS back on its feet and fit for the future.
Rachel Gilmour
I do not have time to go through the list of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have made fantastic contributions. Suffice it to say that there is only one negative aspect of this debate: the fact that not a single Conservative Member of Parliament is here is shocking.
I just want to say happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). I do not suppose she imagined that she would start her birthday by debating community pharmacies, but I hope she has a wonderful day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of community pharmacies.
Glasgow City Region Economy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow city region economy.
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Ms Jardine. The Glasgow city region is at the heart of the Scottish economy and is a fundamental pillar of the larger UK economy. Home to 1.85 million people, across eight local authority areas, the Glasgow city region accounts for around a third of Scotland’s employment and economic output. Shipbuilding on the Clyde; world-leading university research and spin-offs; the largest production of miniature satellites in Europe; one of the largest financial sectors in the UK outside London; an established and growing advanced manufacturing base; and a dynamic and thriving cultural sector are integral parts of the city region’s economy.
This is a city region that includes UNESCO City of Music status for Glasgow, and playing host to COP26 in 2021 and the Commonwealth games in 2014, to be hosted again in Glasgow this summer. That all paints a picture of the Glasgow city region as a major economic and cultural success, but it is still held back by historical challenges. Its history of deindustrialisation has left deep-rooted issues of poverty and inequality that are still being grappled with today in many communities. The region has one of the highest percentages of people with no formal education, while also having one of the highest percentages of people with higher-level qualifications or more.
Parts of the region have some of the highest deprivation in the UK, along with some of the highest drug deaths in Europe, although the city region also contains some of the wealthiest areas of Scotland. That gets to the crux of the matter. Support for the Glasgow city region economy must be judged not only by headline growth figures but by whether the benefits reach all communities, particularly those who have waited longest for change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this forward. I spoke to him beforehand about city region deals recognising the situation in Glasgow and my constituency, yet this work has only just begun. Does he agree that sustained funding has to be available to local councils to build on those foundational deals? The funding needs to be adequate to make a difference, not just in Glasgow but in Newtownards.
Martin Rhodes
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree and will go on in my speech to talk about how the work of the city deals needs to be developed further. Those structures and activities need to be built on to ensure we get the most from that initial interest to develop it further.
The Glasgow city region economy has seen real investment from the UK Labour Government but much more can be done. With greater devolved powers over areas such as infrastructure, skills, investment and public health, the region will be better placed to shape solutions around the needs of its communities. That would not be devolution for the sake of it. Greater local autonomy can help reduce inequality, improve health outcomes and create new jobs and opportunities across the region.
As the city region is right now, I welcome the significant investment that the UK Labour Government are already delivering. The new local growth fund, combined with the Pride in Place programmes, is set to deliver nearly £94 million in investment over the next three years. The combination of those funds delivers long-term infrastructure and renewal. That approach will help the Glasgow city region to invest in long-term renewal, an ambition that needs to be matched by sustained adequate local government funding from the Scottish Government.
This UK Labour Government have delivered the largest spending review settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament, which amounted to £50 billion in last year’s settlement. That is in stark contrast to the Scottish Government, which instead of passing that funding increase to local government, continued to enforce cuts to communities. From 2013 to 2026, Glasgow city council alone has seen a £1.5 billion loss in Scottish Government funding. Those cuts to local government funding have left councils across the region overstretched and focused on struggling to deliver core services, with little left over for the long-term investment the city region needs.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and an important contribution. We have seen in other UK cities the difference that city region mayors can make, whether in Manchester or in Liverpool and whether on bus franchising or attracting investment. Does he agree that one of the things Glasgow needs is greater devolution from Holyrood to our city to help to attract investment?
Martin Rhodes
Yes, I agree that we need devolution of power from Holyrood. One of the ironies of the devolution period in Scotland is that although powers have been devolved from the UK to Scotland, power has been hoarded in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government and not devolved to local government and local communities.
The UK Labour Government’s investment is not a substitute for sound local government funding. It is targeted, strategic funding designed to deliver the transformational projects that drive growth, create better jobs and build more prosperous communities. That investment reflects real ambition for the city region and is a fundamentally different offer to the Scottish Government’s short-sighted approach.
While the Scottish Government neglect the Glasgow city region, this Labour Government have been representing its interests in our trade abroad. The £10 billion defence deal with Norway has secured thousands of jobs at shipyards on the Clyde while also supporting many small and medium-sized UK and Scottish businesses in the supply chain. This Labour Government are supporting skilled jobs and opportunities in our city region communities that need them.
The UK Government are not supporting only traditional industries such as shipbuilding; they are also supporting the region’s future technology industries. I recently visited the University of Glasgow-based Responsible Electronics and Circular Technologies programme, which was established in my constituency in 2024 with more than £6 million of UK Government funding. REACT brings together industry and academia to design sustainable solutions for the electronics sector. Projects like that create high skilled jobs, strengthen supply chains and ensure that Glasgow city region remains at the forefront of future industrial development.
With that dynamic and growing economy in the region, it is clear why devolving power and funding to the city region would help industry, businesses and communities. It would allow policies to be better shaped to serve communities where these investments are happening. Already, the Glasgow city region cabinet, a unique governance structure established to oversee the Glasgow city deal that brings together the leaders of the local authorities, helps to deliver these types of regional programmes. However, that governance structure was created for a particular purpose: to oversee a significant but limited city deal programme. It needs to be transformed to meet the new reality and the ambition of the region shown by recent UK Government investment.
Since being elected, I have met with businesses, public transport providers and campaigners, and representatives from the city region to discuss this issue. All of them acknowledge that the Glasgow city region as a metropolitan area needs a regional structure to deliver aligned region-wide policies. That would allow the Glasgow city region to tailor its policies to the needs of our communities. However, devolution must be about outcomes, not simply structures. Any transfer of power must come with clear accountability, strong governance and a focus on what matters to our communities: reducing poverty, improving health outcomes and creating good jobs.
As the city region develops, there will also need to be stronger democratic accountability around the decisions being made. What matters most, however, is that power is placed closer to the communities affected by those decisions. That means better systems to identify the barriers keeping communities in poverty and regional solutions to break down those barriers. That stands in contrast to years in which powers have sat concentrated in Holyrood, with little meaningful transfer to the city region. The Glasgow city region is reaching an important moment in its development. There is now a growing recognition that city regions such as ours are best placed to shape solutions to the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
Importantly, that work is being matched by growing investment and institutional confidence. The city region now oversees a portfolio of more than £2 billion and is working with partners, including the National Wealth Fund, to shape the next stage of the region’s development. If we get this right, the Glasgow city region can play an even greater role in the Scottish and UK economies while delivering practical improvements in people’s lives: better transport, stronger local economies, good jobs and healthier communities. In the meantime, there is so much to be proud of. World-leading universities, high-skilled jobs and art, culture and sport make it one of the UK’s greatest city regions. It deserves the support it needs to tackle the challenges it faces and deliver real change for the communities of the Glasgow city region.
As for the future, regional devolution for the metropolitan areas of Manchester, Liverpool and the west midlands is proof that greater city region devolution can work. The foundations for governance are already in place in the Glasgow city region, and the UK Labour Government have shown, through significant investment and their partnership with the city region body, that they understand that empowering the Glasgow city region will help it succeed further, economically and culturally. The hugely beneficial impact of UK-funded initiatives such as the local growth fund, the Pride in Place programme, the Norway defence deal and the city deal—
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
One in eight local authorities in the Glasgow city region is in my constituency. The Clyde is more than just Glasgow; it is the towns and areas up and down both sides of the Clyde. Does my hon. Friend agree that UK Government funding, not least the £60 million local growth fund, has the potential to unlock two sites in my West Dunbartonshire constituency: the former Exxon site and the Carless site? Both have the potential to create thousands of well paid, highly skilled jobs in West Dunbartonshire.
Martin Rhodes
I thank my hon. Friend for his customarily well versed arguments for his constituency and the skills, developments and opportunities there. It is true that when we talk about the city region we are talking about not just the city itself but all parts of the city and the surrounding region. The impact of every £1 of investment could go further. When funding is channelled through empowered regional structures, with engagement, accountability and governance systems providing tailored local policies, it has a multiplier effect on everything it delivers. That means delivering for not just the wealthiest parts of the city but those communities that are most in need of support in all parts of the city region, within the city boundary and beyond.
My constituents in Glasgow North, along with people in the rest of the region, deserve high-quality affordable homes, an integrated transport network and good jobs, which an empowered city region can help deliver. I welcome the Minister’s reflections on what steps the UK Government plan to take to support the Glasgow city region’s economic ambitions. I also welcome any further reflections on what the UK Government can do to help accelerate the transfer of powers to the city region.
The Glasgow city region is a major economic and cultural success, but it is still held back by historical challenges. With the right powers behind it, with sustained local authority funding and with the UK’s Government’s investment, it could go much further in delivering improved health, good housing and rewarding, well paid jobs for our communities. The test will be how it delivers for all our communities, and for all in our communities, so that they can not only survive or live but truly flourish.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing this vital debate, and on everything he does to represent one of the greatest parts of one of the world’s finest cities. Whether through the revival and modernisation of heavy industries such as shipbuilding on our beloved Clyde, or future-facing industries like satellites and life sciences, this region is truly stepping forward to lead globally.
The Glasgow city region’s importance to the Scottish and UK economies cannot be overstated—the region is quite simply a powerhouse. It encompasses some of Scotland’s most vibrant local authorities, thousands of distinct enterprises and more than 1 million workers. With more than £870 million invested into the region by the UK Government over 10 years, its future is looking even brighter, but to empower this region to reach its full potential we simply have to do things differently. To do that, we are actively moving away from the short-term, fragmented funded priorities that have held us back in the past. Instead, we are taking a targeted, long-term approach that puts power back where it belongs: in the hands of communities and regional leaders who know their streets and economies best.
I want to share exactly how we are working to supercharge the Glasgow city region, secure high-quality jobs and restore pride in local places. I will begin by highlighting the immense success of the £1 billion Glasgow city region deal, which has delivered foundational benefits through its first decade. That 20-year agreement stands as one of the largest such deals in the whole UK. With more than half a billion pounds of investment from the UK Government, it is set to deliver up to 29,000 jobs over its lifetime.
To date, the deal’s infrastructure programme has completely reshaped the local landscape, delivering iconic new connections across the Clyde. It has also breathed life into the city’s most important public spaces, including the Canal and North Gateway project, which has been transformational for communities in my hon. Friend’s constituency, creating better connections to the city centre and upgrading their public spaces. Further, that deal has leveraged over £800 million in additional private and commercial investment since its inception in 2014, showcasing how effective Government investment can unlock wider commitments to build towards a brighter and more ambitious future.
However, we will not stop there. We will be building on those foundations with the new £140 million Scottish local growth fund launched in January 2026. It is specifically designed to support areas that contain some of the lowest living standards to boost productivity and improve access to better-paid work. The Glasgow city region economic partnership is set to receive the single largest allocation in Scotland from the local growth fund: £60.9 million over the next three years.
The Glasgow city region is an excellent example of a region that knows exactly how to deliver true regional change, as exemplified through the success of the deal programme to date. At the same time, we understand that economic growth cannot be measured just on a balance sheet; as my hon. Friend said, it must be felt on the high street and on the doorstep. That is why we have introduced new hyper-local community funds that will empower local people to shape the future of their neighbourhoods.
Through the Pride in Place programme and the Pride in Place impact fund, we are directly supporting the most in-need communities. Through those programmes, the Glasgow city region is receiving a total of £146 million to support communities across the city region to thrive. Funding is going to places in Glasgow city, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire. Of course, one of those places is the Springburn and Sighthill neighbourhood, which includes my hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowlairs and Port Dundas, and I cannot wait to see what priorities the community chooses to support in that area. We all know that the most enduring purpose of Labour Governments is to redistribute power. That is why we are putting decisions about such funding back into the hands of local people who know the places they love the best.
Moving from the hyper-local to the national ambition, the UK Government are delivering a 10-year industrial strategy that is set to back Scotland’s strengths, unlock investment and deliver lasting economic growth. The Glasgow city region is key to this work, with many of the eight growth sectors in our strategy already forming the backbone of this regional economy—from advanced manufacturing and life sciences to defence and financial services.
To back up that transformational strategy with real funding, we are investing up to £500 million across the UK into new local innovation partnerships aimed at growing high-potential innovation clusters. Because of the Glasgow city region’s huge innovation potential, we have allocated £50 million to the region, building directly on the success of the Glasgow innovation accelerator pilot, which this Government backed with another £10 million to the region.
We will not stop there when it comes to equipping the region with the tools needed to be a truly modern economy. Its residents must have the skills and opportunities they need to chase the jobs of the future, as AI is put to work to transform communities and livelihoods. That is why Lanarkshire will host a new AI growth zone, backed by £8.2 billion of private investment and £5 million of direct UK Government investment, creating over 3,000 jobs and driving growth in line with the objectives of our industrial strategy.
Simultaneously, our investment zone programme is driving regional economic growth and regeneration, targeting the high potential of the Glasgow city region’s advanced manufacturing sector. Working in partnership with the Scottish Government and local leaders, we will provide up to £160 million of funding for this investment zone over the next decade, which is expected to generate around £300 million of initial private sector investment and support up to 10,000 jobs in the region.
We must also continue to support the industries that helped to make this region great. That is why this Government have provided bespoke support to Inverclyde in the form of £20 million for the Inchgreen dry dock redevelopment, which will drive new maritime and defence industry opportunities into Inverclyde, and support the people living there to gain the skills they need to do this important work.
Of course, we do not just want investment coming in, but Glasgow’s unique strengths to be exported out to the global market. That is why I am delighted to be joining Glasgow chambers of commerce on an upcoming trade mission to China as they return to the Shanghai international technology fair. We are determined to champion this region’s world-renowned strengths in technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing to encourage export opportunities and create jobs.
Closer to home, the strategic partnership between the National Wealth Fund and the Glasgow city region represents a colossal opportunity for the region. In Scotland, the National Wealth Fund has directly invested nearly £2 billion, mobilising over £3.5 billion of private investment into projects that will create or support upwards of 9,000 jobs. The creation of partnerships, both internationally and at home, between the private and public sectors will unlock further private investment and drive growth. Together, that will leave the region best placed to navigate the challenges and financing barriers faced in delivering critical infrastructure improvements and developments. Such UK Government interventions are exactly the kind of long-term commitment that we believe is required to drive true growth.
Crucially, building a truly dynamic economy is also about ensuring that the power to spend and to direct investment is with those who know the unique needs and opportunities of their area the best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, for too long we have watched the centralisation of decision making at Holyrood pull powers away from local communities and regional leaders across Scotland. That stands—I am sorry to say—in stark contrast to the UK Government’s ambitious regional devolution agenda south of the border, which seeks to expand the economic success story of Manchester to more parts of the country.
The 2025 report on regional economic growth by economist Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli asked whether we should consider a “realignment of powers” for Scotland. Similarly, the leader of Glasgow city council, Susan Aitken, has called for a
“rapid devolution of the powers”.
I hear the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for devolution, not for the sake of it but because it will drive greater local autonomy that will in turn aid the reduction of inequality, the improvement of health outcomes and the creation of new jobs and opportunities across the region. This is the debate about the future of localism that Scotland needs now.
Gordon McKee
The Minister is making an excellent speech. In the conversations that she has had with the Scottish Government, have they ever articulated a reason and an argument for not devolving that power to Glasgow? That devolution is what my constituents want. We can see from cities such as Manchester and Liverpool that it would benefit our city.
Kirsty McNeill
My hon. Friend will know that that is felt right across the city region, and across other city regions in Scotland. The Scottish Government seem simply addicted to the centralisation of and hoarding of power. We have made an argument to the people of Scotland that has been incredibly well-received: they live in places that they know and love best, and they want the people they elect locally to have greater power. We are in ongoing dialogue with the Scottish Government but their driving political imperative is nation building, not place shaping. That stands in sharp contrast to the approach of this Labour Government, which is to put power in the hands of communities to change the places that they know and love so well. Scotland needs proper devolution inside Scotland, not just to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South will find no greater champion of that local power agenda than me.
We should at all times be guided by the fundamental principle that powers over local services and projects are often best exercised as close as humanly possible to the people whose daily lives they affect. The Scottish people need all levels of their Government to work together to make their lives and communities better. Strong, effective councils and empowered regional voices are key to a prosperous Scotland. We are fully committed to working alongside our local partners in the months and years ahead to deliver that better future for the Glasgow city region and beyond.
Before I close, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am in ongoing dialogue with Northern Ireland Office Ministers about how we can take lessons from the city deal programme and scale them UK-wide. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made a very important point about the strategic sites right along the Clyde. I happily visited one such site in his constituency with him. We are fully appraised of the opportunities right along the river.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing this debate and thank all hon. Members who have spoken. The UK Government’s investment of over £870 million into the Glasgow city region over the next 10 years, combined with empowering local spending decisions, has already delivered a truly transformational impact that can be felt in every corner of the region, but this UK Government do not look backwards. Instead we continue to focus on progressing delivery and achieving the economic growth outcomes that will make sure that the Glasgow city region, Scotland, and the UK as a whole can thrive.
To deliver more we must seize all opportunities. That includes having a meaningful conversation on the future of regional devolution, because together we still have so much more to gain. Let us seize this moment, look to the future and continue to deliver for the Glasgow city region.
Question put and agreed to.
Children: Development of Essential Skills
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for children developing essential skills.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I start by declaring that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for schools, learning and assessment; on social mobility; and for classics. It is wonderful to see so many young people in the Public Gallery.
We are facing a generational moment. We know the risks that technology and artificial intelligence increasingly pose to our world, but we also know the opportunities. It strikes me that it is up to us to shape a generation that responds to these challenges not with despondency, but with the confidence and authority to make these tools work for humanity, not against it. Without the human skills to properly engage with, discuss and question the world around us, we are setting our children up for failure.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
As the former vice-chair of the APPG on financial education for young people, I really welcome the Government’s work on that issue, including the commitment to introduce it more firmly in the national curriculum for all ages. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful were the Minister, in her summing up, to provide us with an update on the work to get that ready for young people in the years to come?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I am aware that the financial strategy sits with the Treasury but, like many of the tasks that face this Government, there must be a cross-Department approach. It is really important that all Departments grapple with the need to deliver better skills for our young people, and I am sure that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s request.
Today, when it has never been easier for young people—I should add that it is not just young people—to be misled by mis- and disinformation, and to be sucked in by algorithms and harmful content on social media that comforts them with easy answers in a complex world, essential skills have never been more crucial. I am thinking of skills such as being able to think critically, communicate and reason; having the confidence in ourselves to form opinions; and, above all, having the resilience and will to engage with the world in all its complexities, rather than turn away from it.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I have been contacted in the past week by pupils from Collingwood college in Surrey Heath—it is very close to Bracknell, but I can still claim it. They have been talking to me about mis- and disinformation, and they have said how important it is to receive citizenship education, which is excellently delivered at Collingwood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that citizenship is one of the core, critical skills that gives children exactly the kind of awareness of mis- and disinformation that is vital as we approach the mid-21st century?
Peter Swallow
I absolutely agree with my constituency neighbour, and I will come on to talk a lot more about citizenship, which is vital. Just this week, I have been dealing with my local Reform party using AI to create fake images of our community, which is exactly the kind of fake news being put on social media by bad faith actors that we need to ensure that all people—particularly young people—are equipped to face.
Schools have a fundamental role to play in preparing young people for life. Both the recent curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper recognise the importance of skills and enrichment as part of a holistic education in and outside the classroom.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that fostering strong partnerships with educational institutions can play a pivotal role in developing a curriculum that aligns with current labour market requirements? Additionally, I emphasise the importance of collaboration with tech companies to enhance digital skills education.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member’s point is well taken. I will talk about the interim report from the Milburn review later, but it is really clear that the skills system that we inherited from the previous Government has not set up our young people for the world of work. Essential skills are about more than just preparing young people for the world of work—they are also about preparing young people for the world of life—but such preparation has an important role to play. I am keen that we work proactively with tech companies to create such opportunities, where doing so in the best interests of young people. Social media companies in particular need to do a lot more to protect young people from harm online. The one thing being true does not detract from the other thing also being true.
Returning to the curriculum and assessment review, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendation that citizenship be made a statutory requirement for key stages 1 and 2, and that the secondary citizenship curriculum will encompass topics that are vital to raise engaged citizens, including government, law and democracy, climate education, and financial and media literacy. Hon. Members have already made those points.
Given the Government’s plans to lower the voting age to 16, those topics have never been more important. The Government are right to recognise that young people are an important voice in our society, but if we are to extend the franchise, we must make sure that we get it right and grasp the opportunity to use the classroom to its full potential, so that young people feel empowered and confident about using their vote. As the chair of the APPG on schools, I have heard from young people and educators both in England and across the devolved nations, where 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote in some elections, as part of our ongoing inquiry into votes at 16.
It was clear from those sessions that young people do not feel as empowered as they should feel by our current democratic education, but that is perhaps not surprising given that many teachers have also reported a lack of confidence in the guidance on how to facilitate conversations about democracy and politics in the classroom. It is right that teachers do not tell young people what to think, but it is deeply concerning that many are so afraid that they might be seen to be doing so that they do not feel comfortable enough to broach the subject of current affairs at all.
As a former teacher, I know that the classroom can and should be a place where ideas and questions are explored openly, not feared or hidden from. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as the Government continue their important work to reform the curriculum, because the best curriculum in the world will not be a success without teachers who feel properly equipped to deliver it.
Another theme that stood out strongly from our evidence sessions is the importance of essential skills being integrated into the curriculum, rather than being just the preserve of citizenship or personal, social, health and economic education. I was delighted that the schools White Paper explicitly recognises the relationship between skills such as media and financial literacy and critical thinking, and the wider school curriculum, including core subjects like English and science.
It was notable from our sessions that there is a widespread perception that democratic education is often tokenistic, relegating it to a niche, subject-specific interest, rather than making it a fundamental priority of our education system; indeed, I think that is true of all essential skills. The embedding of democratic education throughout the curriculum and connecting it to broader work on employability is an important rejoinder to that perception.
On that point, I was also pleased to see the Government recognise in the schools White Paper that oracy is vital not only to education but to employability and the Government’s growth mission, as well as more widely to the confidence and mental health of young people. As we now seek to implement the changes set out in the White Paper, it is important that we do not tokenise oracy and other essential skills but recognise that they represent more of an approach to teaching and learning. In the case of oracy, it is focused on learning through talk and learning to talk.
Over the last week, we have heard from Alan Milburn on the essential skills that young people are missing as they leave education and seek to enter the workplace. Embedding oracy into the curriculum and into school-wide teaching can be a significant driver of the very skills that our young people are missing, including increased confidence and communication skills, greater critical thinking ability, and a greater capacity for listening to and empathising with others. I emphasise that all those skills will never be taken by robots.
As oracy organisations like Voice 21 highlight, oracy is an explicitly inclusive practice. Oracy-rich teaching supports early identification of children with speech, language and communication needs; it removes barriers that are highest for students with special educational needs and disability, and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds; and it helps to nurture the learning environment that the Government have been clear is their ambition to create, where high standards and inclusion are one and the same.
I recognise that we are moving in the right direction, and I thank the Minister for the important steps that she is already taking towards a more holistic approach to education. I also thank her for visiting my constituency last year to discuss the work that we are doing to reform the SEND system and ensure that education is inclusive of everyone. I also thank Voice 21 for the work that it is doing to support schools in my constituency, including at St Joseph’s primary, where, as I heard on a recent visit, oracy is empowering the students to feel more confident and boosting their communication skills.
A fully holistic approach to essential skills means not only integrating them into what is taught in the classroom but the wider school and enrichment experience. Both inside and outside the classroom, enrichment opportunities are fundamental to the development of skills like resilience, collaboration and confidence. Just in the last recess, I saw an excellent example of how students volunteering in the community can build essential skills and a spirit of citizenship, through the fantastic MindGreen initiative at Bracknell and Wokingham college.
When we have these conversations, we often speak about schools, but it is vital that the same principles are not forgotten in our further education colleges so that all young people are given the opportunity to develop the skills to succeed. With that in mind, I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to an enrichment entitlement for every young person alongside a national framework and benchmark for schools. Some organisations, however, like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, have raised concerns that enrichment often gets lost in the wider school curriculum and becomes too thin or inconsistent to make a difference.
Research has shown that that is especially likely to be true in state schools compared with private schools, with the Sutton Trust finding that one in five teachers in state schools do not think their school provides good opportunities for pupils to develop these non-academic skills, compared with just one in 10 teachers in private schools. Needless to say, no Labour Government would be satisfied with allowing that gap to continue, so I ask for the Minister’s assurance that the Government are committed to making sure that such opportunities exist meaningfully for all young people in all schools, regardless of background or location.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the hon. Member’s point about involving all schools, does he agree that the problem is not so much about ensuring that young people who are interested and want to get on develop their skills? Disaffected and disinterested young people are the ones we really have to reach out to, to ensure that they, too, avail themselves of the benefits that he rightly outlines.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member makes a valuable point. To again reflect on the interim report by Alan Milburn, he highlights that one of the challenges we face is not just that the current education system does not do enough to develop skills; it is also not doing enough to develop a love of learning and inclusion. Young people feeling disaffected, and that they do not belong in schools or colleges, means that we are also unable to make sure that they are accessing a great education. I have always said that the best education is a fun education, because when young people enjoy getting involved in school—enrichment can be a huge part of that for many young people—they are more likely to feel that they belong and to succeed.
Over the recess, I was reminded of the importance of enrichment opportunities in young people’s lives at a visit to the Bracknell Cobras, a basketball club in my constituency that works with more than 500 young people a week. During my visit, I heard that the Cobras do not just teach young people to play basketball; they also develop essential skills like teamwork and resilience. They even train them up as referees so that they can gain a nationally recognised qualification.
That last point brings me to the crux of my argument: even when young people have the opportunity to develop skills, both in the classroom and through enrichment more widely, they often feel unable to properly identify or quantify their learning, or that the skills can be meaningfully demonstrated to future employers or education providers. That is why, as the Minister knows, I have been working with a wide group of stakeholders to gather views and build the case for reform of the skills passport, inspired by the invaluable work of Skills Builder, which has built a brilliant framework to quantify the skills that young people need to thrive.
That idea was first raised with me by young people themselves. On a visit to Garth Hill college in Bracknell, a group of GCSE citizenship students delivered a fantastic presentation to me asking why the school’s curriculum was not better at teaching them essential life skills, such as financial literacy, and why those skills were not measured. Their question, which has stayed with me, was this: why is there no Duke of Edinburgh’s award for life skills?
It is obvious to anyone with experience in education that what is not measured is not recognised. I fear that we are failing young people and employers by neglecting to ensure that the essential skills young people develop both in and outside the classroom are properly and meaningfully recorded. As part of its research into the future of the labour market, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it was essential skills such as collaboration, communication, problem solving and information literacy that will be most needed by employers by 2035. We are already facing deficits in those areas, which are likely to only get worse.
It has never been more vital that we equip young people to not just develop essential skills, but record and demonstrate them. That area has strong potential to support the Government’s wider work with regard to growth and supporting young people back into the workforce. I was very pleased to see a commitment to exploring skills passports in the post-16 White Paper, and the recent launch of the UK standard skills classification, which is an important step forwards in a common understanding and vocabulary around skills. I am also grateful to Skills England for meeting with me to discuss that very point.
However, it is clear to me that for any form of skills passport to be truly meaningful, introducing it at the end of the school journey is too late. If young people are to be properly empowered to recognise, develop and communicate their essential skills in a way that speaks to them and to potential employers, we must help them to identify those skills much earlier.
I want to touch briefly on the new careers service for schools and colleges planned by the Government. I have referred to Alan Milburn’s important interim report numerous times, but another point we have heard over the last few days is the importance of the early years of someone’s career and the long-term impact of missing out on opportunities at that stage. I therefore ask the Minister for assurance that a recognition of the importance of essential skills will be built into the new careers service, so that young people are given the best and most holistic advice possible at this vital point in their educational and personal development.
Essential skills are essential for so many reasons. They help us to become more employable and educated, but, more than that, they help to make us better, more resilient, confident and well-rounded people with more capacity for empathy and more curiosity about our world. At a time when we are facing so much uncertainty and volatility, it is incumbent on all of us to equip our young people with the skills they need to be active and empowered citizens in the world.
The evidence is clear: our most essential skills are our human skills. Building an education system that no longer overlooks or sidelines but nurtures them is vital. It is up to the Government to build on the great work already started in a truly holistic way so that young people are supported to develop the skills that we as a country need from them, not only as future workers, but as citizens. That is how we break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). It is well known across the House that he is a classics scholar; indeed, he chairs the APPG for classics. Our democracy is based on that of the ancient Greeks, and demos is a Greek word from which we draw our idea of democratic values. One of our greatest ever parliamentarians from Leeds, Denis Healey, was himself a classics scholar. He inspired many others in Leeds and his constituency to study the classics, some of whom are now elected politicians in the city, so this subject is dear to our hearts in Leeds.
Substantial democratic political education for our young people can help to comprise a curriculum for life for the future of the UK. I am proud of the commitment in the Labour manifesto at the last election, and many elections beforehand, to give the right to vote at 16. That must go hand in hand with a genuine education in critical thinking and democratic processes, and a guide to citizen participation.
Without that education, we are all vulnerable to reductionist populism, as seen on the extremes of our political landscape. Equipping the next generation with the skills they need to identify mis- and disinformation, to call out discrimination and prejudice in politics, and to navigate our political system will forge a brighter and sharper future for our country. It is an education that I am sure we all wish we could have had access to across the United Kingdom.
As the MP for the constituency with the youngest electorate in the country, I can say that the young people of Leeds Central and Headingley are switched on to what is going on in the world. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, when we visit schools and sixth-form colleges, we are kept on our toes by the young people there as much as we are in the Chamber itself—more so, actually, the majority of the time.
If we can fully enfranchise young people with the tools on how to navigate all the layers of our political landscape, we will have a succession plan for a stable and ethically awake future. These tools are needed now more than ever, at a time when we are at the mercy of faceless social media, bot farms and nefarious online foreign actors that seek to disrupt the stability and the fabric of communities in our country.
Furthermore, better political education can help tackle the negative perceptions of politicians and the growing levels of abuse, harassment and intimidation. We need politics to be an environment that is representative of the UK, not one that intimidates colleagues out of the field—or that intimidates people out of even considering entering elected politics.
I believe that reducing the voting age will help increase the political engagement of younger people, and I agree with the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that lowering the voting age is a good opportunity to develop a new school curriculum for political education—an education that can enable young people to exercise their right to vote without unduly swaying or influencing them. Let us create the fairest and most democratic UK we have ever seen, with Government support for children to develop skills in political education and with enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds, hopefully in a fairer voting system where all votes count.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing this important debate. For years, we have had an education system that looks pretty good on league tables or spreadsheets but does not really help young people develop essential skills for dealing with this rapidly changing world. Rather than repeat remarks that I have made before, and that other hon. Members have made today, I will cut to the chase and list some issues and solutions that I urge the Minister to consider—so grab your pen, Minister.
The first issue is funding. Somerset is one of the 40 lowest funded education authorities in the UK. We need to see a level playing field for funding, with an increase in school and college funding per pupil above the rate of inflation every year.
The second issue is the type of skills we are teaching. Yeovil college does an amazing job with vocational and technical education, but we need the Government to go further. Can we make AI and digital skills training a core part of the national curriculum as its own subject? If we want to innovate, we need teaching that focuses on the skills needed for business and self-employment, although I may be biased because I ran my own landscaping company.
Thirdly, we sadly have pockets of real deprivation in Yeovil. Will the Minister extend pupil premium funding to disadvantaged young people aged 16 to 18, so they can get the quality education or training they want, rather than having to work any old job—or worse?
My final ask, unsurprisingly, relates to SEND. Can the Minister set out when the research into universal screening will conclude, and whether the Government will commit to adopting it, if that is supported by the research? We cannot help young people develop essential skills without working out how they learn best.
More broadly, can the Minister please promise that the upcoming reforms to the SEND system will not mean that children with SEND lose the right to dedicated time with teaching assistants or speech and language therapists to help develop essential skills? The maths GCSE post-16 resit policy sees too many young people with SEND forced to retake exams that are just not useful for them. It comes with stigma and takes time away from developing the skills they actually need. Can the Minister commit to abolishing or reworking the resit policy to meet the needs of a wide range of young people with SEND more flexibly? I could go on for hours about this subject, but I have bent the ear of the Minister many times, so I will leave it there.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing this debate. I feel it is my duty as someone sadly nearing the end of parenting a child in nursery to talk specifically about early years.
When we talk about children developing essential skills, we often start too late. Learning does not begin when a child starts reception; it begins the very moment they are born, if not sooner. The skills they develop during the first months and years provide the foundation that children need to thrive in school. Nurseries, pre-schools and childcare providers play a crucial role in helping children build those skills, day by day, through care, routine support and encouragement. That is why Government support to help parents secure high-quality early years provision is so important.
In Bolton North East, we are making progress on early years support. At the Valley community school, Government investment is helping refurbish old spaces, create a new play area and expand nursery provision. Our family hubs—Bright Meadows, Oxford Grove, Tonge and Oldhams—give families somewhere to get support without feeling judged.
That progress matters, but it is not enough on its own. Across Bolton, more than a third of children are starting school without the essential skills that they need, making it harder to learn, communicate and build relationships from day one. For parents wanting to do their best for their children, the core question is whether early years support is accessible, affordable and workable in real life. I say that not just as the MP for Bolton North East, but as a single mum with a young son growing up in Bolton. I have often wondered whose idea it was to have school hours set from 8 am to 3 pm, working hours set from 9 am to 5 pm, and vital services operating within those hours. How on earth are parents supposed to make that work?
One parent in my constituency told me that they had hoped the Government’s expansion of funded childcare from 15 to 30 hours would bring some relief—just that little bit of breathing space, enough to add one more nursery day so that grandparents did not have to keep filling the gap, or flexible working requests did not have to keep being made. But once the provider’s charges for meals and consumables were added in, and because of the way the hours are structured, their bill barely changed and that extra day remained out of reach. Government support is meant to help families, not be lost in extra charges and inflexible arrangements.
This is not about attacking providers. Many early years providers and staff in Bolton do extraordinary work every day, often under real pressure, but at the most crucial point in a child’s development, it is wrong that profit can be made from childcare while families are left fighting for consistent standards, transparency and fairness. As parents, we should not have to rely on guidance that, even when improved on paper, is still inconsistently applied and too weakly enforced. Nor should we have to choose between what we can afford and what our child deserves.
Children cannot build essential skills in a system that does not fit around the realities of family life. Too often, it is still mums who are expected to make it fit. Of course parents make sacrifices every day to help their children develop those essential skills, but our early years model still assumes that someone is at home, usually mum, to bridge the gap between nursery hours and working hours—someone who can do the 3 pm pick-up, cover sick days and leave work the moment nursery calls. In reality, that often means reducing her hours, turning down that promotion, losing income and then being told she is lucky to have flexibility, if she even gets it in the first place.
Too often, flexibility is just another word for women being expected to bend their lives further and further, being made to feel guilty every time they ask for an adjustment, or being told that they are putting their job at risk. It also completely disregards single parents. Parents who need flexible working are too often treated as a problem to be managed, rather than as people who hold families, workplaces and communities together—and then we wonder why birth rates are falling. We cannot keep making motherhood expensive, uncertain and career-damaging and then act surprised when more and more women feel the choice has already been made for them.
My asks of the Minister are simple: strengthen enforcement so funded hours are genuinely free, transparent and usable; review whether funding rates reflect the real costs of high-quality provision; and put the essential skills that children need and the flexibility that families need at the heart of early years reform.
Every child deserves the best start, and that has to be something families feel in the support they receive, in the childcare they can rely on and in the confidence their children carry through the school gate. Having children should not be an unmanageable financial burden. It should not be a choice with a cost attached to it. No one should have to give up their dream of having a family because society is not set up to support them or because it punishes them for doing so, and no parent should have to make the tough choice to say no to having more children simply because they cannot afford to.
Finally, single parents should not fear having to shoulder the responsibility alone. Every parent deserves to be supported by a society that benefits from all of us having children. [Interruption.]
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Given the thunder, I think someone upstairs agrees with you. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship as always, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for highlighting this essential issue. The Democratic Unionist party is committed to the development of early years skills. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), and the Minister in their places. I thank the Minister for all her hard work and wish her well in that role. Whether in strategy or policy, the focus on children is so important.
The importance of investing in children’s essential skills in the early years cannot be overstated. Success in that has been shown to have an impact on broader society and the economy. Studies conducted by the effective pre-school, primary and secondary education project demonstrated that having a trained early years teacher often leads to better long-term chances for children. I have witnessed that as grandfather to six children, and will later mention their progress.
That evidence has sometimes sadly been neglected, as reflected across the United Kingdom where only one in 10 nurseries has an early years teacher. Children with an early years education were found to go on to gain higher English and maths GCSE results, and were more likely to achieve five or more grades A* to C. The facts and evidence base are clearly there. Children who experienced high-quality pre-school education were better at self-regulation, social behaviour and less inclined to hyperactivity. That is all evidence based—I speak according to the evidence. Children who experienced high-quality pre-school settings were more likely to follow a post-16 academic path. Despite that evidence, more than 80% of parents say they have struggled to access services such as parenting support, health visitors and high-quality early education.
I would like to highlight one issue. My son and daughter-in-law control and restrict screen time on the iPad but, over my time as an elected representative, I have noticed one thing coming back from those involved in nurseries and primary school. This is not a criticism, because people deal with things in their own way, but what happens if the child is busy, hyper or giving a bit of bother? They are handed the iPad. It takes their attention and they are okay for a while, but the amount of time a child is on an iPad must be restricted. I am not sure that every parent understands that. That is about teaching skills, not telling them how to parent. It is about making them aware of the issues.
Some of the nursery staff I spoke to told me of the damage of a child being on an iPad screen for three or four hours a day. That will have a very negative effect on the child. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, because that important point is made by nursery school teachers and some parents. Increased screen time for children should be raised as a potential barrier to the development of children’s essential skills.
Adam Dance
I totally agree that screen time can be damaging for young people just given a phone or an iPad, but does the hon. Member not agree that screen time can be beneficial if used in the right way to help people with disabilities such as dyslexia?
Jim Shannon
I agree with the hon. Member. I know that from my grandchildren—the wee ones in particular, who are both educationally challenged—though my son and daughter-in-law restrict time. It is important to have the opportunity, but also to control that time so that it does not impact them adversely. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a tool that can be used for benefit, as well. It is important to put that on the record.
It has been recognised that excessive screen time could limit the vocabulary of children, particularly damaging the ability to speak of those under five. Research found that 98% of two-year-olds watch screens daily. Higher screen time was independently associated with lower vocabulary development: the more the screen time, the less the talking and voice and word development. Children with the highest screen time could say 53% of the 34 test words on average, while those with the lowest screen time could say 65%. It is clear that we need a UK-wide approach to help parents understand why screen time balance is as essential to development as a nutrient-filled diet.
It is vital that outcomes in reading and writing assessments continue to be monitored, in recognition that many children are still underdeveloped in essential skills and may require extra support due to covid educational preventions. I believe that essential skills are also provided by the voluntary sector. I want to mention some of those, such as local churches. We must recognise the volunteers in the Boys’ Brigade and Girls’ Brigade, the Campaigners, the Scouts and so many others who teach skills for badges. Their work with local community groups is so valued and must be highlighted in any debate on essential skills, as a child’s skills are more than academic; they are social and moral as well. So many volunteer organisations sow into children’s lives, and this must be recognised and applauded.
In Northern Ireland, the publication of the 2024-25 end of key stage assessment outcomes highlighted the urgent need for renewed focus on literacy and numeracy. Data showed that 28% of pupils at the end of primary school are not achieving at the expected levels, so there is a real challenge there for us back home, and for the Education Minister to do much better. That is almost three in 10 pupils, to give an idea of the significance. That is of significant concern particularly as the foundational skills and the basics are essential for pupils’ future learning, wellbeing and life opportunity. I will finish with this mantra: every child should be allowed the best start in life, and it is our duty as elected representatives in positions of power—whether MPs here or representatives in the regional Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—to ensure that future generations are protected. We can do that if we choose to do that. I look forward to what the Minister will say to encourage us all.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on this really important debate. I hear an awful lot of guff and bluster in this place, and I just wish that we had more of these sorts of debates. I am only sorry that there is not a single Member of His Majesty’s Opposition on the Back Benches.
I will take us back to the skills required by preschool children, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), because an essential skill for children is the ability to read, and 2026 is the National Year of Reading. In collaboration with the National Literacy Trust, the Department for Education is seeking to address the steep decline in reading among children and young people.
A child’s earliest years are crucial to their development and life chances. When children start school, early communication and language skills make a huge difference. Being able to talk, listen, understand words and share stories helps children make friendships, ask for help from teachers and participate in learning and play. Literacy and communication skills lay the foundation for children to enjoy and take part in all aspects of school life, from imaginary games in the playground to activities in the classroom.
These skills impact children’s success later too, which is why their start at school really matters. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, children who have good language skills at the age of five are far more likely to achieve the expected levels at the age of 11. Yet at a time when parents face enormous pressures, more than one quarter of five-year-olds in Cornwall start school without the communication, language and literacy skills that they need to thrive. For too long, our society has been failing Cornish children—not just them, clearly, but children all over the country. Research consistently shows that the home learning environment—the activities that children engage in at home, such as chatting, singing, sharing stories and playing outside—has a powerful impact.
The National Literacy Trust’s Early Words Matter campaign supports parents and carers to build their children’s early language, communication and literacy skills. In my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, the Everyone Ready for School project run by the National Literacy Trust in Cornwall provides early literacy support for families with children starting school soon. It offers free books—more than 4,000 have been distributed already—as well as resources, events and activities in the local community, empowering parents and children as they prepare together for the adventure of starting school. But the National Literacy Trust needs to secure funding for its remarkable ongoing work across one of the most deprived regions of northern Europe. I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address that funding point when she responds to the debate.
I am proud to say that I am a literacy champion for the National Literacy Trust in Cornwall. By working together with parents, teachers, early years professionals, volunteers and the wider community, the National Literacy Trust in Cornwall hopes to inspire parents to feel confident, knowing the amazing role that they play in their child’s school journey. The way that parents and children spend time together now is preparing children to succeed and be happy at school.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this really important debate.
Whether children leave school with the skills that they need is not just an education question but an economic one, and one that the Government have a particular responsibility to get right. As mentioned, the Milburn review, “Young People and Work”, published just last week, underlines how complex and deep-rooted the problems are and how much depends on getting the foundations right. Skills England has noted that members of the UK workforce are more likely to be underqualified for their occupations than counterparts in other OECD countries. We are talking about 26% of UK workers, against an OECD average of 18%. That is not an accident; it is the accumulated consequences of choices made about what we teach, how we teach it and whom we invest in earliest.
If we want to understand where things go wrong, we should start at the beginning, as the hon. Members for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others have highlighted. The early years foundation stage data for 2024-25 shows that 68% of children achieved a good level of development at the end of reception, meaning that nearly one in three did not, falling short on personal, social and emotional development, physical development, communication, literacy or numeracy. Children who arrive behind tend to stay behind. The attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers opens early and rarely closes, sadly.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member is making a really important point about the need to focus on early years. Given that, does he regret the decision taken by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government in 2010 to cut Sure Start?
Ian Sollom
The point is well made about the importance of early years. That decision was sadly before my time, but it has certainly had consequences that we should all attempt to put right.
Investment in high-quality early years provision, properly funded and staffed, is the most cost-effective skills intervention available for the long term. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the curriculum review, but we are concerned about the scrapping of the EBacc, at least in isolation—that is to say, without more clarity about accountability. The EBacc fulfilled an important role in mainstreaming subjects that were in decline, such as the humanities and languages. The right response to that is to build on its success by broadening it further to encompass arts, coding and physical education, rather than removing the accountability framework altogether. Without clear guidance, vital subjects risk being sidelined as schools struggle with budget pressures. That is why the Government’s commitment to give arts GCSEs equal status to humanities and introduce a core enrichment entitlement matters. It is also why the test now is whether those commitments translate into actual curriculum time in actual schools—particularly those serving disadvantaged communities, where the squeeze has been sharpest.
It is important to recognise that breadth is only part of the answer; the quality and relevance of the core curriculum matters just as much. Too many young people leave school without feeling equipped to use maths in their lives or careers. Financial literacy, data interpretation and proportional reasoning are not optional extras but critical foundations. We should be asking not just whether children can pass their maths exam but whether the maths they are taught actually serves them.
That same question—does what we teach serve children in the world they are entering?—applies in many respects. The hon. Member for Bracknell and others highlighted civic skills, and I would pick up artificial intelligence, given the world we are entering. The curriculum review is the right moment to embed AI literacy, not simply as a bolt-on qualification but as a genuine thread running throughout what children learn. Understanding those tools and their capabilities and limits is becoming a basic competency. The Government’s instinct is right, and we encourage real ambition in following it through.
Skills alone are not enough if children cannot see where they might take them. Even a child who leaves school with strong skills, broad knowledge and digital fluency may still struggle if nobody has helped them to see what is possible, so careers guidance really matters. It matters most for the children who do not have family networks reaching into professional life. For children in that position, a well-timed conversation about what their aptitudes could lead to is not peripheral support; it is transformative. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the earlier that guidance begins, the more powerful it is.
To pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), children with SEND must be included in every part of our ambition for essential skills. Too many children with SEND still cannot access support for their education, health and care plans. The system remains slow and adversarial, and is too dependent on families fighting for entitlements that should be automatic. Early identification and intervention is not happening at the scale or pace required, and when that does not happen, the consequences are compounded through adolescence and into adulthood.
The Government’s reforms are a step in the right direction, and we genuinely welcome their intent, but SEND reforms must be judged not by the stated intentions but by the outcomes for children. That is the standard we will continue to hold the Government to.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan, and may there be many more. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for opening the debate, and for his thoughtful contributions that we have heard throughout. I know that he is a long-standing champion of this issue, for which he made his case, and I am sure we will hear more from him. I also thank all Members across the House who made contributions.
In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who I thought made a really valid contribution. Having just welcomed my third child, and having seen the sacrifice that mums make, I can attest to the fact that she made some very valid points, and she will certainly get a lot of sympathy from me. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about screen time. With three children under five, I can tell him that the battle of the screen time has already begun; I know the anguish that parents face, so I have a huge amount of sympathy.
While I am always careful not to talk about silver bullets in politics, I believe that education is a silver bullet that can transform a child’s life and their chances. School is an essential part of a young person’s development, equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in life. The academic lessons we learn in the classroom prepare us for the world of work, and the social lessons we learn in school teach us so much that will be needed later in life.
The official Opposition are very clear that our children deserve a first-class education, and I am proud that the previous Conservative Government delivered a world-class curriculum to facilitate that. Under previous Conservative Governments, England became one of the top performing countries in education; children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and we were ranked the best at maths in the western world in 2023, according to international standards. At the heart of those results was the previous Government’s rigorous curriculum, which raised standards and helped pupils soar up the international league tables.
This debate has centred on some of the softer but equally important skills that a good education can instil in a young person. While I believe that we cannot underplay the importance of academic rigour, this debate plays a vital role in getting our young people ready for life—or the school of life, shall we say. There is no doubt that so much more needs to be done to ensure that our young people are equipped with the right essential skills.
I would like to go back a few years. I believe that the pandemic played a huge role in some of the outcomes that our young people are facing. Many of them spent time away from home and outside the classroom, which really impacted on skills. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment on whether the Government should be working to fill those gaps and ensure that those people are supported into adulthood.
The Opposition are clear that a rigorous curriculum that demands high standards is vital to developing critical skills, which is important in areas such as maths and literacy, and the previous Conservative Government are really proud of our legacy of driving up standards. However, I am concerned about some of the changes in the curriculum review. While I agree with many of its principles, I worry that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
I want to talk about the practical implementation of the curriculum to see whether the Minister can shed some light on it. We all want to see our children equipped with the skills that are needed in life. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about getting our children ready for the digital age, especially with the onset of AI and the waves of disinformation we are seeing online. As a former tech Minister, I share those concerns.
I invite the Minister to discuss what she thinks the new curriculum will do to ensure that our children are ready for the advent of AI, as it is already upon us. Does she worry that we risk diluting the core education that I mentioned, which underpins our academic success and those high standards? What will be sacrificed to deliver some of that extra work? This will also be incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, the Government have decided to push down the voting age to 16. If millions of young people are enfranchised in that way, how will the Minister be confident that they will have the skills to engage in our democracy? How will they be encouraged to critically analyse the information they are given?
In addition, I would like clarity from the Government on the time being taken away from core education. How will they ensure that time is given to the new aspects of the curriculum review to ensure that high standards are achieved? When the Government have been challenged previously by Opposition Members, they have not been forthcoming on that issue. Parents and students are anxious about how the reforms will change their education in the long term, so I invite the Minister to give a bit more clarity, specifically on the citizenship curriculum. As for teaching, what training will teachers require to be ready for those changes?
On financial literacy and education, we can all recognise the benefits of ensuring that young people enter adulthood knowing how to manage their money. In 2023, the “Building Beyond Barriers” report by the all-party group on financial education for young people found that more than half of teachers did not know that financial education was already part of the curriculum. As the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made clear in a report last week, the importance of financial education cannot be overstated. That report found that
“Four in ten people in the UK have poor financial literacy”,
which is holding back our economy.
The APPG’s report also found that one of the barriers to delivering financial education was a feeling that there is simply not enough time in the school year to deliver those lessons—a similar argument to the one I just made about citizenship lessons. So I ask the Minister: how will they be implemented? Other Members asked about the standards that will be expected. What assessments will be in place to make sure that the quality of the education is of the highest level?
Focusing on core skills does make sense in this regard because good maths is a gateway to lifelong financial stability. That is not just my opinion; the programme for international student assessment found a strong correlation between performance in financial literacy and performance in mathematics. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering the skills education that we have discussed today in an appropriate way in the classroom. But a key part of that is innovation, and the Government’s compulsory curriculum risks inhibiting that innovation from teachers. The Government’s curriculum review praised innovation in teaching and made clear the benefits of flexibility for teachers, but I worry that the opposite will happen in practice.
Lastly, in my regular meetings with stakeholders—both in education and industry— and when I have spoken to students, I hear time and again about the importance of better career support in schools. Understanding the world of work and what steps are needed to get to where a person wants to be in later life are essential. Young people are seeing profound and substantial changes in the world of work, none more so than the impact of AI on professional careers, such as accountancy and law. With that in mind, it is more important than ever that young people are equipped with the right skills to navigate a changing world of employment and the economy at large. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the work that she will do with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that young people get the quality career advice that they need.
Children deserve a world-class curriculum that sets them up for the best possible chance in life. I support a knowledge-rich curriculum and will continue to urge the Government to answer some of the constructive questions that the Opposition have put forward. We all want to ensure that our young people have the best chances in life and also have the skills to live their lives and thrive.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome today’s constructive and thoughtful debate and the constructive tone of both the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I know we all share a desire to ensure that our children are supported to grow up into well-rounded adults. It is brilliant to see young people in the Gallery listening to the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing this debate. He has been such a champion of these issues, and almost on a daily, or at least weekly, basis he stops me to discuss these questions. As he said, I have visited his constituency and seen some of the work that he is leading in practice. As we have heard today, these are massively important topics. The Milburn review has shown the real cost of unemployment for young people and how critical it is to ensure that they have the skills that can support them into the workplace, but also, as we have heard from so many people, support them to be active citizens participating in community life.
I will start where my hon. Friend did in his speech and focus on the importance of children and young people feeling confident to face challenges and shape the world around them. So much change is happening, and we cannot fully imagine the world that young people will go out into. It is therefore critical that they have the core foundations of knowledge as well as a love of learning. We want young people to return to and enjoy learning as their time in the workplace goes on; learning should be core throughout their lives. They must feel that they have the skills to be able to deal with uncertainty, to shape the world and to feel confident. So many young people tell me that that is not how they feel at the moment. That is why the curriculum and assessment review and this debate are so important.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked whether we have to choose between knowledge and skills and standards and inclusion. For me, they are two sides of the same coin. It is absolutely critical that we support our children to attain academically. We all know that too many young people are being left behind, and we have stark gaps for disadvantaged young people that we need to address. A big part of that is how they are engaged in education. School has to be unmissable, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said, the joy of learning is critical. It is important that children are engaged and want to come to school to develop their knowledge, whether that is through enrichment or through teaching the core things that they really want to know about, such as financial education.
In this Chamber and the main Chamber, we often talk about inclusion and the importance of supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to feel a sense of wellbeing and belonging. Too often, they have not felt that, and that has left them feeling disengaged from education. We will pursue both knowledge and skills and inclusion and high standards for our young people.
We have heard throughout the debate about the curriculum and assessment review and the work that we commissioned Professor Becky Francis to do with an incredibly expert panel. It did a really careful and thoughtful piece of work for the Government, setting out the things that it felt needed to change to support children to be able to go out confidently into the modern world. Lots of the themes that came up in this debate—media literacy, digital literacy, the importance of citizenship, oracy—came out in the review, and we have committed to embedding them. In terms of next steps, a huge amount of work is going on to draft programmes of study and to test them with a range of different partners. We have committed to giving schools four terms to prepare for implementing the new curriculum.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about space in the curriculum. What was really powerful about the work that Dr Becky Francis led was that it gave careful thought to the sequencing of the curriculum, how things fit together and how duplication can be prevented. We are developing a digital curriculum for the first time, so it will be much easier for teachers to make links between different subjects.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell also raised enrichment and its importance in making school unmissable and making young people excited about coming to school. I travel around the country talking to young people, and they often say that it is the thing they really look forward to and that it helps them to feel part of the wider school community. We will publish an enrichment framework with a focus on developing wider life skills relating to arts and culture, civic engagement, nature, outdoor adventure, and sport and physical activities.
Many Members made really important points about making sure that the enrichment offer is open to students who feel further away from those opportunities, and we are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to build up the enrichment offer in 400 schools in the most disadvantaged areas. We are investing £22.5 million from the dormant assets fund to make that a reality, as well as working with a whole range of partners to ensure that the enrichment framework for all schools is a really powerful tool.
Another point raised by a number of Members was about citizenship and political education. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) made a really powerful speech about how important that is for votes at 16, but also for our democratic institutions and our ability to disagree agreeably and have these political debates. When we have so much misinformation and division, embedding that in our education system is incredibly important. We have committed to citizenship being statutory in key stages 1 and 2, and to strengthening and modernising citizenship across the curriculum, looking at many of the themes that we have talked about, including media literacy.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about digital literacy and AI and about making sure that those are core skills. We are looking to embed key areas such as digital and media literacy across the curriculum, because every single subject will have an element of these AI and digital skills, but we are also refreshing the computing GCSE so that particular content is focused on that.
On media literacy, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) mentioned misinformation. That is another really important theme that will sit in citizenship but also in other subjects. In history, for instance, people will really think about sources and how to decipher information, and in English people will look at emotive language. Those are areas where we can look at these core themes embedded into the wider curriculum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and others mentioned financial literacy, which comes up more than anything else from young people as being a skill that they really want to have and learn about. We are working across the maths curriculum and the wider piece to look at how we really embed financial literacy, and we will be doing a number of test and learns around implementation and working with teachers.
Turning to the different contributions on early years childcare, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). She made an incredibly powerful speech about what a lifeline childcare is for families, and I completely agree. I see that all the time as a constituency MP, and particularly how essential it is for mums, who often end up doing so much of that childcare. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the 30 hours of free childcare; that has made a difference for people taking up the full entitlement, which we think has saved them an average of £8,000. She also mentioned how fees and different practices can pull away at some of that really important cost of living support. The Secretary of State for Education has written to the Competition and Markets Authority to request a review of the early years childcare market, which is to look precisely at many of the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is worth having a look at that letter, and it is a really important issue to pursue.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of early years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke powerfully about the long-term impact of delayed language development for children. Sadly, since the pandemic we have seen many more children coming into school with delayed language. We know the long-term impact on children, so that has been a key focus for the Government in developing Best Start hubs, which will give that wraparound support to children, but also introducing new programmes such as the early language support programme, which brings NHS services to schools to identify needs earlier, and the Nuffield early learning intervention programme, which puts support in for reception children. I would be interested to hear more about what is going on in Cornwall and some of the challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, and to discuss that further. This is also a key part of our thinking around the SEND reforms, putting more investment, earlier, into speech and language support and the new Experts at Hand service, which will include speech and language therapists.
Jim Shannon
First, may I welcome the Minister’s comments on all the issues that have been raised, particularly mine on screen time? Sometimes we must engage with parents in a way that shows that we understand that children should be given a bit of time on their iPads but that that time should be restricted, too. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. We have developed guidance for parents to support them with screen time in early years. As a parent of a two-and-a-half-year-old, I know how confusing it can be. It is not something that I was spoken to about when I had my son. It is important we have guidance that is not judgmental but gives parents the best advice. We have put that out now. A lot of expertise has gone into developing it and I have had really positive feedback. Certainly, I have found it very helpful personally in shaping those important decisions. It is also important that through our Best Start hubs we are able to have that conversation and support for children, not just about not being on screens, but about what engagement looks like: what are the activities, how does one encourage a child to speak, and as they get older what are the enrichment activities that they can engage in after the school day?
The hon. Member for Yeovil is always a passionate advocate of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and I welcome him mentioning that as part of these wider issues. On the questions on identifying needs, he will know that we are developing national inclusion standards which include research into identification around the needs we have set out in our SEND consultation document. That work is ongoing and it will form part of national inclusion standards. We are working on appointing the panel of independent experts at the moment. It is critical that we get that right, and have that early identification of needs, whether on speech and language or others.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of support for young people who are constantly having to re-sit English and maths. He will know we have been consulting on a new level 1 English and maths qualification, which is precisely designed to support children and young people to consolidate their knowledge and be a gateway qualification to deal with exactly that problem, which is one I have heard time and time again.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister for giving way and for answering all my questions, as always. Concerned parents in Yeovil also tell me that kids who have autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, sensory issues or attention deficit disorder cannot find apprenticeships or work, nor have they had help developing the skills they need to get into the creative or agricultural sector. Can the Minister set out what more the Government are doing to support rural schools and employers to get neurodiverse people into those industries?
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate that question. Again, talking to families and young people around the country, that comes up all the time. I welcomed the Milburn review’s focus on the experience of young people with SEND and disabilities, and on some of those barriers. There is action we are already taking, through supported internships and our work with further education, but it is an area in which we need to go further. It is something we are continuing to work on with the Department for Work and Pensions. I am happy to have further conversations about those issues.
I want to conclude by thanking everyone for this really important debate. These are areas we are actively looking at as we develop the new curriculum and think about developing the oracy framework we have committed to. Employers have said to us that it is essential young people have the skills they need for later life. Many of us will have seen how powerful some of these interventions are. I was recently with the Duke of Edinburgh, talking to young people in a school in my constituency. They talked about the confidence and problem-solving skills that the programme gave them, changing their sense of what was possible for them. That sits alongside the core knowledge that young people must learn, supporting young adults to be well rounded and able to shape their futures confidently. I hope that we can continue these conversations, as a lot of important ideas were mentioned today. We will consult fully on the new curriculum, which I am sure that all Members will look at with interest.
Peter Swallow
I thank Members for taking part in today’s debate. It has been fantastic to hear support from across the House for improving access to skills for our young people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for reminding us that skills can be delivered across the curriculum. Classics is an excellent example, as it can teach young people not just about declensions, but democracy; not just Augustus, but oracy. Other subjects are available.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) is a doughty champion for young people, particularly those with SEND. He made many excellent points about some of the barriers faced by young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) was right to highlight early years. I am grateful for the work being done in Bracknell Forest to roll out new services through our Government-backed Best Start family hub.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought, as always, a thoughtful insight from the Northern Irish perspective. He was right to highlight the need for screen time guidance, which I know the Government are committed to delivering. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) raise the issue of reading. As a member of the Education Committee, I have been working on its inquiry into reading for pleasure. The evidence we have heard was echoed in my hon. Friend’s contribution.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on the EBacc. As the Minister has heard me say many times before, it did not support all humanities subjects equally. Citizenship GCSE, for example, was not included. I do, however, welcome his comments about early years and careers guidance.
I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for his contribution, but I will quote to him from Alan Milburn’s interim report, which says
“the school system is built on young people gaining qualifications which is not the same as ensuring they are ready for work.”
I encourage the hon. Member to read Milburn’s interim report thoroughly.
Finally, I thank the Minister for all the work she is doing in this space. I am excited to see the enrichment framework when it comes forward. I will scrutinise it closely, as she would expect, but I welcome her commitment to delivering it inclusively. As we have all agreed today, getting this right is crucial to supporting our young people’s futures. We all want to see opportunities for young people in our constituencies, and that is what has inspired each of us to speak today. I thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, and all Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for children developing essential skills.
Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered silica dust exposure in the workplace.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I want to begin by paying tribute to my constituent Caroline Hudson and her sister Sandra, who are both here today. I thank them for their determination in bringing this issue to me and the wider public. None of us should underestimate how difficult it is to relive the loss of a loved one in public, but they are doing so because they do not want other families to suffer the same heartbreak.
Sandra’s husband, George Elliott, was a keen golfer, a proud Spurs fan and a man deeply loved by his family and friends. He was a highly skilled stonemason who worked on buildings including 10 Downing Street. George died in November 2023 from silicosis, a devastating lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust. His family did not know that he had silicosis until his post-mortem. By then it was too late. Before his death, George suffered through severe breathing difficulties, constant exhaustion, oxygen dependency and the cruel deterioration that the disease inflicts upon its victims.
Silicosis is progressive and incurable. Tiny silica particles become embedded in the lungs, causing inflammation and permanent scarring. Over time, lung capacity is destroyed. Victims struggle to breathe, struggle to work and struggle to live normal lives. It also dramatically increases the risk of other serious illnesses, including tuberculosis, kidney disease, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer.
The key thing about silicosis is that it is preventable. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that around 600,000 workers in the UK are exposed to silica dust every year, yet for far too long the Government’s response has not matched the scale or seriousness of the threat. One of my uncles died from mesothelioma. We cannot let silica dust inhalation become another scandal on the scale of asbestos.
It is important to note that silicosis is increasingly affecting young workers—people in their 20s and 30s—and that the increase is largely due to engineered stone. The rise in the popularity of engineered stone has transformed modern kitchens, and these products are now everywhere, but many engineered stones contain extraordinarily high levels of silica—in some cases, up to 95%. When dry cut without proper controls, they release enormous quantities of deadly dust into the air.
The current system is leaving workers vulnerable. I welcome the recent steps the HSE has taken, following public concern and pressure from campaigners, clinicians and affected families. It has declared the dry cutting of engineered stone to be unacceptable, and introduced new guidance requiring water-suppression techniques, respiratory protective equipment and health surveillance, and a programme of more than 1,000 inspections across the UK.
However, there are concerns that the HSE’s current resources, enforcement powers and inspection capacity are not sufficient to deal with what could become a major national occupational health crisis. There is a fear that enforcement remains inconsistent, and that rogue operators continue to evade scrutiny altogether. Does the Minister believe the HSE has the capacity, staffing and resources necessary to effectively regulate the sector? If not, what additional support will be provided?
Australia has already prohibited engineered stone, following hundreds of silicosis cases among workers, and last week California took the first step in that direction. There should be absolute agreement on some fundamental principles: exposure limits must be rigorously enforced, proper personal protective equipment must be mandatory, workers must receive proper training, and health surveillance must become vastly more robust.
Australia’s national screening programme identified hundreds of cases that otherwise might not have been detected until the disease had progressed to a dangerous stage. Experts there found that one in four screened workers had silicosis. Why are we not introducing a targeted national screening programme here in the UK for workers in high-risk sectors, such as kitchen fitters, stonemasons and construction workers? There needs to be a large public awareness campaign for those potentially at risk and for NHS practitioners.
I would like to recognise the journalists who have been campaigning and raising awareness of this issue, including Joe Duggan at The i Paper, and the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Recent analysis provided to senior NHS officials and reported by The i Paper suggests that more than 1,000 UK stonemasons could already have silicosis linked to exposure to engineered stone. The same report estimates that around 4,000 workers in the UK may be operating in informal or illegal parts of the industry, where basic safety protections are routinely ignored.
Silica safety should form part of compulsory training in construction, stonemasonry and apprenticeship schemes. Real-time dust-extraction systems should be properly explored and rolled out where appropriate. Occupational health records and GP systems should better identify workers exposed to silica, so that symptoms are not repeatedly missed or dismissed.
One of the most alarming aspects of this crisis is that we still do not know its true scale. It beggars belief that silicosis was removed from the official list of notifiable occupational diseases in 2013. As a result, cases are frequently hidden within broader categories such as lung cancer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Exposure to RCS dust causes significant occupational health issues, and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland estimates that silica dust exposure is responsible for some 20 lung cancer deaths per year. A quarry worker in Northern Ireland is five times more likely to die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the general male population. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we must ensure that workplaces have the tools and knowledge required to put in place effective protections for workers and visitors to such sites?
Liz Jarvis
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for all his work with the APPG. He is of course right: it is vital that we ensure that all workers have the proper protection.
Experts repeatedly warn that silicosis is being underdiagnosed and under-reported, so will the Minister consider how best to collect comprehensive national data on silicosis? Why are we not routinely publishing figures on diagnoses, deaths and occupational exposure? How can policymakers, clinicians and regulators properly respond to a growing occupational health crisis if we do not even have accurate national data?
The APPG for respiratory health and experts have argued that silicosis should once again become a notifiable disease. There are also calls for mandatory or greatly strengthened reporting through schemes such as SWORD —the surveillance of work-related and occupational respiratory disease. I hope the Minister will respond positively to these proposals today.
Early diagnosis matters enormously. Removing workers from exposure early can prevent disease progression in many cases. It can save lives and prevent long-term costs to the NHS. I know the Government have committed to increasing capacity in respiratory services and that the NHS has specialist centres for diagnosing and managing lung diseases such as silicosis. That is welcome, but we need to go further than treatment alone. Prevention must come first, with earlier detection, stronger enforcement and dramatically improved awareness.
I hope that, in the spirit of this debate, we can work on a cross-party basis to ensure stronger legal protections, earlier detection, and meaningful action before more lives are destroyed and more families suffer the heartbreak that George Elliott’s family have endured.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
By prior agreement, Ian Lavery will now speak. There is sufficient time for him to have five minutes, if he would like.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this timely debate on a really serious issue, and on making a very strong speech.
This debate is on silica dust in the workplace, which causes the deadly disease silicosis. What is silicosis? It is a progressive, incurable lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica. It leads to scarring, reduced lung capacity, respiratory failure and increased risk of infection. Accelerated silicosis develops after only a few years of high exposure, and is increasingly common among individuals using engineered stone. Silicosis carries significant social and economic consequences for all affected workers and, of course, their families.
Who is affected by silicosis? The highest-risk groups include engineered stone fabricators and installers, construction and demolition workers, those involved in quarrying, mining and tunnelling, and foundry workers. Younger workers are disproportionately represented in new cases. Migrant workers and workers in precarious employment also face heightened risk due to poor protections.
Silicosis is preventable, but only if we actually act. Engineered stone is the new asbestos, and we are repeating the same mistakes. Young workers are being exposed to lethal dust for the sake of kitchen worktops. If we wait, we will be paying for this, in people’s lives and in compensation, for decades. We have to ask: should anybody lose their life for kitchen worktops? That is the basics of it.
Silicosis cases are rising, especially among workers cutting engineered stone. The current legislation—the control of substances hazardous to health regulations—is not being enforced effectively, leaving workers exposed. Engineered stone that has extremely high silica content, sometimes of more than 90%, has been identified as the primary driver of new cases. Surveillance and reporting systems are fragmented, leading to underdiagnosis and under-reporting. I think the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the recommendation of a national strategy including stronger enforcement, improved surveillance, mandatory training, and potentially the prohibition of high-silica engineered stone.
What action is needed? I ask the Minister for a co-ordinated, multi-pillar national strategy, which would include the consideration of a ban on high-silica engineered stone, strengthened enforcement of existing regulations, improved surveillance and mandatory reporting, national education initiatives, and long-term support and compensation pathways for affected workers. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, there is also a need for cross-party and cross-Government leadership on this issue.
In concluding, I associate myself with The i Paper “Killer Kitchens” campaign, led by journalist Joe Duggan, and I urge everyone to join that campaign. It is extremely important in highlighting the dangers of dry cutting quartz kitchen worktops. Minister, we cannot have people dying so that people can have nice worktops. I will conclude with that.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to her for her consistent work on this issue in supporting her constituent, Caroline Hudson, whose brother-in-law, George Elliott, tragically died of silicosis, as we have heard.
I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) in his place, as he invariably is for debates on health and safety matters, and to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too.
I am the Minister responsible for health and safety in the workplace and for the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE. There has rightly been a lot of interest and correspondence lately about the increased dangers of silicosis resulting from engineered stone, the concerns that have been raised in this debate. Workers—often quite young people, as we have heard—who have worked with engineered stone have been made seriously ill or even, on occasion, lost their lives. I want to extend my deepest sympathy to all individuals and families affected.
We have been rightly informed that respirable crystalline silica—RCS—is a fine dust. It cannot normally be seen by the naked eye when airborne, but it does generally arise in visibly dusty processes. It is breathed in through the nose and mouth, can stay in the lungs for years and can cause irreversible lung damage before any symptoms become apparent. The illness it causes can continue to worsen after exposure stops. Breathing in RCS can lead to silicosis and the very serious harms we have heard about. It can also lead to other problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said.
Every worker should be able to return home safe from work without fear of succumbing to a preventable deadly lung disease. Silica dust risks have long been recognised but we now know that engineered stone can contain very high concentrations of crystalline silica, as we have been reminded. What is particularly alarming in the past couple of years is the emergence of accelerated silicosis, which is linked to the processing of engineered stone containing high levels of silica at a much higher throughput without effective exposure controls being in place.
As one might expect, engineered stone can be processed much more quickly than natural stone and that means that the volume of silica dust a worker can be exposed to is much greater. As a result, we have seen across the world rapid onset of illness after quite short exposure periods, with severe and irreversible lung damage occurring. As we have rightly been told in this debate, all of that is preventable where exposure to silica dust is controlled. We are determined that it should be prevented. It is well known, as we have been reminded, that Australia introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, and California is now considering a similar approach.
It is worth noting, though, that the danger of silicosis arises from natural stone, not just engineered stone. Having introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, Australia then introduced restrictions on the use of natural stone in September of that year. We are not currently proposing a ban in the UK, because we do not think that is the right approach. HSE is working closely here with the Worktop Fabricators Federation. That has developed, in conjunction with the British Occupational Health Society, for which I have a high regarded, a quality mark for worktops, to reassure consumers that they are buying a worktop that has been produced safely, not putting workers at risk. It has a logo and the wording
“strict silica safety standards applied”.
Being able to display that quality mark is dependent on the fabricator demonstrating to a registered occupational hygienist compliance with a 16-point list, including, for example, point number 3:
“The use of lower silica products (below 30%) wherever possible.”
Accredited products can now be bought from some retailers listed on the Worktop Fabricators Federation website.
As I said, we are going to keep this closely under review, though we are not currently proposing a ban on engineered stone in the UK. It would not solve the problem in workplaces that did not have adequate safeguards, because as I have said, problems can arise with natural stone. And the evidence is clear that workers can be protected from the dangers of engineered stone if the right control measures are in place. Those controls need to be in place now to make sure that exposure to harmful dust does not occur.
One difference with Australia is the concern there about the safety of people installing the worktops. That has not been raised with me as yet. The risk that we have identified here is to people in workshops cutting the materials ahead of installation. There is a serious problem there, but of course it is possible that the problem could arise in installation as well, and we will keep this closely under review.
A ban could lead to unintended consequences with alternative, less well-known materials introducing new risks. Last week, the Health and Safety Executive met Safe Work Australia—the body responsible—to discuss the impact of the ban there. It did an initial review and it identified potential concerns that the ban had led to complacency about the safety of other products that are not prohibited, suggesting that they were assumed to be safe to use without control measures when actually they are not. Control measures are needed for those products as well. But we are going to keep in touch with Safe Work Australia and keep the experience of the ban in Australia under review.
A lot of workers in Britain work with these materials every day. Workers and their employers need to understand that controls to prevent exposure are essential, not optional. For many decades, we have had in place a robust regulatory framework—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, known as COSHH. That includes the need for control measures, substitution with less harmful materials, and health surveillance. There is also a workplace exposure limit of 0.1 mg per cubic metre for working with silica. That ceiling must not be exceeded, but those with duties are required to minimise exposure below that level. The HSE has published a range of practical guidance—some of it very recent—for those where risks are highest. That is focused on the need to control the dust at source. But the law and guidance are effective only when followed, and it is here that the HSE is now focusing its efforts.
Over the last two years, the HSE has been building the evidence base, working with suppliers and developing an effective response. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh welcome that activity recently.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment. I may be able to later.
Last month, the HSE launched a campaign specifically on this area of risk, with dedicated pages and resources on the HSE’s Work Right website. Media activity supported the launch; there was coverage in national publications and trade media, as well as the HSE appearing at the Natural Stone Show at the Excel centre in London.
Also last month, the HSE published new COSHH guidance for those working with engineered stone. Businesses now have unambiguous instructions on what the law requires for compliance to be achieved. The guidance sets out what is expected to protect workers: water suppression of dust and mist control, appropriate respiratory protective equipment and effective ventilation. Those are not optional extras; they are what is required to comply with the law. Dry cutting of engineered stone is not acceptable. It must not happen anywhere. When dry cutting happens, workers will be inhaling significant quantities of silica dust. Where it remains on their clothing, they are also potentially spreading that silica dust to others.
The HSE has also strengthened its guidance on health surveillance to make it clear that where there is a risk of exposure, employers must ensure that workers’ health is regularly monitored. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh correctly raised.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. The dangers are significant for those who visit factories and quarry sites. The Minister outlined that there is a strict statutory need for protective clothing and respiratory mouth covers. Is that the true for people who visit these sites, so they are not affected by this as well?
Sir Stephen Timms
Employers need to take care that visitors to their premises are protected. What is being done includes making sure that workers at risk are having respiratory health checks, lung function testing and X-rays at intervals decided by an occupational health professional, and that employers have clear processes for identifying and reporting symptoms. In this debate, the importance of carrying out reporting has rightly been identified. The HSE is currently consulting on expanding the requirements in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations to include silicosis once again. The consultation on that is under way, and it will conclude at the end of the month. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was quite right to raise that issue.
For those who choose not to comply with the law, we need effective enforcement. Starting in April and throughout the summer, HSE will be carrying out more than 1,000 inspections across the industry. It will inspect every place that we know of where this stone is being cut— if anyone knows of a place that we may not be aware of, please let me know; I want to make sure that HSE can go and look at it. HSE has carried out 13 inspections since they started at the end of April. Those were visits to places that concern was expressed to us about. Out of the 13 inspections so far, two businesses had ceased trading, but six of the remaining 11 were made to stop processing immediately. Prohibition notices were served for dry processing, unguarded machinery or both. Eight businesses received improvement notices for failing to provide the correct respiratory equipment, while eight received them for failing to provide health surveillance for employees. Just one of the 13 was operating in an exemplary way.
Through the programme, HSE will inspect every site it can identify in the country that works with engineered stone. HSE’s inspectors are being briefed on the programme this week. The resources are available to do the job properly, and inspections are under way across the country. Wherever standards are not met, enforcement action will be taken, including a prohibition notice if necessary. As a result of the inspections, HSE may give a duty holder advice or, where there are more significant concerns, issue improvement or prohibition notices that require a duty holder to make improvements or stop dangerous activities altogether. The inspections are now under way, and we are determined to drive out the poor practice behind the problems we have heard about in this debate.
We remain committed to ensuring that every worker in every sector is properly protected from this entirely avoidable harm. I welcome the contributions of Members who spoke today. I commend the campaign of The i Paper on this issue and all those who are working to highlight this important and alarming development. I will continue to monitor the evidence available in this country and keep an eye on what is going on elsewhere in the world. I will be very happy to consider further measures if it becomes clear that they are needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Preparedness for National Emergencies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered preparedness for national emergencies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and I am grateful to colleagues for coming to this important debate. As the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has set out, the assumptions underpinning UK security are being challenged to an unprecedented degree in what it describes as
“an era of radical uncertainty”.
This is not a distant or theoretical challenge; it is happening now, and it is shaping the lives of our constituents already. We are rightly beginning to recognise that resilience at home—across our infrastructure, our communities and our economy—is vital. In opening this debate, I want to do four things: reflect on a recent example of where preparedness fell short; set out the changing nature of the threats we face; address the need for stronger co-ordination across Government; and reflect on the role of the public.
During Storm Éowyn in January 2025, thousands of homes across my constituency lost power, many for several days. That came during a period of cold weather, leaving people without heating, electricity and, in some cases, access to essential medical equipment. People did not know where to turn, but they were receiving inconsistent information and had very little clarity on when the situation would improve. What stood out to me was not a lack of commitment, as energy companies, emergency services, local authorities and community organisations worked tirelessly. What it showed was that when the system came under real strain, the weaknesses were clear. Preparedness cannot be about having plans on paper; it must be about whether those plans work when they are actually needed.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It was really useful to observe the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Resilience Forum test exercise to understand what could go wrong and how it would deal with it. Does my hon. Friend agree that local resilience forums are crucial to our preparedness in national emergencies, because they know what our local communities need?
Graeme Downie
I could not agree more. A lot of planning had gone into severe weather events in Fife over the years, but it had never been tested. A lot of it was out of date, and staff had moved on. For example, in High Valleyfield, a former coal-mining village, there was an almost 10-year-old resilience plan that said that the local community centre would be opened. The community knew about the plan, but the council had totally forgotten about it. They did not even know who had the keys for the community centre, so the community figured it out for themselves.
Broader lessons were also highlighted during that event, such as vulnerable customer data not being shared, confusion about support for care homes, a lack of generators, limited logistical capacity to deploy that provision, and access to temporary accommodation. Those are very practical failings, but they had very real consequences. The challenges we face now are broad and evolving—cyber-attacks, infrastructure sabotage, supply chain disruption, hybrid threats from hostile states, climate-related events and health and bio-security emergencies.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
This weekend, in my Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency, there were flight delays due to fuel shortages, which were no doubt caused by events in the middle east. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the type of event we should be mitigating against, before it becomes a national emergency?
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: we need to ensure that we are preparing for all these eventualities, regardless of what causes them—I believe that individual case was caused by one driver shortage. The need to plan and have contingencies in place is vital.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last year was monumental in terms of the number of events suffered in the UK and internationally; think about the economic damage to Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer, and there were power outages across Spain and Portugal for 10 hours. There is a real need for wider resilience. Certain other countries have made further progress on the issue, ensuring that each individual has, say, a “go bag” that will give them seven days’ provisions to ensure that they survive any natural catastrophe or other such event.
Graeme Downie
I am about to go on to that point; I will mention the need for resilience to be across Departments and involve the public.
The impact of these events is often not immediately dramatic but gradual, cumulative and enduring. One crisis flows into another, as I am sure Ministers feel every day. We must think of preparedness as being not just for an event but for a different type of world altogether. In that context, I refer to article 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, which is often overlooked but is highly relevant. It puts a duty on nations to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack through continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. Article 3 refers to an armed attack, but I believe that in the unstable world we live in we should read that in the broadest possible terms. Attacks no longer happen instantaneously, as they did when NATO was created, and neither do they come just from other states.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being typically generous in taking interventions. Last week, the director of GCHQ spoke about Russian hybrid warfare against the UK and how pervasive it consistently is. That is understood by defence experts, but is perhaps not well enough understood by the general public. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a duty on Government to educate people about the scale of Russian hybrid warfare against the UK, so that we are properly prepared?
Graeme Downie
I absolutely agree; that is a point I will come to later. We must engage with the public if we want their permission to plan for resilience.
Article 3 tells us that preparedness must be constant and not confined to defence Departments. It must be collective, but it requires active participation across the system. I would be grateful if the Minister picked up on how resilience is being embedded across Departments in the areas of threat highlighted by the national security strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward; I spoke to him beforehand. Does he agree that if groups tasked with preparedness training, such as the building resilience in communities project in Northern Ireland, are to be effective, they must be well funded? The work carried out with local groups to build grassroots disaster resilience can bring about results only if there is the scope to invest in reaching out and if groups are not hampered by tiny budgets. This is not just about England but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively.
Graeme Downie
As ever, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I always agree with his interventions, particularly when they are made so well. There is a need to make sure that we break outside of the M25, frankly, when we talk about resilience. We also need to look seriously at the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. What is striking about many of the risks we now face is that they do not require a full-scale conflict. They can arise from hybrid threats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) mentioned: those are much below the threshold of war but are capable of causing real and widespread disruption.
In a recent discussion with senior officials about the threat of Chinese-manufactured cellular internet of things modules, in my role as chair of the Coalition on Secure Technology, it was suggested to me that because the threat from such modules was theoretical—even though it was acknowledged that it was clearly feasible and would have a significant impact—there might be no need to prepare for it. Most risks are theoretical until they are very real, and the public then wonder why we were not prepared. I ask the Minister to specifically say what conversations he is having about the threat of cellular modules to the UK. Which Departments have been involved in those discussions?
I move on to our energy system—a key and particularly sensitive part of our infrastructure. We have seen how Vladimir Putin has used energy as a weapon against ordinary Ukrainian people, and he would be more than willing to do the same to British people as well. Without reliable energy, hospitals cannot function, communication systems begin to fail and supply chains break down. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, which I am a member of, will hold an evidence session on this very topic tomorrow. I have raised the issue with Defence Ministers before, but I believe that there are areas where we lack clarity on the legal position when it comes to hybrid attacks on our offshore infrastructure. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on what role the Cabinet Office can play in resolving that, as there seems to be an unclear boundary between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Defence in particular.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford about the importance of the devolved Administrations. Emergencies are experienced locally, as I highlighted at the beginning—they are managed locally, and resilience must be built locally. Too often, the UK’s national security infrastructure can feel as though it is concentrated within the M25 and shaped in central Government rather than fully embedded across all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is intended, but it does create a risk: if preparedness is genuinely to be a whole-of-society effort, it must extend beyond Whitehall.
In those areas, security, advice and expertise do not always flow consistently to devolved Administrations and local partners. At the same time, those Administrations do not deal with national security issues with the same regularity as central Government. That creates a potential blind spot—due not to a lack of commitment, but the structure of the system. It is exactly the kind of gap that hostile actors could seek to exploit. I hope the Minister will address what more can be done to ensure that security advice and capability are fully embedded across the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and how we can ensure resilience is genuinely UK-wide, rather than only inside central Government.
Finally, I turn to a topic that is becoming a bit of a hobby horse of mine: the requirement to trust the public when we are developing our national security and resilience. Preparedness cannot be delivered by the Government alone; it must involve the public.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. He has mentioned the M25 a few times; people may not expect South Hampstead to suffer from frequent surface water flooding. I have been contacted by two groups, the Hillsiders and the Hampstead and Highgate Climate and Nature Group, who would like to talk about strengthening education, especially about climate change in the national curriculum. There is limited information in the national curriculum when it comes to climate change and the climate emergency. Does my hon. Friend agree that strengthening education for children and young people would help in the long run when it comes to tackling national emergencies?
Graeme Downie
I absolutely agree. We need to make sure that we are preparing clear information about the risks that we face, what a climate emergency means in reality, and how communities can help respond to that fully and effectively.
We also need to make sure that we are providing practical guidance for individuals and communities, as well as a shared understanding of what resilience is.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Often when we are talking about building confidence among the public, we tend to think about it at the moment of crisis, rather than making sure that we explain the causes of the crisis that we need to prepare for. Particularly in the context of the energy crisis that we are living through, it is more important than ever that we emphasise that those global drivers could end up having consequences for our own communities. We need to be working to prevent them collectively, collaboratively and at an international level in order to be part of our national security and resilience.
Graeme Downie
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have discussed that issue many times, both in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and outside. The need for collective action is required and we must make sure the public are a key part of that. They must understand why certain crises are happening. Sometimes they are outwith Government control; we are affected by what happens in the world and we must make sure that we are bringing them along in that conversation.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Nowhere is it more apparent what happens when a community is not prepared than in South Devon. We have a major A road that washed into the sea in February and we now have communities that are completely severed: bus services are not running, school buses are not running, and people cannot get to healthcare appointments or to their jobs. It is a complete nightmare.
The community knew that that might happen at some point, but for many years the local authority refused to address the issue and do the preparation required to make sure that the inland road network was sufficient to compensate for the main road that has now washed into the sea. It is an absolute disaster. If we had been better prepared, our communities would not be in the situation they now find themselves in.
Graeme Downie
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having that issue; that is terrible. Again, it is why we must make sure that we are preparing for all different types of resilience. That must be at the forefront of the minds of the public and different levels of Government when we consider the different challenges that we face, whether internal or external and whether beyond our control or very much within our control, as it sounds that example was.
The national security strategy tells us that the assumptions underpinning UK security are being challenged to an unprecedented degree. We must not hide from the public the scale or nature of the threats that we face. We must trust people with information that we might previously have chosen to withhold and we should worry less about causing alarm and more about appearing to hide the truth. If the public do not feel and understand that, they will not support and force us to carry out the investment and actions required to address the challenges. Any Government who have not undertaken that work with the public at its heart will have very large political price to pay.
I have not even had time in this speech to touch on the threat to the public and the need to prepare for ongoing misinformation. If we lose trust with the public, resilience will be weakened.
Preparedness for national emergencies is not a single policy or programme; it is a system—more than that, it is a mindset. When the next crisis comes, and it will, the question will not be whether plans existed on paper. It will be whether, on the ground, the Government did enough to prepare and make sure that our communities were ready.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. After the next speaker, I will have to impose a two-minute speaking limit. I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. Given the number of hon. Members here, we could have had a three-hour debate on his wide-ranging speech. I will be brief so colleagues can get in.
In Runnymede and Weybridge, we have flooding incidents almost every year. Thankfully, they are often not huge, but sometimes they very much are. The local resilience forum exists to deal with the really big emergencies, but we often have what I call sub-acute flooding events—where there is enough flooding to cause risk to properties and people, but not enough to trigger an LRF major response.
The problem for people facing flooding incidents is that Floodline operates as a telephone directory. The roads are dealt with by the county council. The Environment Agency deals with the direct response. The fire service deals with emergency rescue. The local authorities, Runnymede borough council or Elmbridge borough council, deal with different responses. We have Affinity Water, which is for direct freshwater coming to people’s homes, and we have Thames Water, which deals with the drainage. Each is responsible for a different bit. We have the county council, which leads on overall flood preparedness. It is too disjointed.
What we need locally, and also nationally, are flood control centres that can bring all these different organisations together to co-ordinate a flood response. A few years ago, during the last big flood that we had while I have been an MP, my team and I ended up dealing with a lot of the flood response and communicating directly with people. I am very happy to do that, but we need a flood control centre to be able to do so. I think that would help our national resilience.
MPs, broadly speaking, have a role in being embedded in our communities. We usually know what is happening at all different levels and we have key contacts on the ground. On that basis, for the local resilience response, does the Minister agree that MPs should have direct access to local resilience forum chairs, both before and during an emergency event?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this important debate, with so many MPs and such a short amount of time for such a big topic.
As the former shadow Paymaster General, I spent two years working on national resilience policy, and I am pleased to see many of those policies emerging in Bills in our programme of government today. I am proud to have secured the 2024 manifesto commitment to strengthen preparedness across central Government, local authorities, emergency services and local resilience forums.
I speak today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the environment. Our APPG is currently conducting an inquiry into national resilience and adaptation. We welcome written responses from any organisations or individuals listening to this debate, including any Members here today.
Across two critical evidence sessions, we have covered housing, infrastructure, nature and food systems. We have learned from vital stakeholders including the National Farmers Union, Zurich Insurance, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the UK Green Building Council, the Woodland Trust and Kew Gardens.
Fleur Anderson
No, I only have two minutes; I am afraid I will not be able to give way.
The message from stakeholders has been unequivocal. The UK is fundamentally unprepared for the scale of the climate risks that we face. These risks cascade across systems. Extreme heat killed nearly 3,000 people in 2022, but by 2050, deaths could reach 10,000 people annually. Flooding costs us £2.4 billion every year. Crucially, 60% of England’s most productive farming land is at high flood risk. As the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, “A Well-Adapted UK”, warned, nature must be treated as vital infrastructure.
To match the urgency, we must adopt some critical interventions. I first want to ask the Minister whether the lessons from the covid inquiry will be learned and shared. It was an enormous achievement to get that inquiry—there was an enormous amount of evidence—but it really showed that Ministers must not take their eye off the ball, as the previous Government did with Brexit and their lack of preparation for covid. We must learn the lessons, and they must be shared with us now.
We need stronger flood mitigation planning, and enforcement by local councils. We must embed strict resilience standards, including, among many other things, planting trees, which is a key action. We must act now before the risks become unmanageable crises.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate.
Before summer has even begun properly, an amber wildfire alert has been issued in West Dorset. Since 2021, there have been 397 wildfire incidents meeting national wildfire criteria, requiring more than 2,100 appliance mobilisations. Last year’s fires on Holt Heath and Newton Heath required 164 and 134 appliances respectively over multiple days. Yet at precisely the moment when demands on our fire services to respond to emergencies are increasing, Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service faces huge financial pressures. It has already lost about one fifth of its workforce since 2010, and £15 million of savings have been required. It now faces ongoing budget deficits and declining central Government support; the central Government funding deficit will rise from £1.2 million to £1.7 million by 2029.
As a result, proposals have been brought forward to close eight on-call fire stations, including Charmouth and Maiden Newton in my constituency, which would mean the loss of 72 firefighters and the closure of 16% of fire stations across the area. If we are serious about our preparedness for emergencies, we must reform the fire funding formula, provide greater flexibility over local funding arrangements, and ensure that rural services remain sustainable.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. Agility and long-term planning are two essential cornerstones of our preparedness for national emergencies. There are two types of national emergency where we must instil those traits: climate and nature, and artificial intelligence and data centres.
The UK’s food system, economy, water security, flood protection and public health all depend on functioning ecosystems, yet the Joint Intelligence Committee has warned that every critical ecosystem that the UK depends upon is on a pathway to collapse, posing huge risks to our security, prosperity and way of life. Restoring nature is vital to avoid national emergencies.
A functioning, healthy ecosystem reduces flood risk; protects our homes, hospitals and transport systems from overheating; sustains soil so that we can grow food; and cleans the very air that we breathe. By legislating for a strategic nature network and recognising it as national infrastructure, we can restore, connect and maintain a system of key functional ecosystems that strengthen our national security, protect communities and build resilience across the UK.
Furthermore, in terms of the preparedness of our infrastructure for national emergencies, Britain is not truly sovereign as long as we are helpless to act in an AI emergency in our country. Data centres are now part of our critical national infrastructure, but the UK does not have the sovereign capability to pull the plug in the case of a dangerous AI cyber-attack or the takeover of Britain’s data centres.
My amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill would change that. This kill switch would be a last resort, allowing the Government to pull the plug when things go wrong or where there is sufficient evidence that things will go wrong. It would cover two threats: AI-driven cyber-attacks and the development of superintelligent AI that is utilising UK data centres. Most of the public would be surprised to find that kill switch powers do not already exist: there is no big red button to shut down a data centre that poses a risk to people, the economy or our national infrastructure. Kill switch powers are an essential first step in preparedness, and Parliament should seize this opportunity to truly prepare for such a national crisis.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. One of the greatest threats to public safety is climate breakdown, with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme heat, flooding, food and water scarcity, critical infrastructure failures, and risks to public health and safety. Climate resilience must be embedded at the heart of national emergency planning, yet the Climate Change Committee’s key message in its latest advice is that the UK is woefully ill-prepared for the catastrophic impacts to come. The CCC makes it clear that affordable, practical solutions are available and that the cost of inaction will far exceed the investment required to prepare.
Those dangers are not distant: more than 1,500 deaths have been recorded on average each year from extreme heat in recent years, and this could rise to 10,000 a year by 2050. By 2050, one in four properties could be at risk of flooding. The Joint Intelligence Committee report in January made it clear that ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss make our food system extremely vulnerable.
The Government and Members of most parties in this Parliament rightly have a strong focus on carbon reduction and climate mitigation, but we must increase our collective focus, and the Government’s focus, on climate adaptation and resilience. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said, we currently see far too little co-ordinated action across Government.
There must be cross-Government approach, which is why I argue that we need a Cabinet Office Minister responsible for climate resilience across Government: preparing the NHS for new public health challenges; investing in flood protection; developing a comprehensive extreme heat strategy and a national drought plan; strengthening transport, water and energy infrastructure; and supporting a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Climate breakdown is not simply an environmental issue; it is a matter of national security, public health and emergency preparedness. I ask the Minister: will we prepare now, or pay a greater price later?
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate.
Before I was elected to this House, I served as a humanitarian aid worker and spent time in a number of war zones, so I know the importance of preparedness for emergencies and for scenarios that one hopes will never happen. In a country like ours, the role of the state is crucial in this. As my hon. Friend set out, foreign aggressors threaten our country, along with a whole range of new and emerging threats.
My hon. Friend also spoke about Storm Éowyn, and we know that, as the rate of climate change increases, the effect of such storms will be exacerbated. When Storm Éowyn hit my constituency, more than 15,000 people across Fife lost power in freezing conditions, and it brought to light flaws in the preparedness for the storm at many different levels, including failures in the priority services register. People’s phone batteries ran out and they had no signal or way of contacting anyone. There were also failures in how the Scottish Government and local authorities planned to get resources to vulnerable communities, including those in areas served by independent distribution network operators, such as Fordell Gardens in my constituency, which was completely left out. It took me more than a year of follow-up to get any kind of action on that issue.
We need more joined-up thinking to prepare for such events in future, but we must also be prepared for the international threats that we face. I have to say that we lag behind our European allies in this kind of national preparedness. Our peers such as Sweden and Finland are much further ahead than we are, because of the threats that they have faced historically from Russia. We have the new strategic defence review and the resilience action plan, but we must speed up that work so they are not just frameworks on a shelf but the culture of our country, where individuals, communities and agencies work together to prepare for the threats that we may face in future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Across the river, we can all see the covid memorial wall with a quarter of a million red hearts—a quarter of a million of our people lost. Few families were unaffected. My son is an accident and emergency doctor, and he was then working at a London hospital. His accounts of A&E were terrifying, and my wife felt that we had sent our son to war. There was inadequate protection for staff, with masks that did not fit and plastic aprons. PPE—personal protective equipment—was an acronym we had never heard before. Our hospitals simply did not have enough ventilators or intensive care facilities, and were forced to triage those who could be salvaged and those who could not.
This must not happen again. We must be prepared, for who knows when there will be another pandemic. Let us learn the lessons and never forget those whom we have lost. Still today, there are healthcare workers with long covid and post-traumatic stress disorder. I think especially of our very young doctors and nurses, who were suddenly exposed to death and loss on levels quite unprecedented in our NHS. We must look after them.
We must invest in pandemic research and preparedness. Public health is national health, and we must invest in it. Jenner first discovered vaccination in 1796 when he took pus from a cowpox lesion on a local milkmaid called Sarah Nelms and inoculated his gardener’s son, an eight-year-old lad called James Phipps—the first person ever to be vaccinated. Our country has a strong record of medical research, and we are all proud of it. Our scientists developed a covid vaccine that saved countless lives. Let me use this moment to make a further plea to do all we can in this House to support basic and applied medical research, for it is upon such scientific advances that we will all rely.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for bringing us this important debate.
In remote villages and communities such as mine, severe weather can often lead to prolonged power outages. Following Storm Arwen last year, one village in my Carlisle constituency was without electricity for five days. Data analysis found that the storm triggered a rapid, severe and sustained decline in mobile performance across all operators on a scale not seen before. Historically, when electricity networks were hit by power cuts, people could still rely on the old copper wire telephone network to remain in service. However, with the full retirement of the public switched telephone network scheduled for January next year, our communications infrastructure will become increasingly dependent on digital fixed lines and mobile networks, both of which require power.
That raises an important question about resilience. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a prolonged power outage leads not only to the loss of electricity but to a telecommunications blackout. Mobile masts are currently required to have only one hour of back-up power, which is nowhere near sufficient when there is a real possibility of a multi-day outage. I recognise that mandating longer power back-up on every single mast would be disproportionate. A more proportionate response would be to require mobile network operators to maintain a fleet of mobile electricity generators that could be towed to mast sites to restore power while the electricity network is repaired. With extreme weather events becoming more frequent and intense as the climate warms, I believe that the UK’s preparedness for national weather-related emergencies requires the Government and Ofcom to look again at the adequacy of the current regulatory requirements for power back-up to mobile masts.
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit to one minute. I am really sorry; this is obviously a very popular debate. I will call the Lib Dem spokesperson at around 5.10 pm.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. Emergency preparedness in east Kent is essential because the area contains major strategic entry points to the UK, including the port of Dover and the channel tunnel. Those vital gateways for trade and travel handle a significant proportion of the nation’s freight and passenger movement. However, their importance also makes them particularly vulnerable to disruption, whether through accidents, severe weather, security incidents or operational pressures.
The consequences of such disruption can extend far beyond the region, affecting national supply chains, businesses and the movement of essential goods. We saw a clear example of that over the recent bank holiday weekend when travellers experienced delays of around four hours at border checks, highlighting what can happen to these systems when they are under severe pressure. In that context, effective preparedness, co-ordination and communication are critical.
Another key element of resilience in the region is the international rail service between mainland Europe and London, which passes through my constituency. Members will be aware that I have previously raised the economic and strategic importance of restoring international services to Ashford International, for which I will continue to campaign. Although trains do not currently stop at the station, it nevertheless plays a crucial contingency role. In the event of an emergency on the line between London and the channel tunnel, Ashford International remains a designated location where passengers can safely disembark. Despite the absence of stopping services for over six years, Eurostar has until now maintained a contract to keep the facilities at Ashford available for emergency use. Importantly, the infrastructure remains fully operational, with international platforms, security arrangements and access routes enabling emergency services to reach trains quickly and passengers to be evacuated safely when necessary. However, that contract is due to expire later this year. I know the Minister may not be able to give much detail, but I hope he will take that matter up with his colleagues in the Department.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I want to put a proposal to the Minister for a national resilience strategy to sit alongside our national industrial strategy, not in competition with it but in parallel as a strategic, essential partner. That new national resilience strategy should look at the key elements that our communities and nation cannot afford to function without: first, food, water and waste; secondly, health emergency services; thirdly, construction, housing, transport and logistics; fourthly, energy production and transmission; then, education and local resilience networks; finally, defence and military technology. Each pillar of that strategy should have an individual programme to make sure that we are able to grow those industries and act individually without being reliant on imports. For food, we are reliant on imports of fertiliser, for instance. Making sure that we can adopt the strategy used for the renationalisation of British Steel in our critical industries will be hugely important for national resilience.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I must declare an interest as a registered pharmacist. Before my election as an MP I worked in community pharmacy for nearly two decades and, crucially, worked on the frontline through the covid-19 pandemic. Like so many frontline healthcare workers, in my constituency of North Somerset and up and down the country, I went to work every day during lockdown as a key worker to serve members of my community, helping patients to maintain continued access to essential medicines and medical advice.
Any pharmacist will tell you that that was not an easy time for our profession. We were not prepared. We were scared that we could bring covid to our own families and we desperately tried to do our best by our patients even when we had little advice to go on. I will not list a litany of failures, as the detailed covid inquiry did, but I will say clearly that under the previous Government our healthcare system was stretched thin. In a national crisis the public and frontline workers need to trust the Government, yet pharmacies were told that they did not even need PPE.
Resilience must be built into future plans. True neighbourhood health means ensuring that we have systems, processes and governance ready before the next crisis hits.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
We currently have a maternity inquiry addressing the fact that two thirds of maternity units are deemed unsafe in normal times, yet one of the clearest lessons from the covid-19 pandemic is how easily mothers and pregnant women can be overlooked even more when decisions are made at pace. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age 2), I am aware of how often babies and their parents are left out of policymaking, yet they absorb so much of the impact of keeping going in a crisis.
Analysis of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies during the covid-19 crisis showed that gender was largely absent from key discussions. Helen MacNamara, a senior official at the time, later acknowledged that the lack of a female perspective
“led to significant negative consequences”.
She particularly highlighted the failure to properly consider childcare, domestic abuse victims, and pregnant women. The result was that many women faced pregnancy, birth and the post-natal period alone. That will have impacts for generations.
If we are truly to be prepared for future national emergencies we must ensure that parents, babies and pregnant women are built into planning from the outset, rather than being treated as an afterthought.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mrs Barker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
On 8 January Cornwall was smashed by one of the most powerful storms in decades. Storm Goretti delivered 100 mph winds, thousands of trees were torn from their roots, roofs were ripped off and communications infrastructure was flattened. Despite warnings that storms of this nature will become increasingly frequent, resilience systems proved wholly inadequate. The local resilience forum is not even based in Cornwall but 110 miles away in Exeter, which led to a woeful response at critical moments.
Five months on, where is the review of Cornwall’s digital connectivity? What is the assessment of Cornwall’s critical infrastructure? When will the Government commit to an overhaul of the 40-year-old Bellwin formula? What assessment has been made of the use of satellite technology in remote areas? I cannot help thinking that if the storm had hit Surrey, London or Manchester, those questions would have been answered and solutions put in place, but for us in Cornwall—the home of the critical minerals industry—it feels once again like we are second-class citizens. I have to say that if the Minister thinks Cornish MPs can be ignored or placated, he is wrong.
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
After the next speaker, I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I want to focus on two areas of national resilience. The first is hospital capacity. The covid inquiry highlighted the lack of surge capacity within the NHS, and NATO recognises the lack of medical capacity as a critical vulnerability. The UK has an opportunity to address both challenges together through better integration of civilian and military capabilities.
The second area is supply chains for essential medicines. China now controls about 85% to 90% of global production of the antibiotic precursor 6-aminopenicillanic acid or 6APA, on which many common antibiotics depend. There is only one remaining producer of it across Europe and within the NATO area. That is a strategic dependency that should concern us all. Indeed, it especially matters because of the NATO article 3 commitment to national resilience, which is becoming increasingly important. We are targeting the 1.5% spending on the resilience component, so resilience is far more than defence.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. It has been extremely fruitful and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer all the questions that have been asked.
In preparing for the debate, I reflected on Raymond Briggs’s book, “When The Wind Blows”. It is shocking to think that it was published 44 years ago. It is a very useful reflection on how the state failed to prepare the UK for nuclear war and on how we were equally unprepared. I also reflected some of the challenges that we face. Although the number of challenges we face now may have increased, the players out there—Russia, Iran, China or North Korea—are the same.
I will touch on three key areas today. First, there is false information or fake news. I visited Moldova earlier this year, and people there were really alive to it, because Ukraine is acting as their shield. Russia is engaging in lots of nefarious activities in that part of the world and the Moldovan population is used to dealing with false information.
Secondly, I was delighted to support an event at Torquay Library last week, where a librarian called Hazel was helping youngsters to understand which sources of news can be trusted and which cannot. I would like the Minister to reflect on how that approach could be built into our curriculum, because the sooner we make young people, and their parents and grandparents, alive to the importance of such an approach, the better.
Another area of significant challenge is cyber-security. There are real challenges, whether they involve Jaguar Land Rover or people’s personal finances, and the consequences can be devastating. We know that the number of threats to national infrastructure has doubled over the last year, mostly from hostile players elsewhere in the world. Minister, we should develop a sovereign digital approach to such threats, so that we can protect our own infrastructure without having to outsource it to a third party.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, for this vital debate on our nation’s preparedness for national emergencies.
We live in an era defined by profound and accelerating global volatility. The primary duty of any state is the protection of its citizens: we must ensure that the United Kingdom is as properly prepared to meet the threats of an unstable world as it is to respond to a domestic crisis.
Our adversaries are becoming bolder. We have seen hostile state action inching closer to our shores, with alarming incidents such as Russian-flagged vessels anchoring mere miles off the UK coast and directly above the critical transatlantic telecommunication cables that underpin our digital economy.
When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster introduced the UK Government’s resilience action plan last year, he promised that it would assess the UK’s resilience, enable a whole of society approach and significantly improve public sector resilience. Almost a year later, however, what we find is a framework characterised by high-level bureaucratic ambition that is fatally undermined by deep structural fragility, broken promises and ministerial inaction.
I must start with the foundational prerequisite for national resilience—the economy. I understand why the Government want to talk about resilience planning, but they ignore the elephant in the room: a collapsing economy locked in a doom loop of high spend, high debt and high taxes. True national resilience requires immense fiscal headroom and economic stability. A Government who are actively hollowing out that macroeconomic foundation are inherently making Britain more vulnerable and far less equipped to absorb and recover from future crises.
Turning to the machinery of central Government, the Amber Book, updated in April 2025, rightly makes explicit the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in the cross-Government response to national emergencies, yet its operational execution relies entirely on seamless co-ordination with lead Government Departments. Nearly a year ago, the Government explicitly committed to publishing refreshed lead Government Department expectations to clarify the exact role of the Cabinet Office and other Departments in planning and responding to crises. Ministers promised that we would have those by spring 2026. It is now approaching the middle of the year, but there is seemingly no sign of those vital expectations.
Why does that administrative failure matter? Take the grave case of a national power outage. The resilience action plan claims that the Cabinet Office would provide oversight, but experts at the Royal United Services Institute have explicitly warned that the current fragmentation of responsibilities between the Cabinet Office, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and arms-length bodies like the National Energy System Operator risks creating profound confusion. They warned that this fragmentation will fundamentally slow down central Government’s response during an acute crisis. Ministers must urgently rectify this failure and explain to the House why they have failed to publish those expectations on schedule, leaving interdepartmental boundaries dangerously ambiguous.
This failure extends to the Government’s promises to the private sector. The resilience action plan includes a commitment to use the critical national infrastructure knowledge base to map out the various resilience standards to which businesses in those vital sectors are held. While Ministers have confirmed that the interactive map of vulnerabilities has been completed, they have not provided any timeline on their progress in mapping out those resilience standards.
Furthermore, businesses were promised a comprehensive package of support to help them to improve their own resilience. The Government committed to publishing further information on business impacts alongside the national risk register, including a dedicated business section on the Prepare website. Where are they? None of the commitments seems to have been fulfilled. If the Government expect the private sector to take a leading role in improving our preparedness, they must honour their commitments to support businesses in doing so.
At a local level, local resilience forums are the absolute frontline of our emergency response, yet the foundational wider guidance detailing the fundamental role of those forums in emergency response was last updated in 2013. That means that we are asking our local emergency planners to combat the complex, cascading threats of 2026 using a conceptual framework that was drawn up in what may as well have been a different world.
The previous Government launched the emergency alert system in March 2023 after almost two years of public testing. It was an important part of our preparedness for a national emergency, allowing Government and the emergency services to send a text alert to mobile phones in a situation where there is perceived to be an immediate risk to life. However, a ping on a mobile phone cannot be a substitute for robust national infrastructure, and strategic documents are meaningless if the core guidance for our frontline responders remains over a decade old. It is now time for the Government to move beyond issuing glossy action plans and start doing the hard foundational work of actually preparing this country for the realities of the modern threat landscape.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on his work in this area and on securing this important debate.
In the interest of time, I intend to go through my pre-prepared remarks, but I have noted the themes that have been covered. I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I breeze through the themes and pick up any shortfall in subsequent correspondence, either through me or the Cabinet Office. We have heard excellent contributions on the impacts of hot and cold weather; covid and the need to learn lessons from the discoveries in the inquiry; the role of the Cabinet Office; the role that MPs lead locally; and education, skills and the role of devolved learning. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that specifics on Cornwall shall not be ignored or bought off, and I look forward to a conversation with him on this in due course.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the country safe. Domestic resilience is a fundamental element of our national security strategy. The resilience action plan, published in July 2025, sets out the Government’s strategic vision for a stronger and more resilient UK and the steps being taken to deliver that, including building domestic resilience and supporting the whole of our society to build its own resilience. The Government utilise a range of tools as part of emergency response, including the National Situation Centre, which was established in 2021 and provides situational awareness for crisis response and the emergency alerts system, which is an essential capability to inform and warn the public in emergencies.
We are living through a rapidly changing global risk landscape, driven by geopolitical instability and rapid technological change, where the threats facing the UK are numerous, complex and exist on many fronts. Those risks may be non-malicious, such as accidents or natural hazards, or they may be malicious threats from malign actors who seek to harm us. Against that set of risks, it is more important than ever to make resilience front and centre of the UK’s approach to national security. Without security and resilience at home, we cannot deliver economic growth, peace and prosperity or any of the other Government missions to improve everyday life in Britain.
Ms Billington
Where does the energy crisis we are currently in with the situation in the strait of Hormuz sit on the national risk register?
Mr Frith
I will get on to preparedness and the impact of global events, including in the middle east, but I will come back to my hon. Friend on specifics. Responsibility for the overarching resilience system is led by the COBR Directorate in the Cabinet Office. Colleagues are rightly asking about the role the Cabinet Office takes in this work. It leads work on cross-cutting and high-priority risks, and in scenarios with major impacts, it uses the COBR mechanism to manage the Government’s response to major crises or events.
The UK Government define resilience as the ability to anticipate, assess, prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from shocks. The resilience landscape is extensive and encompasses natural hazards, deliberate attacks, geopolitical instability and so on. The foundation of the Government’s approach is the national security risk assessment, which identifies and assesses the most serious acute risks facing the UK over a two to five-year time horizon. Under the lead Government Department model, each NSRA risk is owned by a lead Government Department, ensuring that those with the most relevant expertise, relationships and levers are responsible for putting the necessary planning response and recovery arrangements in place for each risk area.
The Government are also taking steps to enhance our readiness for the highest impact, whole-of-system crises called catastrophic risks, including by explicitly embedding the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book. Alongside that, the Government have an extensive programme of assurance to understand how prepared we are to assess risks, including through a dedicated red teaming capability in the Government Office for Science and independent expert panel reviews.
Together, this approach ensures that the Government collectively understand and are prepared for the risks the UK faces overall, which relies on a collaborative approach and a shared ownership across Government Departments. The Government are committed to working in partnership with both the devolved Governments and the local tier to effectively plan for and respond to risks wherever they occur.
The Cabinet Office leads for Government on the overall response to severe weather. That is, in effect, a co-ordinating role, as individual Departments lead for the response, planning and longer term resilience of the sectors they represent. A key component is the severe weather resilience network, which is chaired by the COBR Directorate and comprises representatives across Government Departments.
On the matter of heat, periods of high temperature and heat waves are not a new phenomenon, and their risk—in terms of both impact and likelihood—is well documented in planning advice from the Government. There are tried and tested arrangements in place to warn of impending extreme temperatures, to review preparedness and, if needed, to co-ordinate the Government’s response to the impacts that they may have.
On the devolved authorities, it is vital that the four nations across the UK work together to keep communities safe, so that we can ensure that we are most effectively using the different levers that each Government hold. On the matter of local resilience forums, it is also essential that we strengthen resilience at the local level, and the Government are committed to the stronger LRF trailblazers programme, which provides selected areas with the opportunity to test approaches and strengthen leadership. I encourage local MPs to engage with that leadership.
Mr Frith
I will not, as I want to make some progress, and I am afraid there is still a lot to cover.
On covid, several Members made excellent points about the need to recall, remember and learn from that damning period. One such example is the significant improvement made to our crisis response structures and capabilities in line with the recommendations made in the covid-19 module 1 inquiry. That included establishing the National Situation Centre in 2021 to improve the use of data in crisis response, creating a single Cabinet committee for resilience to ensure ministerial oversight.
On the issue of education and resilience, we must provide excellent training, and exercising is also essential to ensure that individual sectors can work together to prepare for, respond to and recover from crises. The Government have also established the UK resilience plan.
On the matter of AI, AI sovereignty is defined as the UK having resilient access to key AI capabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) referred to the need to counter the increasing threats posed by AI that is housed and created away from these shores. Sovereign capability is vital, and the launch of the sovereign AI unit is vital as we transition towards that authority, as it will help the UK to win at strategically important parts of that value chain.
Civil society also plays an important role in the UK’s resilience, including the many voluntary, community and faith sector organisations that contribute to community-level resilience and emergency planning. The resilience of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is of central importance to ensuring that the essential services on which the public rely continue to operate. Given the fundamental and connected nature of those services, failure has the potential to cause cascading and catastrophic consequences. The resilience action plan’s all-hazards approach, combined with the priorities in the strategic defence review, the national security strategy and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, underpins the Government’s commitment to improving the security and resilience of CNI.
On smart devices and tech resilience, the Government take an actor-agnostic, risk-based approach to supply chain resilience. Instead of reacting to individual firms or components in isolation, we must focus on the structural choke points and systemic dependencies that create national-level vulnerability, regardless of where in the chain they are. While cellular modules present some specific cyber-threats, those can be mitigated in effectively the same way as any other cyber-risks. Therefore, existing work to strengthen our cyber-resilience will impact how vulnerable sectors and organisations are to threats via the cellular internet of things.
In conclusion, the Government continue to regularly engage the public and parliamentarians on risk and resilience through our annual statement to Parliament, which gives a strategic overview of the current risk picture. The next annual statement will be made in July this year, and it will provide detailed updates on progress made to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months.
Graeme Downie
I thank everyone for participating in the debate this afternoon, in which we heard the different range of threats that the UK is undoubtedly facing. I urge the Minister to continue to work across Government wherever possible, particularly on the threats to energy infrastructure, subsea cables and other items that were brought up by Members. We must ensure that such work is co-ordinated through Government, and that the public are fully aware of the level of threat that we face. I thank the Minister for his response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered preparedness for national emergencies.
Written Statements
Reform of Zero-hours and Similar Contracts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
We are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement them in a way that works for both workers and employers.
Following the April launch of consultations on non-disclosure agreements and a new code of practice for trade union access, alongside the establishment of the Fair Work Agency and the introduction of a number of measures that give new rights to working people, we are today launching a consultation on reforms of zero-hours and similar contracts. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Overview of consultation
The consultation on “Ending one-sided flexibility—reforms of zero hours and similar contracts” sets out three clear Government objectives: increasing the baseline of security and stability for workers, rebalancing labour market flexibility and fostering sustained economic growth. The consultation includes three parts.
Part 1 seeks views on key details to be defined in regulations for the right to guaranteed hours for directly engaged and agency workers which will affect eligibility, record-keeping needs and other practical considerations. These details include:
The hours threshold. To be in scope of the right to guaranteed hours, workers must have worked during the reference period for their employer on a zero-hours basis, or have a number of hours guaranteed in their contract already that is below an hours threshold to be specified in regulations—in which case they must have worked in excess of those guaranteed hours.
The length of initial and subsequent reference periods, and the timings of subsequent reference periods. Employers will be required to make a guaranteed hours offer to a qualifying worker that reflects the number of hours they worked during a reference period.
The Government’s preference is for the initial reference period to be 12 weeks long. Subsequent reference periods could be of a different length.
The definition of “temporary need”. This affects the circumstances in which employers can make a guaranteed hours offer on a limited-term basis, and may be important to employers facing seasonal demand.
The way that a guaranteed hours offer is calculated to reflect hours worked.
Any exemption from the right to guaranteed hours, which could apply in specific circumstances.
Part 2 seeks views on details to be set out in regulations for directly engaged and agency workers in relation to new rights to reasonable notice of shifts and changes to shifts, and payment for shifts cancelled, moved, or curtailed at short notice. These details include the scope of the measures; the length of notice to be presumed reasonable and the factors determining reasonableness; how to define short notice for the payment right and how the payment should be calculated; any exceptional circumstances where employers and hirers should be exempt from the new duties; and potential enforcement of short notice payments by the Fair Work Agency. Through consultation and engagement we also seek to understand better the potential impact of the measures on administrative costs to employers.
Part 3 seeks views on whether to amend the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 to require relevant entities to share information to support compliance.
Next steps for consultation
This consultation will close at 11.59 pm on 25 August 2026. We have planned an extensive series of meetings during the consultation period with bodies representing employers and workers, including in the key sectors affected. Following the closure of this consultation we will analyse the responses and consider the views expressed and representations made, before publishing a Government response and making regulations in due course.
[HCWS74]
Setting the Seventh Carbon Budget
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Today, I am laying before the House the draft carbon budget 7 order, which sets the seventh carbon budget, for the period from 2038 to 2042, at 535 MtCO2e (equivalent to a ~87% emissions reduction from 1990 levels). This budget represents the next interim target for the UK on the way to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Against the backdrop of heightened geopolitical instability, including the ongoing crisis in the middle east and its implications for global energy markets, the case for setting a clear and credible long-term pathway for the UK on clean energy and climate action is stronger than ever.
The Government have agreed with the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee to set the budget at the level it has advised. This level has been chosen because it:
Reduces the UK’s exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets and protects billpayers;
Delivers the benefits of clean energy and climate action for jobs and growth, health and our natural environment;
Aligns with the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C goal to avoid climate disaster for future generations.
This level provides a clear basis and early signal for the pathway and pace of action required to remain on track for net zero by 2050.
Parliamentary scrutiny and transparency of the proposed carbon budget 7 level is important, and I support this through the publication of an accompanying impact assessment. The impact assessment sets out the evidence on the likely impacts of different carbon budget levels and the necessary investment required to meet them— much of which reflects upgrades to the UK’s energy system, homes and transport that would be needed in any case to modernise ageing infrastructure and meet future demand.
The impact assessment also shows that even under higher technology-cost assumptions, meeting net zero continues to represent value for money, with strong net benefits relative to alternative pathways. It concludes that the CCC’s recommendation for the seventh carbon budget is the preferred option, as the most credible and balanced option with the strongest overall case.
The detailed evidence in the impact assessment sets out how delivering this ambitious level is a major opportunity to improve people’s lives in the UK today, while protecting our children and grandchildren:
Energy security and lower bills: clean power and electrification will significantly reduce our exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets across the economy: by 2050, our economy’s overall dependency on fossil fuels will reduce from ~75% of our total primary energy today to ~15%. Electrification will also help consumers benefit from technologies that can cut their bills. Even before the Iran war, it was often cheaper to run a zero-emission vehicle than a petrol or diesel car, and with the right tariff, running a heat pump can be cheaper than a gas boiler.
Good jobs and growth: clean energy and climate action is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. Clean energy industries are already creating good jobs across the UK in roles ranging from offshore wind turbine technicians and solar panel installers to nuclear and grid engineers, heat pump engineers, and hydrogen fuel cell researchers. Earlier and more ambitious action generates reinforcing effects that reduce overall costs over time and strengthen long-term growth prospects.
Improved quality of life and health: from warmer homes to cleaner air, decarbonising the UK’s economy will reduce air pollution and ease long-term pressures on the NHS. Improving air quality alone could deliver £80 billon of health-related benefits between now and 2050, avoiding between 39,000 and 119,000 life years lost. This would result from improved air quality in 2050, against a no-net-zero baseline.
Protecting our natural environment: the climate and nature crises are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. Reducing domestic emissions will contribute to restoring and protecting our wildlife, landscapes and ecosystems that provide our food and water. This will also help improve access to nature now and for future generations.
Tackling the climate crisis: the UK has already helped drive global efforts to tackle climate change, including by passing the world’s first Climate Change Act, which has been emulated by nearly 60 countries, and by being the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050. It has helped drive a global shift towards net zero targets, which now cover 80% of global GDP. The UK’s climate framework has provided a model that others have followed, and domestic ambition strengthens our credibility and influence as we work with other countries to drive global action.
The Government are committed to meeting our carbon budgets, in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. Existing carbon budget 6 delivery policies will drive substantial abatement into the carbon budget 7 period. The carbon budget growth and delivery plan, published just last October, sets out a cross-Government policy package to enable carbon budgets 4, 5 and 6 to be met up to 2037. These policies will continue to deliver the bulk of emissions savings needed for carbon budget 7. This provides a strong and credible starting point for carbon budget 7, reducing delivery risk and giving confidence that the transition can be delivered in an affordable and manageable way.
Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry on Carbon Budget 7
I would like to thank the Environmental Audit Committee for its inquiry on the seventh carbon budget, which was opened in September 2025, following an invitation from Government. The EAC recommended that the Government accept the CCC’s recommended level for its seventh carbon budget. The Government response will be published by the Committee soon after the laying of the CB7 order.
The Government’s response highlights the need for carbon budget 7 to combine ambition with deliverability, affordability and public confidence, underpinned by a robust evidence base. It welcomes the Committee’s report, and sets out the positive case on public engagement and the Government’s approach to delivery.
The pathway to deliver the carbon budget targets through to the seventh carbon budget will be set out in a future delivery plan, to be published as soon as is reasonably practicable after the budget level has been set. This statutory sequencing recognises the time needed to develop and agree an ambitious and robust package of policies for meeting the target.
I welcome parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed level as an integral part of the democratic process for setting carbon budgets in accordance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act.
[HCWS75]
Prostate Cancer Screening
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I would like to inform the House that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has accepted the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee to introduce England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. This decision has been taken after considering the evidence presented by both the UK NSC and patient advocate groups.
Men with a known BRCA2 gene variant and a relevant family history will be offered PSA (prostate-specific antigen) screening every two years between the ages of 45 and 61. The programme is expected to begin roll-out in 2027 and will use an IT call and recall system that will systematically invite eligible men for tests. Those who have previously been advised that they can get an annual PSA test will still be able to access them through their GP.
This is an important step forward, but we know that our accepting this recommendation means that there will be groups and individuals who will be disappointed that we are not going further. However, the evidence does not yet support a wider screening programme. Screening must do more good than harm, and given current tests and treatments, that threshold has not been met. Screening all men could lead to unnecessary treatment that does more harm than good—including incontinence and erectile dysfunction.
That is why, alongside introducing targeted screening, the Government are taking decisive action to strengthen the evidence base and improve outcomes for men at highest risk, and to improve effective diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.
We are announcing a major package of investment of over £20 million to expand research and improve treatment. This includes an increased financial commitment of up to an additional £18 million to the TRANSFORM trial, which is working to address the evidence gaps identified by the UK NSC. As a result of this investment, and with the help of grant-funded investment at community level, all eligible black men—UK residents between 45 and 74 years who have not had a PSA test or prostate MRI scan in the last five years—will be invited to take part in stage 2 of the trial. This investment will help to address long-standing inequalities in risk and outcomes.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), will soon be hosting a roundtable alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), with representatives of local community organisations, supported by Prostate Cancer UK and the National Institute of Health and Care Research, to hear directly from community organisations about how we should boost engagement and encourage black men to be a part of this vital research, which will find the best screening programme. Furthermore, we are investing up to £2.8 million in focal therapy, a minimally invasive prostate cancer treatment. This will strengthen existing national provision, and reduce potential harms from treatment and support delivery of the TRANSFORM trial.
The Government have also taken significant steps to improve access to the most effective treatments for men with prostate cancer. Earlier this year, the NHS expanded access to the drug abiraterone for earlier-stage prostate cancer, representing a substantial improvement in outcomes for thousands of families affected by prostate cancer.
We recognise that the change in policy will mean that the public may seek answers from their GP or health professionals. Men who are not eligible for the new screening programme but have concerns should continue to ask their GP for advice on the basis of their individual position and risk factors. In order to support this engagement, we are updating the guidance both to GPs and to the public in line with the new recommendation to make it clearer to follow.
It is important that GPs are supported to make more informed clinical judgements when approached for a PSA test by men who do not have symptoms, but who are concerned about suspected family history. My officials are working with Cancer Research UK to move work on this forwards.
We will keep the evidence under close review, and the UK NSC’s model maintained, resourced and regularly updated as new evidence becomes available, so that we are ready to go further as soon as the science supports it.
With this package of measures, we are expanding research, widening treatment options, and tackling inequalities in prostate cancer care. The Secretary of State and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the UK National Screening Committee for continuing to provide invaluable expert advice on screening programmes, and everyone who participated in the consultation, including charities and patient groups. Finally, we would like to pay tribute to all those who work to deliver high-quality screening across the country, saving lives every day.
[HCWS80]
Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)
In February 2025, the Government published their response to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill. In line with an undertaking given to the Select Committee, the Government:
Have submitted representations via the Planning Casework Unit that security should remain a key issue.
Have consulted on security with the Metropolitan Police Service, the National Protective Security Authority, the Community Security Trust, Westminster city council, and the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Are depositing consultees’ comments in the Libraries of both Houses, except where security sensitive.
The Government are grateful for comments received from consultees and look forward to continuing close engagement as the programme proceeds.
[HCWS77]
Pride in Place: High Streets Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)
We are nation of a thousand neighbourhoods, where our identity and sense of belonging all depend on what is around us. When the streets are clean and the high streets are thriving, times are good. But when shops are empty and crime is rife, those are the moments when we ask what is going wrong. As part of the Government’s commitment to restoring Pride in Place, we are today announcing further measures to echo the pride that people have in their town and city centres, ahead of the publication of the high streets strategy this summer.
First, we will deepen our commitment to tackling the blight of boarded-up shops, which damages the vibrancy of high streets and encourages antisocial behaviour. Since 2024, through a partnership with 12 early adopter local authorities, we have been successfully trialling high street rental auctions. These are new powers that enable councils to auction the lease of high street premises that have been empty for over a year in a two-year period, and compel the landlord to accept an offer. The experience of these councils shows that the powers are an effective lever to engage landlords, as over 60 high street shop units have been reoccupied without a rental auction needing to be held, and evidence of a tangible impact on vacancy rates. We now want to see these powers being taken up across the country, and to do this we will provide £10 million over the next two years, available to local authorities across England to apply for to fund refurbishment grants and other associated costs. This will open these spaces up to new tenants—not just taking out eyesores, but providing businesses with access to tenancies at below-market rent.
Next, we want every Pride in Place area to use their £20 million to support the local economy, so today I can announce that we will publish guidance to ensure that neighbourhood boards have all the tools they need to use local suppliers and invest in local businesses. This programme amounts to £6 billion for the most deprived communities in Britain. If we can use that to support community businesses, we can make this investment go so much further.
Finally, we are introducing changes to the business improvement districts by modernising the rule book. We will simplify voting procedures, strengthen transparency and accountability and, crucially, include property owners in the process. Across the country, businesses and BIDs have shown what they can contribute to revitalising high streets, and this Government will support them.
[HCWS81]
High Court: Business and Property Division
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government are pleased to support a judiciary-led initiative to modernise the structure of the High Court through the establishment of a new business and property division. This historic modernisation will ensure that the UK remains a global hub for corporate litigation.
It will bring together the current business and property courts into a single division, which will replace the chancery division.
The business and property courts are a collection of specialist civil courts that deal with high-value, complex disputes, including commercial, business, property, technology and intellectual property cases. These courts play a significant role in supporting the UK’s legal services sector and wider economy, with a substantial proportion of cases involving international parties.
At present, these courts are situated across both the chancery division and the King’s bench division. This arrangement can create challenges for users in navigating the system and leads to overlapping governance responsibilities.
Relevant business and property courts will be transferred into the Chancery division, which will be renamed the business and property division. Leadership of the new division will rest with the current chancellor of the High Court, who will assume the title of president of the business and property division.
The new business and property division will stand alongside the King’s bench and family divisions of the High Court. The individual courts and lists that make up the new division will continue their work as they do now, keeping their existing jurisdictions, identities and areas of expertise.
This reform is intended to deliver a number of benefits:
Supporting economic growth by strengthening the international profile and accessibility of these courts, thereby reinforcing the UK’s position as a leading global dispute resolution centre;
Improving access to justice through clearer structures and a more intuitive framework for domestic and international court users; and
Strengthening judicial governance by providing a single point of leadership.
Changes will be made through an Order in Council, which will be laid in Parliament in due course, alongside updates to the civil procedure rules, practice directions and associated court materials.
Further updates will be provided to the House as this work progresses.
[HCWS79]
Cabinet Manual
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am pleased to announce that the Government will update the Cabinet manual.
The Cabinet manual sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the operation of Government. It is intended primarily as an authoritative reference for Ministers and civil servants, but it also has a role in making the operation of Government more accessible to Parliament and the public.
The manual was first published in 2011 and has not been updated since. As a result, it has become significantly out of date, most notably in its descriptions of general elections, the UK’s relationship with the EU and the devolution settlements. Its value for Ministers and officials, helping them to navigate the UK’s constitutional arrangements, has been diminished by this lack of accuracy. An update will therefore restore the manual’s status as an authoritative guide.
This update will also restate and underline the rules and conventions that underpin our democracy. Alongside wider work to strengthen the operation of Government, including the fundamental review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent civil service, it will provide an opportunity to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to high standards in public life.
The Government will seek feedback from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons and the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords on the draft text. As the manual sets out constitutional arrangements from the view of the Executive, the Government will not seek Parliament’s approval of the text, following the approach established in 2010-11. Nevertheless, we hope that this engagement will be a meaningful opportunity for MPs and peers to support the drafting process so that the manual continues to be a non-party political document that provides a record of fact.
An update is long overdue and will serve to benefit Ministers, officials, Parliament and the public.
[HCWS78]
CAA Annual Progress Report for 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Modernising our airspace is a priority for this Government, and the upgrades that have been made to date are already providing improved reliability to services and helping to deliver our climate and environmental obligations. The benefits of modernisation do not stop at conventional passenger aircraft—they will also enable the safe integration of emerging aviation technologies, future-proofing our skies for the next generation of aircraft and making meaningful contributions towards our net zero targets.
Modernisation has an important role in ensuring that the growth of UK aviation proceeds in a sustainable manner, minimising where possible noise impacts for communities and emissions through more efficient flightpaths.
As the programme enters its third year following the refresh of the airspace modernisation strategy, there continues to be considerable progress. Some of the most significant developments include:
The establishment of the UK airspace design service, which will deliver holistic and modernised airspace design for the complex London terminal airspace by taking forward airports’ airspace change proposals in a co-ordinated manner.
The creation of a new UK airspace support fund to cover relevant costs of the sponsors of eligible ACPs that are outside the scope of the UKADS.
Progress being made by the 18 airports advancing their ACPs as part of the terminal airspace redesign element, with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports conducting their consultations.
Work progressing well on enabling the full integration of UK airspace, including supporting the safe integration of new airspace users, like drones. The CAA consulted on beyond visual line of sight operations for unmanned aircraft systems and work has begun mandating the carriage of electronic conspicuity technology.
The funding of six new projects to support the development of integration and beyond visual line of sight operations.
The publication in August 2025 of the updated part 3 of the strategy, consisting of the deployment plan outlining the delivery milestones for projects in progress or due to commence over the next seven years.
The airspace modernisation annual progress report, prepared by the CAA, is required by the Secretary of State for Transport and provides details of the progress made within the programme, as well as the policy development work carried out by the CAA against each of the AMS’s elements. This report covers the period from January to December 2025.
It provides a clear overview of the progress that has been delivered across the nine delivery elements and the multiple projects within each one. It also illustrates areas of delay or concern and what mitigations and measures are in place to reduce them. The full report is available on the CAA website.
Since 2022, the Department for Transport has placed the annual progress report in both Libraries as a record of the workstreams initiated and work carried out. However, as the programme has matured and gained momentum, many aspects have become business as usual activities.
This written ministerial statement therefore represents the final time the CAA’s annual progress report will be placed in both Libraries. The CAA will continue to produce the report and publish it on its website with appropriate publicity.
[HCWS76]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Peach
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the United States about the political and security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we are working closely with the United States, including through the Quint, the Peace Implementation Council and the United Nations Security Council, to support peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Quint remain firmly committed to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. With October’s elections approaching, we continue to discuss our concern about increasing anti-Dayton rhetoric, the rise in Islamophobia and other divisive narratives.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the UK Prime Minister’s special envoy to the western Balkans from 2021 to 2025. I thank the Minister for her Answer. As she just indicated, the UK has been supporting peace and stability in Bosnia, including through the service of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, as the commander there, for almost 30 years. That peace and stability sustains, yet it is under threat from rhetoric and provocation. The former President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, is a very frequent visitor to Moscow, where he receives what could only be described as instructions. Secession is still in the language in that country, and I think we can all agree that that would be a disaster for the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, raise the spectre of tension and worse. We have an excellent embassy, but can the Minister reassure me that significant thinking and planning is in place should the security situation deteriorate?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his service and commend the work of his successor, Dame Karen Pierce, in this absolutely vital role. Yes, I can give him that commitment. My colleague—the MP Stephen Doughty, whom I am sure he knows well—leads on this, as he knows, in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our commitment, as witnesses to the Dayton agreement, remains steadfast.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, with the resignation of Christian Schmidt as the high representative, who, as anyone who met him will know, was frustrated by Republika Srpska’s claims under Mr Dodik, and in paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, can I ask what efforts the UK Government are making to ensure we get the right candidate, with the resilience of the late Lord Ashdown—let us not forget his legacy—who put this at the heart of British representation in standing up for Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and, indeed, Kosovo?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is absolutely vital that the successful candidate for this role has all the attributes possessed by Lord Ashdown—perhaps not all; they are very big shoes to fill. What matters most is that we find the candidate who has the ability to bring people together and secure the commitments that were made at Dayton, for as long as we need to do that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Russia is undoubtedly stirring tensions to undermine western security and Bosnia’s progress to EU membership. As has been said, the UK has always played a strong role in supporting the Dayton agreement and the Office of the High Representative, which my former leader Paddy Ashdown filled 20 years ago—I am glad he was referred to. How is the UK working not only with the United States and the rest of the international community but specifically with the EU and European partners on Bosnia, as on Ukraine, to support the Bosnian state’s institutions and constitutional order?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We work very closely, as I am sure the noble Baroness would want, with the EU, the Council of Europe, the US and other partners to do just that. We are 30-plus years on from what happened and some people say that it is time to move on but, actually, it is clear that the conditions for that have not been met. There are new actors and risks of which we need to be mindful, and it is important that we stick to the agreement and, as the noble Lord opposite said, that the right person is forthcoming and that we pick them.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
As the Minister is aware, one of the major roadblocks to harmony between the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska and the Bosnia-Croat federation is the lack of a unified police force. Will the UK draw on its huge experience of capacity building and expertise in this area to make this a key part of our bilateral relations, as well as trade?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an interesting suggestion. We have expertise in doing that kind of work, where appropriate, but it needs to be done alongside the relevant authorities, so that we make sure that we move things along in a way that is sensitive to the context—if I can put it that way. I am happy to speak to colleagues to find out whether that is something that the UK is actively considering at the moment.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned all the organisations that we are working with. Could she say more about how supportive of, and in line with, our colleagues from the United States we are on this policy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
All our allies and partners take positions; sometimes they are different, and we sometimes take different approaches to these issues. But our position is very clear: we will be consistent with the agreement that was entered into. We take seriously our duty to stick to those principles.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in recent years, a key part of UK support for the type of capacity building of civil and community organisations referenced by the noble and gallant Lord and my noble friend has been through the Western Balkans Democracy Initiative, which has been funded by development assistance. Can the Minister assure the House that this support will continue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have recently published our allocations for development assistance. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember what decision was made on that specific programme, but I am sure that that information is publicly available. If it is not, I will make sure that the noble Lord gets it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, mentioned the malign influence of Russia in relation to this. There has been some suggestion that the United Kingdom is slackening its sanctions on Russia. Will the Minister confirm that this is not the case and consider further sanctions, particularly in relation to some of its assets here in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can absolutely assure my noble friend that that is not the case. I remember that there were robust exchanges about this before the short Recess we have just had. Obviously, we keep all future designations under close review, and we do not preannounce them, but his point about our concern about Russia and our willingness to act with sanctions and other measures, when that is appropriate, remains.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged rightly that we do not just close the door on history; it has a very long tail. Civilians affected by the wars in the Balkans still suffer and still need support, and that support often comes from very small aid organisations that have suffered from the reduction in aid from this country and other countries. Can she acknowledge that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
When you make a cut to your development assistance, you can spend less—that is just a fact. I was unable to find 40% reductions for programmes that were not doing good or having an impact and that nobody would notice. Of course, I am happy to acknowledge that now, as I have done on many occasions.
Breast Cancer Screening: Women Over 70
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the NHS policy of ending automatic mammogram invitations for women over 70.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, an important research study, AgeX, is investigating the effects of routine breast screening in women over 70. It is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken and results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout and will use the findings as they are available. It is vital that all screening policy is based on robust scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but I am not sure that I want to wait until 2027. The facts are compelling. Early detection of breast cancer significantly boosts survival rates, especially of older people, some of whom might not last until 2027. I disagree with the policy of not sending out invitations for mammogram screenings to the over-70s. We should not leave it to self-referral every three years. Will the Minister say what outreach programmes are being implemented in the meantime to inform women of their right to self-refer? Such programmes should include informational mailings, community health talks, and leveraging technology and social media platforms, with healthcare providers having proactive discussions with seniors about continuous screenings. In the intervening period to the magic date of 2027, can the Minister assure me that all these things are happening?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that women over the age of 71 can go to their GP and request a further screening every three years above that age. The noble Lord touched on a good point that it is imperative that that information is more widely available. I have talked to women of that age group and found that there is no general awareness that that is the case. I believe that all these policies should be managed and rolled out locally. It is for local healthcare systems to make sure that information is available to those most vulnerable in their communities. That is the work we are doing through the 10-year health plan, particularly reaching out to areas of disadvantage and inequality.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lord, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Minister. However, she will be aware that there are significant regional variations in the uptake of breast screening among those who live in poorer disadvantaged communities and among ethnic-minority women. These are women below the age of 70. What are the Government doing to narrow the gap in outcome for these women, and what key performance indicators are the Government using to monitor this?
Baroness Blake of Leeds
The noble Baroness will be aware of the launch of the women’s health strategy. Running throughout that is a real understanding that too many women are not aware of the treatment that is available. There might be all sorts of reasons why they are not coming forward for the screening to which they are entitled. The focus on working locally, spreading information, giving reassurance, and coming up with peer models within communities who can go out and convince women that screening is in their interest are all parts of the rich toolkit available to local health communities.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I am over 71, yet I had no idea until this moment that a self-referral programme was in place—and I have just had a friend in her early 70s go into surgery for breast cancer. How is this message being distributed? I fear that, if I contacted my GP, even the GP would have no idea that self-referral was available.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
I declare an interest, in that I am in the same age group. All I can say from personal experience is that, when I went for my last screening, I was informed by the local screening team. This speaks to the point that it is patchy and inconsistent; we need to have a fundamental check around the country to ensure that consistency exists. The noble Baroness has made my point perfectly: too many women are not aware of what is available. That is why we are going to address the needs of women going forward.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this and my noble friend the Minister for raising awareness about one of the largest age-extension trials. It is true that it will give us results, but I was not aware that the final report would be available in 2027; I was under the impression that it would be by 2032. Can my noble friend confirm that the final report on age extension will be available by 2027? In the meantime, given that international professional guidelines support regular screening for women over 70, could we consider regular screening for women in the community when we establish neighbourhood health centres?
Baroness Blake of Leeds
I stress the importance of being mindful of all ongoing research, as there is extensive research going on in all areas of cancer. We also need to be very mindful of the new technologies coming forward. The EDITH programme, looking at the use of AI, could potentially significantly reduce the number of medical practitioners who need to be involved in screening, thus freeing up capacity and making sure that trials can be implemented. I want to reassure my noble friend of the work that is happening and the intention to abide by the timeframes set.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, since it is a given fact that women over 70 can self-refer every three years, there is no need for these layers of bureaucracy and administration in the health service? There is no reason why a GP needs to refer a woman in that age group to their local breast screening unit. I go into the hospital breast-screening unit and say, “Could I please book an appointment?” They say, “Yes, certainly”. No GP comes anywhere near it. Let us cut out the bureaucracy; there is too much of it in the NHS.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
To veer away from breast cancer for a moment, one of the most successful programmes I was involved in was working with the local authority and local NHS services to remove the need to see a GP to be referred for lung x-rays. This programme particularly targeted men in disadvantaged areas and, my goodness, it had a huge impact. This is something that needs to be taken seriously. A lot of people, men and women, are averse to going to seek medical help. We need to make available as many opportunities as we possibly can.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, since there is a strong hereditary element in breast cancer, what action is being taken to make sure that women who have had cancer ensure that their daughters and granddaughters are rightly tested? Will the Minister acknowledge the information being given out via “The Archers” on this matter at the moment?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I wondered when someone was going to mention “The Archers”. My noble friend is referring to BRCA and BRCA2 screening. It is incredibly serious that some people are wary of going through screening because of the possible implications hanging over their children. We all need to work to make that screening more of a possibility. I have to declare that my eldest sister died from breast cancer when she was in her late 50s. It is a dreadful thing to happen to families, and we have to make sure all families who go through this are aware of what they need to do and that the information is as widely available as possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for sharing her personal experience; I am sure our thoughts are with her. The Government have rightly said they want a shift from treatment to prevention, and the Minister will know that one element of prevention is testing and early diagnosis. We know that about one-third of breast cancers are diagnosed in women over 70, and this increases with age. We have heard that many women are not aware of screening on demand. Apart from the health and emotional consequences, when the Government conducted a cost-benefit analysis of ending routine screening, were they absolutely certain that any money saved in the short term was not outweighed by the extra cost of treating patients with later-stage cancer, which will be harder to treat and will end up costing the Government more money?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that all these factors are taken into account. I would warn against complacency. To go back to my personal experience, my sister had regular breast screening and it was not picked up because of the type of cancer that she had. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is leading the work on looking at how we can better screen women and make sure that the work we do is the most effective and reaches the highest number of women possible.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle inconsistent decision-making for victims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, up to March 2026 more than £127 million has been paid out by the Government following claims. All claims are considered individually against the published rules. Caseworkers receive comprehensive training and decisions are subject to robust quality assurance. Anybody who is unhappy about the outcome of their claim can access a free review process, including review by an independent adjudicator, and we use feedback to continuously improve decision-making.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but Windrush victims have raised serious ongoing issues around inconsistent decision-making within the compensation scheme, even between siblings, including misinterpretation of evidence, inadequate support and lack of independence. The continued use of the term “immigrants” to describe those affected, rather than recognising them as British nationals, has wider implications for how cases are understood and handled, and undervalues the non-financial harms and loss of opportunities and security. The scheme is too complex for unrepresented applicants, who are undercompensated compared with claimants with lawyers, who receive much higher awards—£11,400 compared with £83,200 for the same claim. Could more funding be directed towards legal support, as with other state compensation schemes, to clear up this shocking injustice? Is the Windrush commissioner, who is supposed to be supporting Windrush victims, aware of these concerns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. First, the Windrush commissioner is in regular engagement and discussion with Ministers around issues of concern, and since January 2026 we have made some significant changes to the scheme as a result of representations from the commissioner. The noble Baroness mentions legal representation. We have a dedicated helpline. We give claim form guidance. We have free practical support for claimants’ assistance. We have put £1.5 million into a free advocacy support system. We also have limited legal support of up to £1,500 to obtain probate to submit a claim as a representative of a Windrush claimant’s estate. They are British citizens and they deserve our support. We want to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system, and I will happily take representations from the noble Baroness on any issues if she feels there are concerns.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, commented that people who come with legal representation get higher and better awards. Does the Minister know why this is and, if he does not, can he look into why people with legal representation are getting much better awards? Surely the system should be defending those who are the most vulnerable and cannot get that representation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The two factors may not necessarily be similar. There may be individuals who engage legal support and end up getting the claim they would have had anyway, whether they had that support or not. The scheme was designed not to have necessarily a barrier of legal representation; that is why we have put in help and support for claimants, but legal representation is not required. We are looking at all times at how we can simplify the scheme, but I caution the noble Lord against presuming that legal representation in this case means a higher claim. It may be that the claim was justified in the first place, as we view all claims on an individual basis for each claimant.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
There has been much commentary on the relatively high rejection rates for the Windrush compensation scheme. Subsequently, there have been calls for the Home Office to relax its criteria. It is of course imperative that the scheme is not open to exploitation and that compensation is paid only to those who are genuinely eligible. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the criteria the Home Office uses will remain robust and fair, and applied consistently and equitably to all applicants?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Yes, I can, I hope, assure the noble Lord on that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the Government made a number of changes in January 2026 to try to improve the scheme and make sure that people still have access to it in a simpler way. Those changes have also meant, as I said in earlier answers, that 94% of all claims have reached a final decision. We have speeded up the claims from taking four months in 2024 to less than six weeks now. On where there are appeals on those claims and reviews asked for, there have been, for example, 2,656 requests for review of tier 1 decisions, 504 of which resulted in a change of the claim. On tier 2 applications there have been 747 requests, of which 116 resulted in changes, so there is, I hope, a fair and equitable scheme. We want to see people applying for the scheme. We continue to receive around 140 claims a month and there is no end date to the scheme, so we want to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Have the Government actually conducted any research into whether unrepresented claimants receive lower awards than represented claimants, and if so why, to address the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot say to the noble Lord that we have undertaken that research, but I am happy to look at the point he mentions. The key point is that the scheme is designed to be simple. Support is available through a free helpline, and there is now a high level of speedy turnarounds and completed claims, at 94%. I will certainly look at whether there is a factual basis for it; I was simply making the point, to both noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness, that there may not be a correlation between legal representation and claim because all claims are judged on their individual circumstances.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about data collection, because so many people are passing away before their claims are even looked at. Does he have any data to show how many people have passed away before being able to have their claims addressed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I probably have figures for my noble friend, and I will write to her with the specific figures. The key point is that we are now, as part of the prioritisation, looking at claimants aged over 75 and those with conditions that are critical or life shortening so we can ensure that those who are potentially in danger of passing before a claim is completed have that claim speedily processed.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, victims of state problems such as the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal have been given fully funded, independent legal support. What makes this so different that there is no equity for these people?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The scheme was designed to be speedily executed and to ensure that we give dedicated support. We have a dedicated helpline, claim form guidance, free advocacy support, a £1.5 million Windrush compensation advocacy support scheme and legal support for those submitting a claim, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence mentioned, for those who have sadly died. That is the way in which we are trying to do this. The fact that we have paid out £127 million to date shows the Government’s commitment to ensure that those who deserve payments get payments.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Can the Minister say something about the training that those who have to administer the scheme receive? Proper training would be one way of ensuring that equality of treatment is achieved across the board.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. Staff undertake a rigorous training programme that provides a holistic view of the scheme and includes a module on the history of the scandal. It includes clips of people from the Windrush generation, as well as case studies, to provide insights into the way in which individuals have been affected. It also focuses on important skills, such as telephony skills and communication. Staff regularly deal with vulnerable people and have the ability to pass on particular areas of concern to organisations such as the Samaritans if there is a requirement because of other potential issues. All staff undertake a mandatory “face behind the case” training course, and we are committed to learning the lessons from the scandal to ensure our caseworkers are both empathetic and fully trained.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to a worrying thing, if it is true. The Windrush generation are still being referred to as immigrants, not as British citizens. Can the Minister confirm whether that is happening? If it is, we all ought to be concerned.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Windrush generation are British citizens, and I confirm that that is the status they have.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, every week I pass by that wonderful statue of the Windrush generation at Waterloo station. It is an inspiration, showing people who were invited here to come and be part of our community, and they have served this community incredibly well. We have lived the Martin Luther King dream in this country of bringing people together better than any other country in the world, but that is all now under threat. Would it not be a very good sign of our intent to get this Windrush issue sorted as quickly and as fairly as possible to reclaim our status as one of the most tolerant and inclusive countries in the world?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree that the UK should be a tolerant and inclusive country. The Windrush generation came to the UK to fill labour shortages following the Second World War and to make a contribution to the country they regarded as their native country. They are British citizens. That is quite right and proper. There is an estimated cohort of 11,500 to 14,500 citizens who are part of that Windrush generation.
We have kept the scheme open; it has no closing date. We are currently getting 140 claims per week. We want to get as many people as possible to apply. As I mentioned, we have reduced the time from two months to around six weeks to get claims considered. Very few claims are outstanding. It is important that people claim; they have a right to that money. Mistakes were made in the past. The scheme has been established and £127 million has been paid to ensure that this state, the United Kingdom, recognises both the service and the injustice that occurred with the Windrush generation.
Prostate Cancer Screening
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendation from the UK’s National Screening Committee that there should only be a targeted screening programme for prostate cancer, as opposed to population screening.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have today accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s evidence-based recommendation to offer prostate cancer screening every two years to men between the ages of 45 and 61 with a BRCA2 gene variant and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. Population-wide screening was shown to do more harm than good. We will keep this decision under review and work with organisations to fill the evidence gaps for high-risk groups.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer; I think that I am pleased with it—I will have to think about it more fully. Given the known risk factor of family history when it comes to the likelihood of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, what are the Government doing to create a more specific definition of the term to enable better targeting of those men most at risk? I know it is important for hundreds of thousands of men up and down the country and their loved ones. My husband died of prostate cancer because it was diagnosed too late, and I have two sons.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for courageously continuing to pick up this very important issue. The term “family history” is not well defined in current evidence. Work is under way to define what degree of family history of cancer would carry a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, and the UK National Screening Committee will build this into its modelling. In the meantime, officials are working with Cancer Research UK and the UK Cancer Genetics Group to see if interim guidance can be developed with experts to support GPs in making clinical judgments when asked about PSA testing by men with a family history.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I completely understand Cancer Research UK’s point about overdiagnosis leading to invasive treatment, with devastating effects, along with unnecessary anxiety and stress. There are inequalities in treatment, and more needs to be done to ensure that every man who is diagnosed receives the best treatment options possible. Does the Minister feel it would help to have a public awareness campaign—I know there have been some, but perhaps more—on how to notice the symptoms that people may have, particularly those in the Afro-Caribbean community, who are quite often let down as far as prostate cancer is concerned?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to bring inequality into this discussion. The statistics are stark. That is why the Government are today announcing an investment of £18 million in TRANSFORM stage 2, which will take a particular interest in Black men. Eligible Black men include those aged 45 to 74 having come through the stage 1 process. There is a list of criteria that I cannot go into in detail on now, but it is worth looking into. There is also money set aside for capital spend to look at strengthening access to focal therapies, which are less invasive. So much research still needs to be done, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the particular issue of inequality.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the proposed limited screening programme is a disappointment to many campaigners. It is clear that the key to screening is accurate ways of testing, so what further investment are the Government planning to help develop more precise prostate cancer screening tests other than PSA?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said in my earlier answer: all the research into this that is continuing as part of the ongoing programme will be taken into account; it is critical that that is the case. I have forgotten the first part of the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not have the specific answer to that, but we have to make sure that GPs in particular have the best guidance possible on picking up the signs they need to take care of, on the advice they give to people coming in, and on looking at the most appropriate way forward, whether it be testing or making sure that patients get access to the right treatment, should that be deemed essential.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for championing this issue. Today’s announcement that Black men will be offered prostate cancer screening in the TRANSFORM trial is very welcome, given that Black men are around twice as likely to develop prostate cancer and die from it. So I have two quick questions. First, only last week, the Government backed a recommendation that did not include them for targeted screening, so, out of interest, can the Minister share with the House what new evidence came to light since then and led to today’s welcome announcement? It is not a trick question; I am just trying to understand that gap in evidence. Secondly, when will eligible Black men be invited to stage 2 of the trial?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We hope to get the trial up and running within the next year; we really are ready to go. I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specific detail for his first question—I do not have that to hand—but everyone wants to get moving on this. It has been a long time coming, and we are delighted that we have the go-ahead today to move forward.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, coming back to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, it is disappointing that the screening committee did not approve of screening for people with a strong family history, particularly of breast cancer, which the Minister mentioned, as BRCA genes are also associated with prostate cancer. So the screening committee might be asked to look at the evidence of family linkage to see whether that should not be included in “high risk”. By the way, coming to a better test than PSA, there is the promise of a saliva test with a higher specificity developed by Marsden cancer research institute. That is going to trial, and it may help.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord is my go-to person for additional information in this area, and his knowledge is helpful in this debate. My understanding—he will obviously correct me afterwards if I am wrong—is that there is a much more defined relationship, in the research that has been done into breast cancer, in the likelihood of familial pass-on. That is exactly what this research has been set up to do: to look at whether there are the same patterns with prostate cancer, which have not yet been identified.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the problem with prostate cancer is that most men do not have symptoms; it was certainly like that in my case. The Minister said that wide screening would lead to worsening outcomes, but I am sorry: being alive is far better than the alternative. We will have a problem: in affluent communities, men can and will ask their GPs for tests, but that will not happen in some poorer communities. What has been suggested today is continued health inequality, where men in poorer communities will not ask for that test and will continue to die.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that inequality, as we have said, runs throughout this debate. That is why I highlighted that there is not consistent messaging going out through GPs for men who come forward to discuss their health needs with them. Far more work needs to be done. But the evidence from the committee clearly stated that the risk of harm from unnecessary treatment is high. This is exactly the sort of work that has been looked into, but that is its clear recommendation. On the evidence around the progression of the disease, how many who are diagnosed go on to have a life-threatening condition has to be at the forefront of the evidence and the further research that is being done.
Steel Import Restrictions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the United Kingdom’s proposed steel import restrictions may jeopardise the implementation of the UK-India Free Trade Agreement; and what steps they are taking to protect British exporters, consumers, investment, and the benefits secured under that agreement.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the steel trade measure is being put in place to address the serious threat posed by global overcapacity to our domestic steel-making capability. Given the strategic and economic importance of steel, the Government cannot afford to leave the situation unaddressed. Today the DBT Secretary of State is in Delhi, seeking to further strengthen the relationship and bring the UK-India FTA into force as soon as possible, to ensure that the benefits are realised.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the Answer, and it is reassuring to hear that the Secretary of State is in India. However, the fact is that the previous Government secured Brexit freedoms precisely to break free from EU protectionism and position Britain as a champion of global free trade. Within months of signing what Ministers themselves called a landmark deal with India, this Government have now announced steel tariff measures so damaging that senior Indian officials are threatening to withdraw important concessions.
For example, the Scotch whisky industry, one of Britain’s greatest exporting success stories, was on the cusp of seeing tariffs on its exports to India slashed from 150% to 75% immediately, falling further to 40% over the life of the agreement. We do not need a review in 12 months to tell us what 100 years of economic history already confirms: tariffs damage trade, raise costs and, ultimately, hurt the very industries and consumers they purport to protect. Will the Minister commit today to reversing the steel tariffs outright, saving the landmark deal and sending an unambiguous signal to British businesses and our global partners that Britain is open for business?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, we use tariffs only as a last resort, and only in circumstances where we have no other choice. Without action, we risk losing domestic steel-making capability, which would mean that we could not mean critical infrastructure and defence needs without relying fully on imports. Furthermore, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are not the only country that has tariffs: the EU has tariffs, Canada has tariffs and the US has tariffs.
On the point about whisky, we have signed a legal treaty with India that underpins the trade deal, and the liberalisation of whisky is a clear part of that. We will adhere to that and support the Scottish Whisky Association to ensure that India meets its obligation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister will no doubt realise, tariffs are double-edged. The businesses that use steel that is not being manufactured in this country are in danger of having to pay higher prices for that steel, unless the Government are subtler than seems to be the case to date. Can the Minister undertake forthwith to make sure that the steel catalogue is thoroughly reviewed and that no steel that cannot be made in the United Kingdom would come under any tariff at all?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We recall that the quota currently in place stands at 60%. For most countries, we have not achieved 60%: it is only when we exceed that 60% that that tariff of 50% comes in. Furthermore, we import most of our steel from the EU; 70% of our steel imports are from overseas and 60% from the EU, while India contributes only 5% of the market.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, when we had Brexit, we were informed that there were oven-ready schemes for trade. Where are they?
Lord Watts (Lab)
The question is: when we had Brexit, we were told by the supporters of Brexit that we had oven-ready trade deals, ready to go, and they would boost the economy. Where are those trade deals?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. We are making best use of where we are today as far as our position with Brexit is concerned. We are entering into free trade deals with many countries across the world; we have just signed the FTA with India and are in conversations with South Korea and Turkey, and we have completed a free trade deal with the GCC countries. Those are the benefits and dividends of Brexit.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, just to share with the noble Lord opposite, there were extensive discussions: the CPTPP was signed and the India trade negotiations were started under the previous Government. I should know, because I was involved in them. I have a simple question. Having worked with our counterparts and friends in India, I know they will look at this as ill thought-out. The steel strategy was not effectively co-ordinated—to address the question from the previous noble Lord—on the implications for manufacturers here who rely on steel that is imported into the country, and in particular those reliant on Indian steel.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and I congratulate the former Government on starting the conversations on the India free trade deal and the CPTPP. However, the prize is closing the deal, which we have done in government. On the assessments and all that, look, we have absolutely no intention of undermining the benefits of the trade deal for any specific sector. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is in India having conversations with Minister Goyal to ensure that this free trade deal is implemented as soon as possible.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it, our free trade agreement with India includes a special clause on the welfare of animals, which is quite good. Is a human rights clause also included? If not, do the British Government really think that human rights in India are less important than those of animals?
Lord Leong (Lab)
No, we do not. Human rights are important everywhere, whether in India or any other country, and we will abide by our obligations under the international conventions on human rights.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to hear from the Minister a brief summary of just some of the benefits that being outside the European Union has brought this country. Not only do we have an independent trade policy that allows us to protect steel jobs, but, just before the Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed entirely a slew of tariffs on products, which she emphasised would mean cheaper prices in our supermarkets for every citizen. It is also of course the case that precision breeding means that we have plants and animals with higher yields that are more resilient to environmental and other pressures, and changes to share issuance which mean that the City of London is more competitive than ever. I join the Minister in saying that that vote 10 years ago was a fantastic leap forward for the United Kingdom and I am so delighted that this Minister is showing the courage of the nation’s convictions.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I did not detect a question there. We are where we are. We have to get Brexit done and we are making the most of it. We have signed trade deals with many countries and many more are in the pipeline. We will continue signing free trade deals everywhere.
Lord Redwood (Con)
How many job losses will there be in the steel-using industries in the United Kingdom as a result of the new higher tariffs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
That is why we have brought in special measures to safeguard jobs in British Steel in Scunthorpe. At the same time, we have invested loads of money and given £500 million to Tata to ensure that Port Talbot continues. We will ensure that jobs are protected.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, consumers do not buy raw steel, but they do buy the things made from it. Tariffs cause a squeeze on real wages as more household income goes on goods whose prices have been pushed up by input costs. Why would any Government want that?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Earl did not hear my earlier answer. No one wants tariffs. They are always the last resort when we have no alternative to protect our domestic industry. Furthermore, with steel, most imports do not even meet the quota of 60%. Until it hits 60%, the 50% does not come in.
Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]
Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill [HL]
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Lemos
That the Regulations laid before the House on 21 April be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 18 May.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this scandal began with the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson is a man whose relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was already known to be a profound reputational risk and whose later published record included cash payments and benefits from Epstein, including travel.
At the core of this story is not merely a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. It is the Prime Minister’s failure, and it shows a callous disregard for the victims of one of the most notorious sex offenders of modern times.
In truth, we have learned little that is surprising from what is actually in these documents. It is no surprise that Lord Mandelson displayed contempt for the Prime Minister, for cabinet government and for officials and advisers alike, despite his public utterances. He described No. 10 as “beleaguered and bereft”, said it needed a “complete revamp” and claimed that senior people in Downing Street did not know what the Prime Minister wanted; indeed, that most of them did not think that the Prime Minister knew what he wanted.
Of equal concern is that, clearly, Ministers spent a lot of time discussing party politics with a supposedly politically impartial official. Can the Minister confirm that that failure to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service is in contravention of the Ministerial Code?
What is most revealing is not what the documents contain; it is what they do not contain. Nowhere is there candid written submission, whether from officials or political advisers, saying, “Prime Minister, this appointment is unwise. This candidate carries unacceptable reputational risk. This office demands a higher standard”. We have not been shown a written decision from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary authorising the appointment on the merits. Instead, we are given peripheral documents: process, risk, choreography, vetting, and announcement handling. One chain says simply that
“a political appointment has been agreed”.
The Cabinet Secretary later records that earlier advice explained the Prime Minister’s right to
“make such an appointment and the process for doing so but did not give specific advice on candidates”.
So, for all the Prime Minister’s talk of leadership, the record before us suggests that not one person serving him felt able or willing to advise him candidly in writing that this appointment was folly. That is a remarkable indictment of the culture at the centre of government.
It is also deeply ironic. This is a Prime Minister who has staked much of his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and a statutory duty of candour. He has said that such a duty is needed so that the truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible and that the law would change the balance of power so that the state can never hide from the people it should serve. Those are admirable sentiments. They arise from hard and bitter experience: Hillsborough, infected blood, Covid—all where families were forced to fight the state, not only for justice but for records, evidence and truth.
Perhaps the one person in government who did, in private, take the duty of candour seriously was Pat McFadden, who told Lord Mandelson:
“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’ They’re asking the wrong questions”.
What a shame that he felt that that duty did not extend to the electorate.
Does the Minister appreciate how surreal it is for a Government to preach candour in public office while, in relation to one of the gravest scandals in British diplomatic history, they appear assiduously to have avoided creating clear records of advice and decision? Candour is not merely what Ministers say at a Dispatch Box after the event. Candour is what advisers write down when the powerful are about to make a grave mistake.
There is a further problem. The Government acknowledge that material has been withheld so as not to prejudice an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation, and say that further publication may follow. But where is the schedule? How many relevant documents have been withheld? What categories do they fall into? Who authored them? What dates do they cover? What broad subjects do they concern? I ask the noble Baroness to undertake that the Government will provide the House with a clear account of what has been withheld and why.
Finally, responsibility cannot be outsourced to officials, advisers or process. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. If further confirmation were needed of Lord Mandelson’s total unsuitability, it is found in the extraordinary discovery that after his appointment had been publicly announced, he still planned to participate in UBS’s Greater China Conference in Shanghai in his Global Counsel capacity, and that he would be paid for it. Officials further recorded that he asked to start on the FCDO payroll in order to facilitate that private engagement. This was a man with no proper regard for propriety, ethics or the dignity of public office, and he has been driven from office and from public life. The remaining question is how long the Prime Minister who appointed him can credibly remain.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, when discussing such matters we should always start with remembering and honouring the bravery of the women and girls who came forward to tell the truth, revealing the grim reality of the behaviour they and others had been subject to. Their commitment to truth stands in stark contrast, sadly, with Peter Mandelson’s decision to withhold key information from the papers we are discussing today.
However, turning to what we do have, and starting on a positive note, the Government’s new guidance on direct ministerial appointments published alongside the humble Address now says—and it is very welcome:
“Where security vetting procedures are necessary, these should be undertaken and completed before an appointment is confirmed and announced”.
I have raised before the rather bizarre, back-to-front nature of appointing somebody first and only then checking whether they are suitable, so that is a very welcome change and should be acknowledged as such.
On a possibly less positive note, I see that the terms of reference for the vetting review have also been published alongside this tranche of documents. I have previously expressed concerns about how the results of Peter Mandelson’s vetting were reported to others through a daisy chain of verbal briefings, such that in the end the Prime Minister was hearing the outcome of the vetting process third hand, without sight of the relevant outcome documents. Whatever we think about the judgments made in that process, that is clearly a very brittle process, prone to error and lack of accountability. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the vetting review will include not just how vetting is done, which is clearly within scope, but how its results are reported to others, including looking at the merits of replacing that culture of verbal briefings with a clear, documented paper trail?
Moving on to what is definitely not, I am afraid, a positive note, the messages that we now can see from inside government show a clear and widespread embedding of the culture of government by WhatsApp. I have previously asked about the promised review of the Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp, which still, at the bottom of the page on GOV.UK, states:
“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.
Last month, when I queried when the review will be completed, the Minister told me:
“I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail”.—[Official Report, 19/5/26; cols. 280-81.]
However, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister, Darren Jones, told the House simply that the terms of reference for the review will be published “very shortly”. So we have gone from a promised review before 31 December 2025, to an expectation last month that details were imminent, to a hope yesterday that the terms of the review will be published very shortly. It seems that each time, as time passes, we are getting further away from the completion of the review. What assurances can the Minister give us about the Government’s commitment to sorting this issue out and ensuring that this review is fully completed —and promptly?
Turning to the papers themselves, I have four questions. Running through much of the correspondence is the idea from officials that membership of the House of Lords exempts you from vetting requirements in many circumstances. It is a repeatedly expressed belief. Given the limited nature of the checks made on those of us who have the privilege of joining this House, and given that those checks have in many cases been carried out several decades previously, can the Minister confirm the Government’s position? On what occasions, and for which posts, would someone who otherwise has to be vetted be exempted from vetting by virtue of being a Member of this House?
Secondly, there is the email from a civil servant to Peter Mandelson on 21 January last year—volume 1, page 77—regarding the vetting team’s request for the names of his foreign contacts. The email said:
“I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don’t consider them ‘close contacts’. That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive, even if it’s all quite artificial”.
That apparent coaching on how to mislead the vetting team with extraneous information is clearly concerning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government became aware of such exchanges, and what action has been taken to ensure that similar such coaching or advice is not proffered in future?
Thirdly, there is the curious email from Ailsa Terry to Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney on 13 February last year—volume 1, page 386. It says:
“Olly has been clear about the need to delete all traffic on this”.
Why would a senior civil servant be telling those two people to delete all the records of something?
Finally, I turn to a matter of detail—it would be a useful one to clear up—regarding volume 3, page 128. It appears to show the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, arranging a meeting with a paid lobbyist, yet the Treasury’s list of declared such meetings does not have any matching entry. Did that meeting take place? If so, who attended it, and what is the reason for that meeting not appearing in the register?
I appreciate that, obviously, the Minister may not be able to give detailed answers to all those points now, but I hope she will be able to commit at least to writing to me, because clarity and transparency are crucial as part of not just the Government’s but the whole political system’s reaction to the scandal we have been facing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their contributions. As ever, I will endeavour to answer all their questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and write on any issues I have missed.
Before I do so, it is important for all of us to reflect on the impact this debate will yet again have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes he committed against countless women and girls. As we discuss these issues again today, it is the victims of a horrendous sexual predator whom we must remember.
Moving on to the substance and process of the Government’s compliance with the ISC, for clarity and accountability, as noble Lords will have seen, the publication includes a summary of the methodology explaining how government officials undertook the disclosure process. To clarify, because doing so will be helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House, on redactions, in line with the Motion, more than 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government are grateful to the committee for its engagement in this process, and I am of course especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his stewardship of the ISC and his management of this significant additional workload.
Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names, contact details, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the Motion and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. The Cabinet Office humble Address team, which has taken the decisions on non-ISC redactions, has taken advice from an independent KC—including reviewing the methodological approach—and officials, acting on that to inform its work. These additional targeted redactions made outside the ISC process have been made in line with precedent, built on the conventions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministerial Code and resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997, as my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister stated yesterday.
On the ISC’s recommendation—we thank it for such a constructive suggestion—the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr Simon Hoare MP, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions and confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. As noble Lords will be aware, the Metropolitan Police Service has asked us to withhold some material in scope of the Motion which it considers could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution.
To ensure parliamentary oversight, the Government also shared this information with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to provide additional accountability of the Government’s actions. The Government are very grateful to Mr Hoare for his participation in that exercise. Our goal is to ensure that we neither prejudice nor undermine any police investigations, as all Members of your Lordships’ House would expect. Such information will be published at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point when it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so. Therefore, I am limited in what I can and will say.
I will also touch briefly on the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. The UK security vetting process summary and recommendation that was put to the Foreign Office has been shared with the ISC to agree reactions so that it can be published when we are able to do so. What has not been shared is the highly sensitive personal data that formed the basis of the vetting process. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into the process is confidential, it will harm the integrity of the whole system, undermining the very basis of our national security vetting system and, in turn, our national security. We cannot and will not do that. I note that the chair of the ISC, my noble friend Lord Beamish, confirmed last night that he agrees with the Government that the larger vetting detail should not be released to the committee even though it is covered by the humble Address. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying so.
Moving to the specific points that have been raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, touched on compliance with the Ministerial Code. Noble Lords will understand that I am not the judge of the Ministerial Code—that is the role of the Prime Minister, taking advice from his independent adviser as needed. As set out in the code, Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public. The noble Baroness also touched on the future duty of candour law and raised the scandals that have led to us requiring a law. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times—be it the horrors of the infected blood scandal, of Horizon, of Windrush, of Hillsborough, or of the Manchester Arena—that there is a reason why we need to change the law. If we cannot convince people to be candid, then in order to change the culture we will need to change the law. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as I understand it, Peter Mandelson did not participate in the Shanghai speaking engagement she referenced.
On the direct ministerial guidance and change in vetting, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised a very important point, as he did last time, about how this is communicated. I will have to go back to officials to see if it can be included in the terms of reference, because the process is well under way. The noble Lord is aware that my colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, was called up on the fact that it has been slightly delayed, although it is slightly ambitious timing, so it depends on your view. However, I will see what I can do about verbal briefings and write to the noble Lord.
On the issue of the NCCCs review, I expect very shortly—imminently—to be back in front of your Lordships’ House with both the terms of reference and who is undertaking that review. We are not not doing it; we absolutely are, as my honourable friend in the other place said. But I will have to come back to him.
With regard to the fit and proper person test, the noble Lord would have read with interest, as I did, about what we are allowed to know as Members of your Lordships’ House and what we are not allowed to know. Noble Lords will be aware that there are a small number of exemptions from standard vetting requirements in place. Sir Adrian Fulford is considering the relevant policies as part of his review into national security vetting. His high-level recommendations will be published shortly, and we will act swiftly on his recommendations.
There is a general exemption from national security vetting for parliamentarians. This has been a general rule for many years, and many Members of your Lordships’ House would have experienced briefings because of it. That includes in this instance and in others those briefings that can also be made on Privy Council terms, hence the discussion. I would suggest that noble Lords actually look at the time stamps for how that discussion was done, because that was a one-day discussion—several messages but a one-day discussion—and then a decision was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, also asked me about my noble friend Lord Livermore and the transparency declaration. I understand this was a personal meeting that took place away from government property. The only participants were my noble friend Lord Livermore and Peter Mandelson; no one else from Global Counsel joined in the end. As this was a meeting in a personal capacity, it was not recorded as an official meeting.
The documents before your Lordships amount to one of the largest government publications ever laid before the House. Officials work tirelessly to ensure our compliance with the wishes of the other place and over £1 million has been spent. The scale is not dissimilar to the requirements of a public inquiry, and I want to thank my officials for their extraordinary effort since the beginning of February. However, the last word should not be about process or political intrigue, but to remember who has been failed. Our thoughts must remain with the victims of Epstein today and every day.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now have up to 20 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members. The first question will be from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, one figure emerges from these papers with his already high reputation enhanced. I refer of course to Sir Olly Robbins, the former Permanent Secretary at the FCDO, and I am sure the noble Baroness, who is an excellent Minister, will agree with me that the memo that he authored towards Lord Mandelson, which was published, reinforces that he is a public servant of the highest standards of honour and integrity. Would she also agree with me that he should be reinstated now rather than have the taxpayer pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for his unfair dismissal?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, Olly Robbins was dismissed because the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary lost confidence in him, as has been set out publicly before. As has always been the case, we do not comment on individual employment cases.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the ISC has spent many hours and days doing the task which Parliament set it. I put on record my thanks, on behalf of the committee, to the staff who have worked behind the scenes on this. I also thank the committee members, including two Members of our own House, my noble friend Admiral Lord West, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, who have worked very hard on this long task.
I wrote last week to the Prime Minister raising four points: the use of WhatsApp in government; the use of low-side systems for transmitting confidential and secretive information; the lack of record-keeping, particularly within the Foreign Office, of audit trails; and the way in which security advice was handled by officials and Ministers. They are nothing new. The committee raised them with the last Government, including the Foreign Office, which had a very bad reputation for keeping records or WhatsApp messages. I understand that the Government have now committed to a review of this, but I say to my noble friend that there is an urgency in this. This needs to be done very quickly, because this is not something new. It was raised with the last Government, it was ignored by the last Government, and it now needs to be put right as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the work he has done, as well as my other noble friend and other colleagues in your Lordships’ House and the other place. This has been an extraordinary volume of work for many people, not least members of the committee and their officials, and we are very grateful to them for it.
I will take the four points he raised in turn. He is absolutely right; there has to be a positive in everything that happens, and one of the positives is that we will now review each of these areas to fix what is not working, the first of which is the use of WhatsApp. There will be a review on the use of non-corporate communication channels—we really need a better phrase for them than NCCCs, but I am sure we will come up with one. On record-keeping, I assure your Lordships’ House that the Cabinet Secretary has this week written to all the heads of departments—in other words, to every other Permanent Secretary—to remind them of their responsibilities, and we are reviewing the guidance that is issued to private offices going forward. My noble friend is absolutely right about low-level platforms and security information, and those two will be taken in train. I realise, as I reference that, that one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, was about why some material should be deleted. I am not sure of the detail, because I have not seen some of the security elements behind it, but I would suggest that it may be because that information should not have been on that level of platform.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I say to the Minister that I greatly welcome the fact that the Government are going to resist any misplaced pressure to reveal full security vetting, as indeed the ISC rightly says. We all know that, in references for jobs nowadays, the candidates are perfect and have a million and one qualities. I know that security vetting is very detailed— I have been subjected to it many times myself. It goes to your school, education, employers and friends, and people speak frankly. If for one moment they felt it was going to be published, security vetting designed to protect the most secret information would be of little value. Whatever else we do, we must hold on to that. However tempting it would be, for whatever reason, to know the full contents, they must not be revealed. I am talking not about this case but about a general principle. I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance on that.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. This is clear, and there is already some concern about the chilling effect that even discussions of vetting in this way may be having on people’s responsibilities to be candid during the process, because they are concerned that it could end up that very private details of their personal life could be released in a way that most people do not know about. It is absolutely clear that this Government will not release the vetting files, in order to protect our national security.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Minister has been making a very good meal of this, and I pay tribute to her. I am going to America next week; does she share my deep embarrassment that this country, renowned for its integrity, appointed this shocking man as ambassador?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord safe travels, and I hope he has a very enjoyable visit. With regard to the appointment, I think we have all been clear that this was a mistake and should not have happened, and the Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for it.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the last, albeit inadvertent, public service that Peter Mandelson delivered was to enable to be laid bare for public scrutiny the extraordinary vacuum at the centre of this Government—that there is a lack of leadership and a lack of direction, and that this has consequences? Does she agree that, when the Financial Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box yesterday and told the House that the inevitable consequence of the Government’s so-called EU reset was that Britain would rejoin the European Union, that has consequences? Does she agree that that lack of discipline and of collective responsibility has to come to an end and can only do so with a change of Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, because he has given me an opportunity to highlight exactly how effective my Government and that of Keir Starmer have been since we came into office. More than 50% of asylum hotels are closed and knife crime has gone down by 10% in the last 12 months. The IMF has just raised our growth forecast. We have approved 110,000 grants to help people buy new electric vehicles, and we have increased the number of secondary school, special school and further education teachers by 4,000. Over 1,300 schools have joined the free breakfast club programme. The NHS waiting list is at its lowest level for three and a half years. Some 11 million renters have stronger rights and 56,000 illegal immigrants have been returned to their countries. We have brought in 30 hours of free childcare per week for parents and the minimum wage has gone up. I will take that every day of the week.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she is addressing this Statement. Seeing her pile of papers and the number of Post-it notes attached, it is clearly an impressive task for any Minister to deal with.
Much has been made of the use of WhatsApp. I suspect I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in confessing that I use WhatsApp. I also have a number of conversations in which disappearing messages are used. There has already been criticism of the use of disappearing messages in WhatsApp, not just in the discussions that have been revealed as part of this but right through the previous Government, particularly during the Covid period. Perhaps my noble friend can confirm that.
Secondly, while I deplore the use of WhatsApp for any formal decision-making, disappearing messages are an entirely sensible proposition where WhatsApp is being used. I checked my mobile phone this morning, and the largest use of memory on it is by WhatsApp—so, in fact, for colleagues in the other place, colleagues here and colleagues on the other side of this Chamber to use disappearing messages is entirely rational. Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and would like to reassure him that I have read every page of the humble Address. I apparently do not need to sleep any more.
The point that he made about WhatsApp and disappearing messages is absolutely right. The guidance issued to every Minister is clear:
“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.
Anyone who had deleted messages was not breaking the rules. The issue is in making sure that all record-keeping of decisions and how they were made is kept in government, which is why we are reminding every government department of its responsibilities in this space.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, the Prime Minister has staked his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. That is admirable but, when candour is required of this Government, we get redacted documents, nil responses and stolen mobile phones, which we are told were not backed up in the cloud. We learned today that even the Prime Minister has disappearing messages on WhatsApp switched on—so much for the state never hiding from the people it serves.
My question for the Minister is: where is the candour from this Government? Spare us the usual list of the previous Government’s sins; after all the Prime Minister’s moral grandstanding on this issue, the argument that “We’re no worse than you lot” does not really cut it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord had listened to the answer I gave to my noble friend because, if he had, he would not have needed to read his question. With regard to the issues that the noble Lord raised, I do not think he will find that I have attacked the previous Government from this Dispatch Box, although there is plenty to attack them for.
On candour, as I just stated to my noble friend, the use of WhatsApp messages and deleting messages is explicitly allowed for within the guidance that is issued within government. On the use of candour, I think everyone benefits from a little light.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is interesting that my noble friend does not talk about the previous Government, but they were the Government who tried to prorogue Parliament and found that they should not have done it. I find it difficult to take lessons from them.
My noble friend and other Ministers have acknowledged many times that there were serious shortcomings in the due diligence and vetting process, and they have already made some changes—for example, to ensure that vetting takes place before an announcement. I welcome that. My noble friend alluded to various changes under way, but I wonder whether she could let us know what other workstreams will make sure that we improve the whole situation with vetting and approvals.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I agree with her that there is a little bit of chutzpah in being lectured at by colleagues opposite.
With regard to the changes that are being undertaken, obviously we have asked specialists in the field to make their recommendations to us. Noble Lords who operate in the security field will be aware that there is always an ongoing review of how vetting is undertaken to make sure that it complies with the world as the world shifts and changes and as our threat levels change. I look forward to seeing Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations for next steps. My noble friend is absolutely right that we are not standing still. We have reminded all government departments of their responsibilities. We are looking at the existing guidance for private offices to make sure that ministerial guidance is in place. One of the things that I am looking at is the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, about how we can ensure that Ministers have the right support in place, as well as the right training and mentoring, both in this space and more broadly.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Ministers have brilliant private offices that help them with record-keeping, so the Minister is right to suggest that using WhatsApp is perfectly acceptable. I want to understand further, though. It is unfortunate that the chief of staff’s mobile phone was stolen. Has the Cabinet Office investigated asking network carriers, and indeed the WhatsApp organisation, for the metadata? That records whatever calls were made, whatever texts were sent and which messages were deleted. It would be useful, in this level of candour, to make those requests and to inform Parliament if the network carriers, and indeed WhatsApp, refuse to provide them.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have to agree with the noble Baroness about brilliant private offices; mine is fabulous. Obviously, it has a really easy job of making sure that I operate well. On the specifics about the metadata, I will have to write to the noble Baroness. This was a process led by Cabinet Office officials. I am not sure of the detail in that space on what additional information they sought.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is clear that Members opposite were hoping that there would be a silver bullet in all these humble Address papers that would kill the Prime Minister. When they have to resort to quoting Peter Mandelson’s view of the Prime Minister, it shows how desperate they are becoming. Then we got the scattergun approach from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. She had to resort to picking here, there and everywhere and getting nowhere.
My question relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said about vetting Members of this House. As the Minister said, that does not happen at the moment. Yet we have a Member of this House who was appointed against the views of the intelligence community: the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. Surely the Minister must agree that we may need to rethink it in view of that.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, as always, for his thoughtful contribution. With regard to the specifics, there is a genuine issue. Obviously, many Members of your Lordships’ House on a day-to-day basis need to be briefed on specific pieces of government legislation or to have early access to certain documents, as was offered to some Members of your Lordships’ House yesterday, on Privy Council terms or as fit and proper people. There is a balance here about how we operate our day-to-day world so that noble Lords can appropriately scrutinise the actions of the Government versus general access to information. While I will not comment on individual Members of your Lordships’ House, I can understand some concerns, which is why Sir Adrian Fulford has been asked to consider that as part of his review.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, it appears from the second tranche of emails that the former ambassador to America was sent on a mission to support, and ensure that the American Administration supported, the appalling Chagos deal. It also appears that there was more to it than that in relation to his involvement with the Chagos deal, not just making sure that the American Administration went along with the UK Government. Will the Minister please inform the House whether there is an investigation to give us further information as to the precise role that the former ambassador to America had in relation to the Chagos deal?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I find the question itself a tad surreal, given the nature of what we are talking about. The noble Baroness is referencing the actions and engagement that the Government’s ambassador had with another nation. Some of that material will be redacted for international relations and national security reasons. With regard to where we currently stand, the base on Diego Garcia is vital to our national security. Our agreement with Mauritius is the best way to secure it, ensuring that it can continue to operate effectively and play a crucial role in our national security.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agreed with me that we should not take lessons from the Opposition, who had a Prime Minister who misled Parliament on a number of occasions and none of them said anything about it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord was referring to any Member of your Lordships’ House in those comments; I say this to reassure the Privy Council Bench on the opposite side.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the previous Government had some challenges at various points during their period in office. As for what that means for us, we have republished the Ministerial Code, adding in the Nolan principles. We have created the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We have made sure that we are bringing forward consideration on lobbying reform. This is a Government who are seeking to rebuild trust in public life, and we will continue to do so.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, civil aviation is a cornerstone of our national prosperity, supporting jobs,investment and connectivity across the United Kingdom. In 2025 alone, UK airports handled 2.1 million commercial flights and nearly 300 million passengers. This highlights both the scale of the sector and the need for effective regulation. The Bill before your Lordships’ House will reinforce consumer protections, support economic growth and aviation infrastructure, and enable improved safety standards. In doing so, it will help ensure that the UK remains an attractive and competitive aviation hub for years to come.
I am sure that noble Lords will wish to consider the case for this Bill. The sector has changed profoundly in recent years. Rapid technological advances, new aircraft capabilities and the emergence of new airspace users, such as drones, have created complexity for which the current framework was not designed. At the same time, the UK has lost certain powers to update regulation following EU exit. The sector has also faced external shocks,such as the recent instability in the Middle East and the unprecedented disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic. To manage this, we need a framework flexible enough to respond to volatility, embrace innovation and prioritise passengers. That is the purpose of this Bill.
The Bill takes an important step to strengthen consumer protection for passengers. Although the sector serves millions well, when things go wrong some may face uncertainty and delay in securing redress. The Bill introduces a power to strengthen air passenger rights through secondary legislation, ensuring that they keep pace with case law, international standards and a changing landscape. This will allow the Government to tackle the issues that matter most to passengers: delays and cancellations, baggage loss or damage, injury or death, protections for disabled and less mobile passengers, and redress mechanisms for individuals.
I am acutely aware of the difficulties that disabled passengers can encounter when flying, including poor and inappropriate service, long waiting times, and damaged and lost mobility aids. I have heard concerns expressed by noble Lords from all sides of the House on challenges that they have faced themselves or when travelling with family and friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, led my department’s Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group to identify ways to improve without legislation the travel experience of disabled air passengers, but this Bill will provide the Government with the powers to strengthen legal protections where necessary to ensure that the system works for all passengers, including those who require assistance.
Crucially, the Bill strengthens enforcement. Unlike other regulators, the Civil Aviation Authority currently relies on court action to protect consumer rights. This is slow and resource intensive. The Bill will give the CAA direct consumer enforcement powers, aligning it with the Competition and Markets Authority. That will allow earlier and more effective intervention, quicker redress and greater passenger confidence.
The Bill supports the modernisation of UK airspace. The UK has some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world, yet much of its design dates back to the 1950s. Modernisation is therefore essential to maintain and improve safety, reliability and efficiency, as well as to reduce emissions and noise for communities. Without it, it is estimated that, by 2040, as many as one in five flights could face significant disruption. The Government have established the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver the most complex airspace changes, beginning with London. The Bill complements that work by strengthening the Secretary of State’s existing powers of direction, enabling her, where necessary, to direct those involved in airspace change to implement approved designs. This provides a more robust power of last resort, ensuring that modernisation can proceed effectively.
The Bill broadens who may be charged for the provision of air traffic and air navigation services. This will ensure that the cost of providing better air services, including funding the UK Airspace Design Service, can continue to be recovered fairly, as new types of airspace service users emerge.
On slot reform, the Bill enables a more agile and resilient approach to airport slot regulation, a framework that has remained largely unchanged since the early 1990s. Effective slot allocation is essential, not only in times of disruption but to maintain capacity, connectivity and competitiveness. The Government must be able to respond swiftly and proportionately when demand changes or operational pressures arise. The Bill therefore introduces a delegated power to amend slot regulations when needed, replacing powers lost after EU exit.
Recent experience has shown why that matters. The pandemic demonstrated how quickly aviation operations can be disrupted, and more recent instability in the Middle East has reinforced how quickly external events can impact aviation, resulting in the need for an urgent statutory instrument to be brought before this House in the next few days using powers that will no longer be available after 23 June. The Bill therefore provides a much-needed mechanism for updating slot rules when circumstances require it in the future.
Finally, the Bill strengthens the aviation safety framework. The UK has an excellent record on aviation safety and these measures will help ensure that it is maintained. However, since EU exit, all changes to safety regulations—mostly highly technical and routine updates—must be delivered through statutory instruments. This process is time-consuming, resource intensive and duplicative; it is unsuitable for an international and fast-moving sector such as aviation, where global safety standards evolve continuously.
As a result, the UK is falling behind on its international obligations, which could impact the safety of the sector. The Bill aims to make safety rule-making faster and more efficient, by delegating technical aviation safety and operational standards to the Civil Aviation Authority. This will create a more responsive and agile framework, helping to ensure that safety requirements keep pace with international standards and the changing landscape.
We recognise that noble Lords, and Members in the other place, will want to ensure appropriate ministerial and parliamentary oversight of this delegation. The Bill includes strong measures precisely to ensure this. The Secretary of State will set objectives and priorities for the Civil Aviation Authority, which will be laid before Parliament, including a forward look at rule-making tasks. The Secretary of State will be able to direct or even override, if necessary, the CAA’s exercise of its rule-making functions using her existing powers.
The Bill also includes binding requirements on the Civil Aviation Authority to consult and notify affected parties, including Ministers, and a duty to report to Parliament on the exercise of this delegated power. This approach gives Parliament a more holistic forward and backward view on aviation safety rule-making, compared with the fragmented and piecemeal view it has in the current system. It also enables much-needed consolidation of the existing, fragmented sources of law, which would otherwise be impractical. This will make compliance for industry simpler and enhance safety.
Alongside this, the Bill addresses an important gap in enforcement. It restores powers, lost after the EU exit, to amend and create aviation safety-related criminal offences where necessary. Without this, some safety rules cannot be fully enforced, making them harder to update and less effective in practice. Taken together, these measures will support a clearer, more effective regulatory framework by preserving the UK’s high safety standards, aligning better with international practice and sustaining public confidence in the safety of our aviation system.
In closing, I know many noble Lords will be interested in how the Bill interacts with the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow. I should be clear: the Bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, regardless of any decisions on expansion. Those with a particular interest in Heathrow will have an opportunity to scrutinise proposed changes to the airports national policy statement later this year.
Before I conclude, I should note that this Bill is an important waypoint, not the end of the runway, for aviation reform—sorry. Following Royal Assent, further regulations will set out the detail for industry and allow for further scrutiny by your Lordships and Members in the other place. The Bill’ application is UK-wide, as aviation is a reserved matter, but some of its clauses touch on transferred matters in Northern Ireland. The Government are therefore seeking a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This Bill is a measured and practical piece of legislation. It updates the legislative framework governing civil aviation in a way that is proportionate, targeted and grounded in the needs of a modern sector, while remaining consistent with the high standards this House would rightly expect. I hope noble Lords will recognise the value of these reforms and feel able to support the Bill’s passage today. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, before I start my remarks, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests as the non-executive chair of RVL Aviation.
The Minister will, I hope, be pleased to know that I, for one, broadly support the Bill, although there are some areas where I have some questions and concerns. Where I agree with him—he set this out clearly in his letter to Peers—is on the importance of the sector: how important civil aviation is for the UK, particularly given our global interests and the number of jobs it supports in the economy, and indeed its importance for economic growth. I completely agree with that. He also set out in that letter the fact that there is an awful lot of change and that we are global leaders in some of the development of new technologies, and therefore some of the regulation around those technologies. I know that, when I was leading the department, we gave clear direction to the CAA about engaging with industry to make sure that we could lead the world in developing some of that regulation.
Let me go through a number of areas of the Bill and set out where I agree and where I have some questions for the Minister. On airspace modernisation, I strongly support what the Government are trying to do. It was an area I was involved with when I was Secretary of State. It has a lot of benefits in terms of improving efficiency for airlines, reducing costs, reducing carbon emissions and making use of very congested airspace, particularly in the London area, more efficiently. But I am struggling with exactly what benefit the power in the Bill will generate in practice.
In the ECHR memorandum, the department made it clear that it was a last-resort measure. No directions have been made. They have been threatened on some occasions. It went out of its way in that memorandum to emphasise how limited a power it would be. In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, it said that the use of the clause might be helpful, particularly in delivering airspace modernisation particularly over London. It would be helpful, when the Minister winds up, if he could set out a specific example of where the new statutory power for the Secretary of State would have a practical benefit in delivering airspace modernisation.
The only other thing I want to flag—I do not think this is a genuine concern, but it would be helpful for the Minister to put people’s minds at rest—is that, when there are changes to airspace in terms of flight paths going to airports, there are, of course, perfectly reasonable concerns raised by residents who live near those airports. I wanted to have the Minister’s confirmation that the Secretary of State having this power to direct change will not change any of the existing rights for people to be consulted and have the opportunity to set out their concerns. I accept that it may be perfectly reasonable, in some cases, for decisions to be taken that some residents will not like because they are in the interests of the country, but there should be a proper process and I want to check that nothing in the Bill will change that process and weaken the rights of individuals.
On the ability of the Government to legislate using secondary legislation for consumer powers, I want to get a sense of the government’s thinking and test one of the specific things in the impact assessment. It is worth saying that, generally speaking, the aviation sector—there is one exception, which I will draw on in a minute, and the Minister referred to it—has very high levels of customer satisfaction. I think in the latest CAA consumer survey, it had something like an 88% satisfaction level, which is an all-time high. So, generally, there is not a problem to fix. But the Minister rightly drew attention to a very specific issue, which I suspect at least two noble Lords this afternoon will touch on: how the industry deals with disabled passengers and those who need extra support.
This is one of the questions I have about the CAA’s enforcement powers. There is already legislation in the Equality Act that was carried forward from the Disability Discrimination Act about the steps that all businesses, including airlines, have to take: all the reasonable adjustments they have to make to deliver services for disabled passengers. My question is about the enforcement powers that the Minister is planning to give to the CAA. Will that mean that the CAA can use the legislative powers in the Equality Act to insist that airlines make those reasonable adjustments? Is it able to use that legislation and enforce the rights that already exist? They are not new legal obligations, but I think many people feel that airlines do not deliver on those to the extent that we would expect. Is that part of the enforcement suite that the Government are thinking of? If there are existing laws that are not being properly enforced, my preference would be to properly enforce existing laws, not invent new laws, which may themselves not be properly enforced.
One of the issues I have with the Government taking powers to legislate with secondary legislation is that, although this is not true of every individual company, the aviation sector generally is a relatively low-margin business. Every time you legislate to improve consumer rights it comes at a cost, and you have to balance the rights that you are delivering—the consumer experience—against the cost that you are putting on an industry that, overall, does not make a huge margin. There is clearly a high bar if you make those changes with primary legislation, but there is a lower bar if you make them with secondary legislation. I just want to test whether the Government have any specific plans in mind at this stage that they might use secondary legislation for.
I raise this because, if you look at the impact assessment—it is a very hefty tome; a lot of hefty tomes have been published this week—page 3 says specifically:
“The EU is currently considering updates to Regulation 261, which governs passenger rights during flight disruptions”.
It also says that, if the Government do not have
“the power to amend legislation, the UK cannot promptly mirror or respond to these changes”.
I think that illustrates a mindset that is not helpful.
If the Government think that there are gaps in consumer protection legislation for British passengers, then they should make those changes because they are the right thing to do in themselves, and make the argument for them. The Government should not blindly follow and respond to things that the EU is doing. If the EU is doing things that are sensible, and that we think are sensible, we absolutely should do them, but we should do them anyway. If the EU does things that are not sensible, I see absolutely no reason why we should follow it. The whole point about leaving the European Union was that we could make decisions for ourselves. If we think things are sensible, we should do them, and we should not worry about whether the EU is doing them; if they are not sensible, we should not do them. I am afraid that the impact assessment betrays the fact that the Government, if they get these secondary legislative powers, will just mirror exactly what the EU is doing, whether or not it is sensible. I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on that.
On airport slots, the Minister is right: the Government’s current ability to use the power of secondary legislation to amend them expires later this month. We have already seen some examples, both during the pandemic and more recently, where both the last Government and this one had to make very sensible and necessary changes, and this power is a very sensible one to have. The question is the extent to which those powers can be used for wider slot reform. Slots are a very significant economic interest for the sector as a whole; making dramatic changes would be very expensive and should be done only via primary legislation.
We consulted on slot reform when I was in the department. The department has not yet responded to that consultation. It would be helpful if the Government could set out where they have got to on that, when they plan on responding to the consultation on slot reform and, if they were to do any significant slot reform, what they think they would need to do in terms of consultation and engaging with the industry, and whether these powers would be the appropriate ones to use in those circumstances.
Briefly, I have two more points. As many will know, the CAA is a gold standard industry regulator that is respected around the world for having very high standards for aviation regulation. It also regulates our space launch capability. I am very comfortable with the CAA continuing to play that role as a regulator. The bit I am less comfortable about is whether it should be setting the rules as well as enforcing them. There is nothing wrong with the current system where Ministers set those rules. Part of the problem is that, in the past, those rules were set by the European Union. Ironically, when the European Union was doing it, Ministers were engaged in the Council of Ministers in setting some of those rules, but we in Parliament also had a number of scrutiny mechanisms where both Houses of Parliament could look at those rules in detail.
What is not clear—at least, it was not clear to me from the Bill or the Explanatory Notes—is this: if the CAA makes regulations, what is the role of this House and the House of Commons in scrutinising those regulations? Personally, my starting position is that I would prefer that the regulations were made by Ministers, who are accountable to both Houses of Parliament, and that then the CAA gets on and enforces those regulations. Of course, Ministers will be informed by the CAA’s expertise in drafting the regulations, but I think Ministers should be responsible for setting the rules and the CAA should then be responsible for enforcing them and putting them into practice. That is the bit of the Bill about which I am less comfortable.
Finally, the Minister mentioned Heathrow. He will be well aware that—as the CAA has, in effect, conceded—the existing economic model for regulating Heathrow is not fit for purpose. He will be aware that it is consulting, in its document CAP3251, on a range of options for the future of the economic regulatory model for Heathrow. That consultation closes on 15 June. There are a range of options in that consultation, but does the CAA have the power to implement all the options in that document, including, for example, the ability to have competition between different terminals at Heathrow? If it does have the power to do that, that is great. If it does not currently have the power to do that, is the Minister open to using this legislation to make sure that the CAA does have that power, so that when it has concluded the consultation and reached a decision—and when Ministers have reached a decision about how Heathrow’s economic model is regulated—it will have the ability to deliver it?
So, I have a few questions and concerns, but overall the Bill helps to strengthen the aviation sector. It is an important one for the United Kingdom, and I look forward to listening to the Minister’s detailed answers when he winds up the debate.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill and for the briefings that he and his team have kindly provided to Members of the House. We approach this Bill with an open mind and with a clear desire for greater clarity and certainty. Its relatively short length masks the complexity of the systems it seeks to update and reform, as well as the significance of the mechanisms chosen to implement those changes.
On the face of it, the Bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections, support economic growth and infrastructure, and modernise and enhance aviation safety. Of course, those are all laudable aims. However, the policy space that the Bill occupies is both crowded and contested, and the interaction between its different elements requires great scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is long overdue, but it may also facilitate increased capacity and, potentially, airport expansion. Likewise, the stronger consumer protections are clearly needed, but we must be confident that the measures proposed will work as intended in practice.
The Bill provides a framework rather than a finished product. It establishes significant delegated powers and relies heavily on secondary legislation, placing key decisions one step removed from parliamentary scrutiny. For these reasons, we will seek further clarity and assurances across three principal areas: first, the relationship between airspace modernisation, airport expansion and our environmental commitments; secondly, the delivery of improved and effective consumer protections; and, thirdly, the scope and use of delegated powers within the Bill.
I turn first to airspace modernisation and slot allocation. The aviation sector remains a vital and growing part of the UK economy. It supports jobs, enables trade and logistics, connects us to global markets and underpins both inbound tourism and outbound travel. According to the latest Civil Aviation Authority data, more than 61 million passengers travelled through UK airports in the first quarter of this year alone— a record high driven by short-haul European flights. Many of those journeys could and should be taken by rail, which is far better in terms of our carbon outputs. Yet this growth also presents a clear challenge.
The Climate Change Committee’s 2025 progress report to Parliament makes it clear that, while overall UK emissions are declining, aviation now contributes a greater share of total emissions than the electricity supply sector. It also warns that continued growth in aviation emissions could place our future climate targets at risk. While we are clear in our opposition to further airport expansion in the south-east, the Government have publicly indicated support for expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow. That policy context inevitably shapes how this Bill is read and understood.
Aviation remains one of the most difficult sectors in which to reduce emissions. While emerging technologies, including sustainable aviation fuels, are welcome and necessary, they have inherent limitations and they are emerging technologies. The Climate Change Committee has been equally clear that, should technology progress fall short, the Government may need to consider demand management measures to remain on track to net zero. Against this backdrop, I welcome the Minister’s clear statement that this Bill is not intended to enable airport expansion, either directly or indirectly, and we are grateful for that.
On these Benches, we recognise the need to modernise our airspace. The UK has some of the most congested skies in the world, and our airspace management systems have not been fundamentally updated since the 1950s. They remain structured largely around ground-based navigation systems that are increasingly outdated. Modernisation, if done well, offers real benefits, improved efficiency, enhanced passenger safety, reduced noise for affected communities and lower emissions through more direct and optimised flight paths. We therefore support this complex but necessary work, including the proposal to establish a UK airspace design service to oversee its delivery.
However, while we understand the Government’s desire for powers to direct this work, including in relation to slot allocation and scheduling, it would be remiss of us not to seek clear assurances about how these powers will be used in practice. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that the powers cannot be used deliberately or inadvertently as a back door to increased airport capacity or expansion, without appropriate scrutiny. In that context, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that decisions taken under these powers will continue to be informed by the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee, and I would also welcome greater clarity on the relationship between airspace modernisation, slot allocation and any future increase in overall capacity or passenger numbers.
At what point does operational reform become, in effect, expansion, and how will Parliament be able to distinguish clearly between the two? Furthermore, what safeguards exist to ensure that, even if the present Government do not intend to use these powers to facilitate expansion, a future Government could not do so without proper oversight? We will seek to work constructively with Ministers to establish appropriate guardrails, including stronger requirements for monitoring, reporting and transparency in relation to the airports national policy statement, the environmental impacts and the effect on our local communities of noise.
I turn briefly to consumer rights. We agree that the current system is not functioning as it should. We also recognise that many of these powers are coming to an end and need to be reformed. From delays and cancellations to lost luggage and overbookings, passengers too often experience poor outcomes and inconsistent enforcement. It is essential that passengers can rely on robust protections and that the regulators have the tools needed to ensure swift and ready compliance.
The fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has, in some cases, had to resort to the courts to enforce basic consumer protections points to systemic weaknesses. We therefore broadly welcome the strengthening of the CAA’s powers, bringing them in line with other consumer rights. However, the Bill also provides for potential divergence from retained EU law in this area. At a time when the European Union is updating passenger protections and the Government have indicated a desire for broader alignment in certain areas, we will be seeking clarity that the intention here is one of convergence rather than divergence.
We also strongly support measures to improve the experience of passengers—particularly those with mobility impairments, who continue to face significant and unacceptable barriers when travelling, particularly in relation to their mobility aids. More broadly, however, we consider that the Bill is overly cautious in its approach to consumer rights. It presents a real opportunity to place passengers more firmly at its centre. There are many issues here that need broad reform, from not separating families or travellers from the people they are with to the size of hand luggage and extra charges added to people’s bills. We would like to see a statutory passenger charter in the Bill to ensure that high standards are not only articulated but embedded in practice.
Finally, on delegated powers, we will consider carefully the forthcoming report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Given the breadth and significance of the powers proposed, it is essential that appropriate safeguards, limits and mechanisms for parliamentary oversight are in place. I welcome the Minister’s opening comments on that, but more needs to be done and amendments will be needed in this space.
While we broadly support the aims of this Bill, we will work constructively to ensure that it aligns with our environmental obligations, delivers tangible benefits for our communities and provides meaningful, effective and enduring consumer protections.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. In July 2025, we produced an independent report. I thank the team at the Department for Transport, the members of the group and the industry, which was very open about how we can improve travel for disabled people. However, we found that not one airline or airport universally gets it right even most of the time. Our 19 key recommendations were made in the context of no legislative time, but I hope we now have a chance to impact what we do for disabled people.
After much consideration, the task and finish group looked at five themes: training, passenger information and communications, non-visible impairments, mobility aid design and handling, and tailored service and delivery. It became clear that there is a lack of data. It is hard to know how many disabled people fly annually, depending on the definition, but it could be around 1.5% of all passengers. The Library Note on this Bill, which was very helpful, said that the satisfaction rate for disabled people was only 82%. There is also a lack of data on when things go wrong. It is hard to know who to contact or complain to, how to resolve issues and even who has responsibility. Recognising that the industry has many moving parts, this Bill presents a significant opportunity to do something very different for disabled people.
We also know that there has been a significant increase in demand for assistance. We saw many airports and airlines trying to do the right thing, but the nature of the requests can be very variable. We recognise that what probably most people need is not assistance but wayfinding or help with bags. We need to think creatively about how that customer journey is carried out, even looking at airport design or gate allocation.
Through our work, we heard anecdotal evidence that the lanyard scheme has not always been used properly—stag dos arriving at the airport and requesting lanyards is not in the spirit of the scheme. I have seen people using an aisle chair to get on board and then seeming to walk off at the other end. I am conscious that there can be fluctuating conditions, but not having the right assistance puts huge pressure on an already strained system. One size does not fit all. A number of visually impaired people got in touch to tell me that, when they fly, they are continually told that they need to sit in a wheelchair and be pushed through the airport because that is easier for the staff, rather than doing it in a way that works for the disabled person.
A significant number of people wrote to me to say that various influencers have filmed airports, showing ways to cheat the system, which not only encourages people to think about creative ways to get through the airport, but has resulted in an increase in negative comments made towards disabled people who have genuine needs.
What also came through was that there needs to be a more streamlined method of booking assistance. This is very different from the railway industry, where you could potentially catch a later train or a later bus. There is a real challenge in managing expectation, providing assistance in a reasonable time and being clear about sorting things out when mistakes are made.
We also found out that a lot of the information was joined up. On a personal level, I never look at an airport website, but at one point I was a very frequent flier, and I have travelled through most UK airports. The actual challenge of booking assistance is too varied. For some airlines, it relies on the disabled person knowing a very vague assistance code, or when you get to the airport, you are asked all those questions again. It proves that the system is not working as well as it could.
While recognising that we have an issue with international jurisdictions and that we can control only some parts of the journey, I would also like to look at how we could influence more widely. A lot of the emails sent to me were about equipment being broken and, in some cases, destroyed by not being secured properly during the journey. One thing that the Bill will not be able to sort—but I had a huge number of emails about it—is the issues that passengers who travel with allergies face.
Recently, I had a number of emails from people who use colostomy bags or ileostomy bags, about how they are treated. Each person recognised that security is an important issue and that checks need to be done. One person who wrote to me recently, who flies a lot, said that the only way they are able to manage going through security is by taking their colostomy bag off just as they go through security, covering it up with tissues and tape, and then putting it back on when they go through the other side. That just does not feel appropriate at all.
I broadly welcome the increased powers of the CAA, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I would like to understand what the best route is to actually securing better treatment for disabled people.
Most of the emails I receive are about being left on a plane, or broken or missing equipment. We have all heard of the numerous tales of Frank Gardner when he has been flying. He has had incidents where his wheelchair was incorrectly tagged and staff were unable to locate it. He has had a couple of very high-profile cases. In May 2022, when it had happened numerous times, he said that disabled passengers appeared to be treated as the “lowest priority”. Sophie Morgan, likewise, a very well-known disability rights campaigner, suffered terrible experiences with damage to her chairs. But most disabled people do not have that platform. Athena Stevens’s chair was worth £25,000. It was irreparably damaged while travelling, which left her unable to travel independently. She estimated that the overall impact on her life and business reached £70,000, due to additional care, having to travel differently and lost work, but only limited compensation was made available. Maayan Ziv—a case in Canada—had a chair that was worth $30,000 and was severely damaged. This became widely known, because there was a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair means. It is not just a suitcase. It is not something that is very easy to replace.
I have had many experiences over the years, including one memorable time flying from Geneva through Charles de Gaulle to Birmingham. When it became clear that my chair was not there, I was asked by a member of staff whether had I ever tried to walk and whether I would like to try to walk. No, I cannot walk. The airline then tried to return two sleeping bags to me and argued that that was my lost property, even though they were clearly tagged to a different airport and another name. My day chair was found several weeks later in Dublin, and it came back to me in two pieces. It had literally been cut in half. It was suggested that I might like to try and duct tape it back together, which did not work. I wonder how much the airline industry is spending on repairs and replacements.
Another incident occurred when I was an athlete, flying with my racing chair—I always found it better to travel with my chair unboxed because they could see what it was. I was travelling with a very cheap pair of wheels, which got damaged, and the airline immediately jumped to replacing them and trying to offer me a very expensive pair of wheels. I was able to say that I needed a spoke key and 20 minutes. There needs to be some proper assessment of damage, ensuring that the level of liability is commensurate with the equipment.
We have to recognise that equipment is also changing. More people are using scooters than ever before, especially those with fluctuating conditions—they are much easier to travel with than an electric chair. Many noble Lords will see that I have a battery attachment that I use on my chair to get out and about around London. I have never tried to fly with it. We do have to explore the challenges of flying with much of this equipment, especially the safety issues; I know the ongoing work of the implementation group is looking at this. When a disabled person gets all the way to the gate and then finds that they are not allowed to fly—again, I recognise that there are related safety issues—it causes a significant number of problems.
We therefore need more data on the number of people who fly, what they require, and where things go wrong. Also, on wheelchair and mobility equipment protection, I would be very interested to see whether we could try to accurately report, publicly, the number of wheelchairs and mobility aids that are damaged, delayed or lost each year. We also need to look at how we can improve the enforcement and accessibility failures. In the task and finish group, we talked about specific penalties for repeated accessibility failures. That was not possible at the time, but I think it might be now. We should also look at the complaints process to ensure that it runs quickly and smoothly and is not leaving disabled people in situations where their complaints have timed out through no fault of their own.
I would also be interested in looking at requiring the CAA to publish a wider disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. On airport assistance standards, the quality of assistance is variable across the UK. How can we establish minimum standards for passenger assistance, reasonable waiting times, staff training, communications support, and boarding and disembarkation procedures? It would also be very useful to have an update from the implementation group on the work it has been doing since July last year; that would help all noble Lords in addressing the Bill. Currently, everything is just a bit too ad hoc; it is quite difficult to travel as a disabled person, and we should be able to make that better.
I look forward to working with the Minister and his team to improve the Bill.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, tomorrow morning the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have the honour to chair, will be meeting to consider, among other things, the civil aviation Bill. It is not impossible to imagine that the committee will have something to say about the delegated powers proposed in the Bill. My speech today, however, gives me the opportunity to contribute to the policy substance in it, which I am very supportive of. I am delighted to be able to take advantage of this opportunity because it is a Bill which has the potential to make a real difference to people’s lives.
It is a pleasure, and somewhat humbling, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with her enormous expertise and of course powerful eloquence, which it has been a great pleasure to hear so many times on disability issues in this Chamber.
Today, I want to talk about my mother, Anne, who sadly died in her 90th year back in 2018, and people like her. Let me explain what I mean. My mother was born into poverty in 1928. There was certainly no prospect of her travelling abroad, let alone by aeroplane, when she was growing up or as a young woman; nor, indeed, was there any such prospect when I was growing up. But things change, and, in her 50s and 60s, she thought that she should try to make up for lost time—and then, why not carry on into her 70s and 80s? Of course, as we get older, travelling gets more complicated, but she loved getting around, whether by bus—on that, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that she absolutely loved the P4 bus from Brixton to Lewisham Shopping Centre well into her 80s—by train or by automobile.
To come back to today’s subject, she loved travelling by plane. When she was in her late 70s and wanted to visit the country of her father’s birth, we flew together to Dublin. By now, her legs were not strong enough for her to climb the steps up to the plane from the runway like everybody else, but the airline made perfectly good arrangements for a lift—I am not quite sure what the machinery was called—to take her up to the plane in London and back down again in Dublin. It was happy news. On the back of this success, my mother knew that she would be able to come with me and her brand-new granddaughter on a weekend in Rome, and to visit the Vatican, which had been a lifetime ambition for her. The flight out was fine and the Vatican really came up trumps, with the people who worked there, on seeing her frailty, secretly shepherding her into the “staff only” lifts to get her smoothly from floor to floor.
However, on returning to Gatwick, she was stuck on the plane. There was no lift for a very long time. Travelling is tiring for us all—we get hungry, thirsty and very tired—but being left stranded after everyone else is long gone because you need help getting off the plane and into the terminal building and into a wheelchair just is not good enough. She could not face having to go through that experience again. The only way to guarantee that was simply to stop flying on aeroplanes, so she did, and that was that. But my mother’s energy and drive for travel were undimmed, so we took her, very smoothly, to Brussels and Paris via the Eurostar. As I may have already said, she carried on enjoying the bus trip to Lewisham, but there were no more flights because of the way she was treated that time on our return from Rome and the Vatican.
Noble Lords can imagine how I cheered when, four years ago, the BBC’s security correspondent, Frank Gardner—the noble Baroness referred to him earlier— called out, among other things, the UK’s main airports for the way in which, all too often, they treat wheelchair-bound passengers like him. He did so after being left stranded at Gatwick himself, a few years after my mother. His job meant that he had no choice but to keep flying, and this was his fifth time in four years being stranded and left, as he put it,
“waiting in an empty aircraft long after all the other passengers have been off-loaded”.
He went on to say:
“This is nothing short of discriminatory and Britain’s premier air hubs should be ashamed of the way their disabled passengers have been repeatedly treated as a low priority”.
Hear, hear, as I think we say.
Mr Gardner continued:
“The remedy is simple: invest in enough equipment and staff to do the job, pay them properly, sort out the comms so airports know when to expect a passenger with needs, and get on top of the planning and rostering for the allocation of equipment and the teams that operate it. This isn’t rocket science, it just comes down to better planning and sufficient investment. Disabled passengers are not demanding special VIP treatment, they just expect the same level of service as the rest of society. It really isn’t a big ask!”
Fazilet Hadi, the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, said:
“Huge thanks to Frank Gardner for speaking out about this issue. For every disabled person that tells their story about being left on a plane, there are hundreds more of us that don’t. The level of neglect and disregard of disabled airline passengers is truly appalling. The high number of disabled people experiencing poor service led the Civil Aviation Authority to write to airports, threatening to take action if passenger assistance for disabled airline customers didn’t improve. The situation is obviously not getting better and the Equality Act is being breached on a regular basis”.
Today, on behalf of people from all walks of life—whether they are like my mother, who wanted to follow her dreams; like Frank Gardner, who was flying for work; or anyone else, whatever their circumstances— I wholeheartedly support, as all of us can surely do, legislation that will put an end to the excuses, ensuring that the CAA has the powers that will put this right.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the three main aims of this legislation, which were well set out by the Minister. The Government are right that the aviation industry has been growing reasonably well and could make a bigger contribution to growth and prosperity in our country. The Government are right that safety is a vital priority behind which all parties in this House would unite. They are right to realise that, as technologies change, aeroplanes evolve and our airspace becomes ever more congested, it is necessary for a Government to accept the prime safety responsibility and ask whether the rules and guidance are still correct, and whether the regulatory authorities are doing their job in carrying out their task of enforcing safety.
We all want to see good conditions for passengers. That has to be a balance, because if you go too far in regulating in favour of super service then the price can go up too much. The Government must form a judgment on what is an appropriate minimum level of service quality to require so that no one is left in a bad way. This is particularly true of disabled people, as we have been hearing. However, they have to be careful not to overdo standards, which then prices people out of the market and it becomes a middle-class indulgence.
Where I have more doubts about the Bill is when it comes to the detail. I found the 316-page impact assessment heavy going. I do not know whether other colleagues bothered or whether they did not get to the exciting conclusion at the end—I must have missed the exciting conclusion at the end. It was repetitious, very generalised and very high-level. It was clearly a piece of work done by officials who were given an impossible task. They were meant to work out what regulatory changes are going to be made and ask the usual questions of an impact assessment, on the costs of these regulatory changes and the benefits of carrying them through, as some things you will have to do because they are for safety but, for lots of other things, you will have to make a judgment about the trade-offs. Are the costs too high or are the benefits exciting enough to go for it?
Remarkably, this impact assessment concludes that there will be just a small net loss, as a result of the legislation, of just a few million pounds for a multi-billion-pound industry, and so this is well within the margin of error. When you try to find out why the figures are so small, you find that there are practically no benefits identified because this Bill will ensure that nothing happens for quite a long time. It is arranging the regulatory furniture but it will not change what will apply to airlines and passengers any time soon.
The Bill has delay built into it at every opportunity. We read in the impact assessment that it may take a year for us and the other place to get the legislation through and finally into effect. Then, apparently it will take another year before the Government come up with changes to use the very large powers that this legislation will give to Ministers and to regulators without further reference to Parliament. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, but Ministers have no idea who they will want to make the cheque or cheques out to, let alone how much there may be on them.
The House needs to understand that this is what I would call officials’ legislation. This is not a burning desire of a Minister who knows his subject very well to make changes which are soon going to make a difference to aviation and to economic growth in this country. This is “good management-type” official legislation, saying that we may need these powers and need to copy a whole load of EU regulations that have already passed—or, more likely, that are going to come out soon—so let us have these powers and make sure that most of these things can be done by a regulatory body without any reference to Parliament or by statutory instrument with minimum debate, and that way we do not need to trouble people about it. When the House proceeds to investigate the legislation, it will want a bit more from the Ministers on how they would use these considerable powers.
I would like more urgency from Ministers. The impact assessment says that nothing is going to happen before three to five years have elapsed, because of the year legislating, the year thinking about how to use the powers, and then the powers coming into effect. In other words—and Labour Peers should think about this—this legislation is basically saying that it cannot make any improvement to aviation or provide any extra growth in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is disappointing.
I am a bit more ambitious than the Government. I find myself saying there are things that could be done now, on a shorter timetable, which could make life better for the aviation sector, its passengers and its users. Take the prime one of growth—that is my main concern. I have always said how much I admire the fact that the Government want to be a growth Government, but I have been critical about how many of the things they do actually achieve the opposite. Here is one thing that is not actually going to achieve the opposite—it is just not going to achieve anything, according to the papers before us—where more could happen.
The Minister says that we will have an opportunity in due course to discuss the expansion of Heathrow. Heathrow is the dominant airport of the UK aviation sector, and the success and growth of Heathrow will be a dominant factor in how well this sector does. Delaying a debate seems a little odd, because surely this should be the prime concern of the Government at the moment. When I look at the plans, I believe the Government have backed the plan that takes the longest and is the dearest. They have gone for the plan where the M25 needs to move, which adds more than £20 billion to the total cost and I suspect will add quite a lot of delay to the whole thing, as well as the actual cost of building the additional runway—whereas there is a rival scheme, at considerably less cost and to a tighter timetable, where the runway would fit on to the existing land extending more eastwards so that we do not have to rebuild the M25.
Maybe the Government are right. I would be interested to hear their case. But we would need reassurances that the M25, during all those difficult works, would not be disrupted. Look at the important transport infrastructure of this country. The M25 is one of the dominant and most important pieces of infrastructure that we have put in, saving all those journeys through London and allowing so much commerce and passenger traffic to flow around the city relatively quickly on a good day. We do not really need a big disruption of that.
As someone who some years ago had as my main business career offering financial advice to Governments around the world, I had to fly quite a lot, rather more than I wanted to in those days. To me, as a travelling businessman earning revenue for my firm and for the country as a whole in selling overseas services, what mattered was timeliness and accessibility. I was interested in total journey time from my house to the office I was going to advise. Quite often there was disproportionate time, trouble and delay in getting from my house, some 35 miles from the airport, to Heathrow to get on the plane, which might even have been on time. Ministers looking at growth of airports and accessibility to airports have to consider surface transportation. There have been improvements in recent years to get better rail access to Heathrow. It took a very long time for those of us who wanted that to break through with the authorities to get it to happen. That now has happened with both an extensive Tube option and a link to the old Great Western main line. But we need to make sure that road access also works for those who wish to use the airport.
It would be useful if the Minister could give us an update on Gatwick, the second very large airport in the London area. There was a plan to have a much cheaper and faster progress to many more passenger movements, with the idea of having a constant-use second runway. That requires shifting the existing relief runway a little, so there is quite a bill of cost. That was meant to be coming along before the end of this decade, and it would be very interesting to hear an update on whether it is going to happen.
The relevance to this Bill is that, of course, as those airport expansions happen, many more slots will become available. We owe it to those who are thinking of venturing very large sums of money to expand Gatwick and Heathrow to let them know what the rules of the game will be when they come to place those slots, and to look to see how they are going to remunerate the large sum of money in the case of Gatwick and the absolutely colossal sum of money in the case of Heathrow, even in the original budgets. Heathrow has all that additional risk from complexity, which could result in needing to remunerate even more capital than is currently envisaged.
While I welcome the three main aims of the Government and think that this legislation could be improved by telling us in detail how they can do things that will improve all those, we need more on the environmental impact on surrounding communities living close to airports. I speak as someone who used to represent a constituency that was some 35 miles or so out of London to the west, where there were problems with Heathrow noise. There are solutions that could be woven into this legislation or general government policy. A new generation of planes should be considerably less noisy. It is possible to construct flight paths that are less intrusive, and it is certainly possible to increase the angle of ascent and descent, which reduces the magnitude of the area affected by the noise nuisance. The more that can be done to encourage quieter aviation, the better. There are also other environmental issues relating to surface transport; I gently sketched them in relation to Heathrow and the M25, but there are similar issues for other airports.
My final point is that while, if you are interested in UK economic growth, of necessity you clearly concentrate on how you develop Heathrow and Gatwick—the giant two—regional airports well outside London can also be extremely important to economic prosperity and commerce. I would welcome more thoughts on how they can promote themselves with a good network of routes that do not require interchanging in London—or in Schiphol, as happens so often at the moment for people flying from northern and western airports. I urge the Government to look again at why this is all taking so long, why there is no sense of urgency and why there is not a much clearer refrain in this that we can go for growth here. One of the great triumphs of the UK economy over the last decade has been the big, successful surge in the export of services. Above all, services need really good aviation links, in the way I briefly described from past personal anecdote. I urge the Minister to see himself as a growth champion and to say to his colleagues in government that we can do better than this.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak specifically to the measures in the Bill to support airspace modernisation and aimed at delegating aviation safety and operations rule-making to the CAA. I thank the Department for Transport staff who took the time to brief me ahead of today’s debate.
I trained to fly while in the Royal Air Force in the early 1990s. For full disclosure, I failed at the end of tactical weapons training, so although I have several hundred hours of flying under my belt, my latter career in the RAF, until I left 15 years later, was as a flight operations officer—still, perhaps even more so, intimately involved in the business of aviation and airspace.
It was such a long time ago that we navigated by map and compass, even in a fast jet at 500 mph. We had no GPS; we corrected for wind based on the much less advanced weather forecasts of the day and some dead reckoning. We set our watches each morning with a hack at the morning met brief based on the speaking clock—I think most Members are just about old enough to remember that. Come to that, our recce briefs on Russian military equipment, for that was still our focus then, were delivered via slides in a rotary carousel projector—again, I think Members might remember those. Our cockpits had more in common with the 1950s than with the glass cockpits and flight decks of today.
Today’s modern aircraft, both civilian and military, are in a different world entirely. They could just about fly themselves, except most people are not yet ready and want a pilot in charge of their commercial flight to the Mediterranean for some summer sun. Although passenger-carrying planes are likely to remain crewed for a while yet, the potential and the technology to move freight around in the skies above our heads in uncrewed aircraft are advancing all the time.
Right now, Amazon is trialling drone delivery in Darlington—delivering packages under 5 pounds in weight within a 7.5-mile radius of its distribution centre. The Civil Aviation Authority is working to safely integrate drones flying beyond visual line of sight in UK airspace through this type of trial. It has also authorised air operations to deliver blood and the trial of uncrewed police helicopters. We already have a military uncrewed aircraft, the MQ-9B Protector, flying in UK airspace from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.
Imagine a time when freight can move not above our garden roofs and fences in small drones but at much higher altitudes, taking lorries off our roads and into the skies. I want that time to come sooner rather than later—and, of course, safely. But, unlike the enormous leaps in technological capability since I first pulled on a flying suit, UK airspace remains largely unchanged—in fact, as some noble Lords have said, since the 1950s. This is unsustainable and not good for our economy, the environment or the aviation industry, both civil and military. Commercial flights alone have increased twelvefold since then.
So I welcome the new powers to enact change to update our airspace. There is so much potential in new and emerging technologies, such as uncrewed aircraft, but the UK has to be able to move with—even ahead of—the times to make the most of the amazing opportunities for growth and ensure that we are competitive in this industry.
The 2023 airspace modernisation strategy talked of a core principle; that is,
“the safe integration of all users”.
That is ambitious and I welcome the Bill in supporting that ambition. I also welcome its intention to give the CAA greater flexibility in determining who pays for air traffic and air navigation services. At the moment, airlines and aircraft operators do, but the scope to extend that is only fair in this changing environment.
I also support the delegation of certain operational rule-making to the CAA to ensure a more responsive process. Currently, the legislative framework for aviation safety rules is, as the Government have stated, extensive, complex and cumbersome. Obviously, this change should always have aviation safety at its heart.
I welcome the contributions of fellow noble Lords on other parts of the Bill on which they are infinitely better qualified to contribute. I will not trespass on their territory but listen with interest to their valuable and informative perspectives.
Finally, in returning to where I started, with military aviation, it is imperative that we remember that this civil aviation Bill is not just about civil aviation. Military capability relies on airspace, air traffic services and the CAA. Military aircraft need to train and exercise; defence industry needs to experiment with and assure new capabilities. These are all vital activities in the defence of this nation that need airspace to operate and succeed.
Also, some of our defence air capabilities are military owned but civil registered, such as the Envoy command support air transport aircraft and the Voyager air-to-air refuelling and passenger aircraft. When we proceed to debate this civil aviation Bill, we must remember that we are also discussing military aircraft capability and development and, with that, the defence and security of the UK.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that airspace is a resource? It is part of our critical national infrastructure, even if it is invisible to most of us who are not airspace nerds, and it is vital that we update it to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus. I begin by declaring my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation, and indeed as an aviator who contributes greatly every year to the CAA. Let me say at the outset that I broadly support the objectives of the Bill. The Minister referred to the essentials of the Bill in his opening speech. They were the subject of the communication of 20 April 2026 from the DfT to the chair of the CAA outlining the DfT’s expectations and priorities for the next period. They include: growth and innovation; the economic regulation of aviation; airspace modernisation; the decarbonisation of aviation; modernising the CAA’s focus on aviation’s passenger and freight customers, so as to put the consumer first; and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience. I will return to those in a while.
First, I want to identify a glaring omission in the Bill. It is conspicuous by its absence. No reference whatever has been made in the DfT’s priorities to general aviation. There is not one mention in the whole of the Bill to what is, for many in the industry, the front door to their career, whether they be air crew or ground crew. Why should we be concerned that there is no mention of general aviation in the Bill? It is a section of the industry that contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. This may be seen as a small slice of UK aviation’s £50 billion to £100 billion GDP footprint, but it underpins things such as pilot training, emergency services and business connectivity.
Since 2018, general aviation has faced pressures from lower disposable incomes, rising costs and economic uncertainty, and this has reduced activity across recreational flying, training and private ownership. Since Covid, GA activity has failed to recover. The CAA’s data reveals a 40% reduction in all GA activities. I understand that the CAA issued only some 1,300 private pilot licences last year. I would expect the DfT to be extremely concerned, instead of which I understand that the department has disbanded its GA section. Perhaps the Minister could confirm and comment on that. As GA supports jobs, skills and pilot training pathways, proportionate regulation and avoiding unnecessary burdens are important to maintaining confidence and investment. Given the circumstances that GA finds itself in, I am extremely concerned that the Government’s enhanced consumer protection measures do not create unintended burdens for smaller airports, aerodromes and GA operators. What assurances can the Minister give in relation to that?
The Minister may well be wondering why there should be concern. Put simply, air crew, such as pilots, do not magically appear fresh out of an easyJet- or British Airways-trained box. They are the result of people starting at the very bottom of the ladder, through gliding, progressing through the private pilot’s licence, many add-on qualifications, instrument ratings and the mountain of exams needed to gain a commercial pilot’s licence—the so-called improver route. All this is achieved at grass-roots level by small flying clubs and schools and small grass airfields at enormous cost to the individual and risk to small businesses with the fluctuating cost of fuel and newly imposed employment taxes.
In terms of airspace, while I accept that the basic design has not changed in 70 years, despite technological advantages—I note that the Government’s policy paper is keen to single out the safe integration of drones, which is to be welcomed, as lower airspace is where congestion, particularly with general aviation, occurs and will continue to do so—I ask: what safeguards are in place to ensure that airspace reform decisions remain transparent and evidence-based and fairly balance commercial, environmental and wider aviation user interests?
The Government seek to expand the CAA’s enforcement powers. What mechanisms will ensure accountability, proportionality and appropriate parliamentary oversight of those powers? I am keen to learn from the Minister how the DfT proposes to safeguard these changes for non-airline operators.
This debate would not be complete without mention of the European geostationary navigation overlay service, commonly known and referred to as EGNOS, the satellite-based augmentation system that improves the precision and integrity of global positioning systems; in particular, the EGNOS Safety of Life Service— note “safety of life”—which is used in safety-critical applications, such as in the aviation sector. Back in June 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation asked Oxera, the Oxford-based economics and finance consultancy, to assess the business case for a temporary reinstatement of EGNOS. It pointed out that
“prior to leaving the EU, the UK civil aviation sector invested heavily into satellite-based approaches because of the significant safety and reliability advantages that satellite-based approaches offer compared to traditional approaches (i.e. non-precision navigational aids) … Despite these investments, the UK is currently the only state in the G20 without useable access to a precise satellite-based navigation system, whereas other countries are increasingly moving towards relying on precision satellite-based approaches”.
What does this mean in reality? It has really serious consequences. It means that remote areas of the United Kingdom that rely on small regional airlines, such as Loganair in Scotland, are unable to operate in inclement weather conditions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was due to participate in this debate, has been stranded for a number of days on the Isles of Scilly, which are fog-bound. As a result of our non-participation in EGNOS, the likelihood of aircraft operating into the islands in such conditions is remote.
In relation to air crew training, in addition to the lack of instrument approach training slots, the whole UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of performance-based navigation training, which is reliant on satellite-based signals. Worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only 2D lateral non-precision; 3D precision requires the EGNOS Safety of Life Service to enable the airport to provide this. So training aircraft cross the channel to places such as Jersey and other European countries where a full suite of approaches are available, as they still benefit from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a major revenue and talent loss to the UK GA sector. Similarly, air traffic control offices cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches.
Lastly, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Air Ambulances, of which I am a member, is pushing government hard across a range of topics. As we speak, there is a reception to launch a report on the case for safeguarded 24/7 on-site hospital helipads. A big part of its lobbying is on the lack of helimed point-in-space procedures for hospitals, which are EGNOS reliant. The loss of EGNOS access weakens aviation safety and NHS trauma care goals. Without reinstatement, increasing air ambulance mission cancellations put these strategies—and patient outcomes—at risk. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in relation to EGNOS.
I will end here but implore the Minister to again consider reinstating EGNOS membership as a matter of urgency. Above all, I implore the Government to give due consideration to general aviation when prioritising their goals and directions to the CAA. At present, I fear they clearly are not doing so.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill recognises a simple reality: aviation has changed significantly over recent decades, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and our regulatory framework must continue to evolve alongside it.
The United Kingdom depends on a modern, efficient and well-regulated aviation sector. Aviation is about more than aircraft and airports. It is about connecting people to jobs, businesses to markets and communities to opportunities. It supports trade, tourism, investment and economic growth. It also plays a vital role in connecting the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, helping to bring people, businesses and communities together while connecting every part of our country to the wider world.
For that reason, I welcome this Bill and its focus on regulatory reform and modernisation. In a sector characterised by international competition and rapid technological change, standing still is not an option. Good regulation should not be seen as a barrier to growth. On the contrary, effective regulation provides the clarity, confidence and stability that enable industries to invest and innovate. A clear and modern framework allows operators to plan for the future while ensuring that consumers and travellers remain properly protected.
For many people, air travel is associated with some of life’s most treasured and important moments. It may be that long-awaited family getaway, an opportunity to spend time with loved ones, an important business trip or a chance to pursue new opportunities. When things go wrong, whether through delays, cancellations or poor communication, the impact can be both significant and deeply disappointing.
That is why the framework that governs the aviation sector matters. Passengers rightly expect services that are safe, reliable and responsive. Businesses require clarity in order to invest and grow. Regulators must be able to respond to changes. The challenge for this Bill is to strike the right balance between those objectives.
Modernisation should not be viewed simply as a technical exercise. Whether we are discussing airspace reform, airport slot allocation or regulatory frameworks, the objective must be to create a system that is more efficient, more accountable and better able to support growth while improving the experience of passengers. Transport connectivity is not an end in itself. It is what enables people to access jobs, education, investment and opportunity.
Aviation also plays an important role in supporting the connectivity access that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom depend on. For many communities, air travel is not simply a convenience but an important link to employment, business opportunities, public services and family networks.
While much attention is often given to international aviation, we should not overlook the importance of domestic connectivity. Aviation helps to strengthen economic and social ties across our country and supports the movement of people, skills and investment between regions. As we consider the future of the sector, it is important that those wider connectivity benefits should be recognised.
I particularly welcome the provisions relating to airspace modernisation and the future role of the Civil Aviation Authority. As has been mentioned, much of our airspace infrastructure was designed in a very different era. These reforms present an opportunity to make better use of technology, reduce unnecessary delays, improve resilience and make more efficient use of increasingly constrained airspace. They will also help to ensure that the United Kingdom is equipped to integrate emergent aviation technologies safely and effectively, maintaining our position at the forefront of a rapidly evolving sector.
The pace of technological change in aviation is accelerating, as many noble Lords have mentioned. New technologies offer opportunities to improve efficiency, resilience and safety, but they also challenge regulators to ensure that the rules evolve alongside innovation.
The United Kingdom has a proud history of aviation leadership. If we are to maintain this position, our regulatory framework must be capable of responding to change at a pace that reflects developments within the sector while maintaining the confidence of passengers and operators alike.
Equally, ensuring that airport slots are allocated and managed effectively can help to maximise capacity, improve connectivity and make the best use of existing infrastructure, supporting economic activity across the country and placing us in a stronger position to consider any future airport expansion that may be required to ensure that the United Kingdom remains internationally competitive. Of course, modern infrastructure and modern aviation systems also require modern regulation. The provisions relating to the Civil Aviation Authority are central to achieving that objective.
Aviation is a rapidly evolving sector, shaped by new technologies, changing passenger expectations and emerging operational challenges. A regulator that is able to respond more quickly and effectively to those changes is better placed to support innovation, maintain high standards and protect consumers. We cannot keep coming back to primary legislation to make changes as and when things evolve. That simply is not quick or responsive enough; it is just not agile.
Greater rule-making powers have the potential to create this more agile and responsive regulatory framework, reducing, as I said, the need for primary legislation. It can give industry greater certainty, enable faster adoption of new technologies and ensure regulation keeps pace with development in aviation rather than lagging behind it. Regulation that arrives years after innovation risks holding back progress rather than supporting it. It is important that future regulation remains proportionate to support innovation and competitiveness and avoids imposing unnecessary burdens while continuing to maintain the high standards that UK aviation is renowned for.
There is also an important competitive dimension. Aviation operates in a global marketplace. The United Kingdom benefits when it is seen as an attractive place to invest, innovate and do business. A regulatory framework that can respond efficiently to change will help ensure that our aviation sector remains internationally competitive, supporting growth, investment and jobs while maintaining the high standards of safety and consumer protection which, as I have said, the UK is known for.
This is, in many respects, an enabling Bill. Its long-term impact will depend not only on the powers it creates but on how those powers are exercised in the years ahead. Effective regulation also requires public confidence. As the Bill progresses, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how accountability and parliamentary oversight will operate alongside any expanded regulatory powers granted to the Civil Aviation Authority. It is important that greater flexibility for the regulator is matched by appropriate transparency and scrutiny so that confidence is maintained for Parliament, industry and the travelling public.
I would like to touch briefly on accessibility. When we discuss accessibility, we rightly think about physical access and support for passengers with impaired mobility, but we should also recognise the experience of neurodivergent passengers and those who may face sensory, cognitive and digital barriers. For many passengers with sensory, cognitive or neurodivergent needs, airports and air travel can present unique challenges—busy terminals, rapidly changing information, unfamiliar environments and sensory overload can create barriers that are often overlooked.
A truly accessible aviation system should enable people to travel independently while having the confidence that support will be available when needed. Independence and support should not be seen as competing concepts—a modern transport system should provide both. For many passengers, accessible travel is not simply about completing a journey; it is about accessing employment, education, family connections and wider opportunities. It is also about dignity, confidence and independence. The ability to travel without unnecessary barriers can have a profound impact on an individual’s quality of life. For some, it can mean accessing employment; for others, it can mean pursuing education, maintaining those family relationships or simply seeing a part of the world they want to experience and learn more about.
As we consider further regulations and guidance, I hope that accessibility continues to be viewed through this broader lens. The objective should not be merely to remove obstacles when they arise but to design inclusive systems and services from the outset. That approach benefits everyone. Clear information, intuitive systems and well-designed services improve the passenger experience for all travellers, not only those who require additional support. As we update and improve our aviation system, we should remember that progress is not solely about technology; it is about people. A truly modern aviation sector is one that works for all passengers, including those with physical disabilities, sensory needs and neurodivergent conditions, and ensures that advances in efficiency are matched by advances in accessibility.
I have been encouraged by the work already taking place across parts of the aviation sector to improve awareness and support. As the Bill progresses, I hope these will be opportunities to explore how best practice can be encouraged and embedded across the sector. Through my work in local government and transport leadership across London, I have seen first-hand that successful transport systems are those that earn public trust, adapt to change and work for everyone who relies on them. This Bill provides an important opportunity to create a regulatory framework that supports innovation, growth and international competitiveness while ensuring that passengers remain at the centre of aviation policy.
If we get this balance right, we will not only strengthen consumer confidence but help to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leading aviation nation in an increasingly competitive world with a sector that is innovative, accessible and fit for the future. For those reasons, I welcome this Bill and look forward to further scrutiny as it progresses through this House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, surprisingly perhaps, I welcome the Government’s attempt to strengthen airline passengers’ rights, especially with the worries about aviation fuel due to Israel and Trump launching a disastrous and illegal war on Iran. I am happy to support the Civil Aviation Authority being given additional enforcement powers to ensure that airlines comply with consumer laws. However, I am not so keen on legislation that makes it easier to expand airports, especially if that increases noise and pollution for people living in the immediate area or along the flight path. It is extremely bad for human health and well-being.
As a Green, I am well aware that a lot of what I say in your Lordships’ House is not supported by anyone around me and that my views on the environment, climate change and the disastrous path we are taking as humans are at best contentious and, at worst, regarded as plain wrong. I am just staggered by the lack of ecological awareness among Members of your Lordships’ House. It defeats me that noble Lords cannot understand the science, cannot see what is in front of them, and still support things such as airport expansion when we know it is bad for the planet—I exclude the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from this, obviously, and some of his colleagues. Luckily, there are people outside—many scientists and people who know what they are talking about better than I do—who can say that we are headed for disastrous circumstances if we do not take climate change seriously.
This whole Bill is just ludicrous in terms of the future of people and planet. I have mostly lost hope that this Government care about people and planet. They have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attacks on nature in Britain and their decisions to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, it is an extra 65 million. The Minister in his opening remarks said that aviation is a “cornerstone” of our economy, or some such. I would say it is a cornerstone of climate collapse. If we cannot see that, I would be happy to have one-to-one sessions with any Peer who would like to discuss this further, because, quite honestly, I am in despair at the lack of awareness about what our future could be.
As I said, luckily there are people outside. For example, Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College London said:
“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.
All those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, and that means rising food prices and more public subsidy.
The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was appallingly named: there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. That was infuriating as well. It is just greenwash that will leave future Governments needing to do the hard work of behaviour change to achieve net-zero targets. Actually, I am not a supporter of net zero. It is a ridiculous aim; we should be going for less than zero and cutting back completely. Net zero is unrealistic. It is real zero that we need, and less. The climate crisis is accelerating and this Bill would have been a chance to do something about that. Rather than promoting aviation, we need to cut back.
The first step towards stopping more flights leading to accelerating climate change is to deal with private jets. The rich are paying a lot of money for the privilege of wrecking our planet and the Government need to tell them that it is no longer acceptable. Being rich does not excuse you from your responsibilities as global citizens. Flying off for the weekend, perhaps every weekend, has consequences. The ice is melting, the seas are rising, flash floods and storms are becoming more powerful, and heatwaves and droughts are going to hit farming very hard. Our food supplies will be under threat. Change is happening now, not decades in the future. That means we have to act now as well, so private jets should be the first thing that the Government target to cut back on, and this Bill is the obvious opportunity to do that.
Next to the frequent flyers, the Government should be raising the aviation tax on people who take two or more flights a year. Frequent flying is something that well-off people do; we can discourage them by reflecting the true environmental cost in the amount that frequent flyers pay. Business flights have already changed since Covid made us shift towards online working and that trend must be given another shove.
Finally, we are experiencing another record-breaking year for temperatures in this country and across the globe. The next decade will see yet more record-breaking years, as will the decade after that. The decisions being made by this Government on aviation will add to the disaster that the younger generation will have to live and struggle with. I ask noble Lords to stop and rethink. I do not mean just the Government; I mean every single Member of this House who has supported the whole idea of aviation. Stop and think about what you are doing for the future—for your children and grandchildren. You are destroying their future.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, first, I will try to cheer you all up a bit, because that is not what was reflected by our previous speaker. I declare my interest as an adviser for the Drone Delivery Group. I am also a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group for the Future of Aviation, Travel and Aerospace.
As a further interest, I spent the first 25 years of my working life at British Airways as a young stewardess. For the following 15 years, I was in the European Parliament and dealt with all the primary legislation that covered the civil aviation area and other forms of transport. The former RAF Baroness has left, but I recall that she mentioned what it was like in the RAF all those years ago. For those of your Lordships who are pilots and understand airspace, when I started flying I was on a Hawker Siddeley. Most airfields did not have an ILS—an instrument landing system—yet we have those most advanced aircraft that could land in virtually nil visibility. So technology has certainly moved on apace in the last 50 years.
I say that because we have one of the best and most exciting industries that we have ever created, when we go back historically into civil aviation, certainly post the Second World War. We also have some of the best brains and the best scientists, who are inventing the technologies in the aerospace sector that make aviation as safe, clean and green as it is today.
Given my time as a Member of the European Parliament, I am going to come on to the three key areas that are mainly in the Bill. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction and, like most colleagues, obviously I have read through what it says. Regarding our leaving the European Union, I was involved in the legislation for the European Aviation Safety Agency 20 years ago. It was actually developed for the certification of the A380 aircraft, because obviously we cross-border manufactured. That was the reason the agency was set up, but then its scope expanded over the years, so the agency had competence for many other areas. Of course, that took away the competences that the CAA had had. When I originally joined the airline industry, every nation had its civil aviation authority and there was no sort of European central body.
However, we also comply with the Montreal and Chicago conventions, ICAO and IATA. This is not just about legislation being made here, and the Government need to take account of that, as did the European Commission at the time. It is fine to say, “Well, we will make rules and regulations about x, y and z to do with civil aviation”. But primarily we are signed up to, and must comply with, international obligations, which obviously affect the entire aviation industry worldwide.
Clearly, we are now putting back competences to the Civil Aviation Authority which it has not dealt with for many years, and it needs to make sure it has the resources and everything else to do it properly. I have every confidence in our Civil Aviation Authority; it is one of the best civil aviation authorities in the world, along with our accident investigation bureau in this sector. The independence that our agencies have is key. Therefore, we do not get overwhelmed by political interference in areas where the experts need to be making a lot of the decisions.
I will touch on the three primary areas in this Bill. The first is airspace. We know that, with the increase in traffic over the years, the pressure on airspace has obviously grown terrifically. I was one of the rapporteurs for the single European sky regulations in the European Parliament, over 20 years ago. We were looking at functional airspace blocks and at ensuring that, right across Europe, it was smooth. Eurocontrol had obviously taken a huge role in traffic management, so it started to improve it hugely. Nevertheless, we still have bottlenecks around Europe which will affect us in the United Kingdom, but at the time the United Kingdom was known for having one of the best systems. We mixed the civil with the military to ensure that, when we were not using military airspace, civil aviation could use it. That was very unlike France and some other countries, which insisted on keeping these corridors, and therefore we had a backlog all the time.
In terms of capacity in the airspace sector, we know that when vertical separation was reduced over 20 years ago down to 1,000 feet, obviously because of the introduction of anti-collision devices et cetera, it was key to trying to get more capacity into European airspace. But, as we know, the industry has grown further, so it is quite right that we are looking at how to make this better. I think the CAA, NATS and the providers have done a terrific job with all the steps that they have taken—not with the vertical separation, obviously, but when they look at trying to ensure that we can cut times down for landing and take-off. I accept, however, that more technology needs to be brought in to make it even more efficient. I would like the Minister to tell us—maybe not today—what exactly the Government are looking to do. We have a lot of what they would like to do, but I would like to know precisely what they think will make this more efficient: I have not read that.
Moving on to slots, I was also rapporteur on slots in around 2004-05, and for the slots revision, which was about 10 years later. Slots are not a simple thing; I think I still have got the scars on my back. People think that, generally, the captain says, “Here’s the slot and we’re going to push back”, and sometimes you have missed it because the baggage is not on, or something—but of course it is not like that. These slots are traded twice a year through IATA and it is quite a complex business.
In addition to slot-airports—Heathrow and Gatwick, and do not forget the other airlines coming in—the value of the company depends on which slots they hold. When we were looking at slot revision back in 2004-05, the European Commission wanted primary trading. That would not have worked. It also had an idea that maybe it should be the one to allocate slots, but that was certainly not going to work. After much debate, it was recognised that one of the key issues is to make sure there is slot fairness, apart from grandfather rights and new entrant rules, which were brought in. Obviously, there is what happens when we have issues like the Middle East and other conflicts—the “use it or lose it” rules, which we have mentioned in discussing statutory instruments—and there are ways to get round this sort of thing. Notwithstanding that, people need to tread very carefully when they are looking at some sort of slot changes or changing the rules. This is just not a simple, “Oh well, let’s have this”, or “somebody in the Department for Transport thinks we should do X, Y and Z”. It will be at your peril if somebody starts to try and does the wrong thing, because it affects third-country carriers coming in.
The next area I would like to touch on is passenger rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others have raised this. I will touch on the “passengers with reduced mobility” regulation. Before the regulation was changed, the airlines had taken responsibility for their disabled passengers and passengers who need assistance. It was the European Commission which determined 20 years ago that it should not be the airlines that do this—not that the airlines may want to do it now—and that it should move to the airports.
The disadvantage of that was that, when an airline offered a service, everything that happened on that journey came back to the airline, so it took responsibility. I was crew. I sat with people while they waited for their wheelchair, or tried to check that the wheelchair was not damaged if it was in the hold. I have seen it first-hand. There is no excuse for people being left on aircraft on their own, waiting for somebody to take them off. There is little excuse for wheelchairs being damaged when they are hold loaded. The decision at the time was to take this responsibility away from the airlines and give it to the airports. This is where you lose that connection. How could you reverse that? I have no idea, because I doubt whether the airlines would want to take back that responsibility. It is just a thought as to how things were done and what has slipped since. There is no easy solution to this, but it is about what is called good customer service.
This brings me to general passenger rights: the old regulation 261, which was about cancellations and delays. I have to say—some people may disagree with me—that I lived and breathed 261 over those years, and certainly, colleagues in the European Parliament did. We got a very good deal for airline passengers. The legislation was robust. It was the first legislation that made airlines actually look after their passengers if flights were cancelled or delayed. It put the onus on them to really cough up and make sure they were doing their job. Most of the time they did a good job, but unfortunately a number of airlines were not particularly interested. That, hopefully, has improved hugely. There has to be a balance between the responsibility being on the airline and, for example, if there is compensation, the level at which it is set. We got to €200, €400 and €600 on short, medium and long haul flights. A balance has to be struck, but I do not think it is impossible. The legislation that is in place is good. We even moved from force majeure to exclude external events, to certain things being brought back in, whereby a passenger could claim compensation or at least ensure that they were being looked after.
It is good that the passenger is at the heart of this; it is right that they should be at the heart of this industry. As I said, we run a great industry. There is no reason for people to be treated badly. I have been at the forefront, when you are at 35,000 feet and you are going to be diverted because there is a thunderstorm, for example. This is where professionalism, reassurance and training of staff, including ground staff, has to come in, to ensure that the passengers are the priority; they are the ones that need to be looked after. Even in the direst circumstances, the public generally are fabulous. They know that they are in your hands. They will be very forgiving if they know that somebody is doing their very best in a professional way.
On a slightly critical note, the Secretary of State appears to run right through this legislation. The Secretary of State decides this, the Secretary of State is going to decide that—and, of course, the Secretary of State is answerable to all these things. But he or she will be responsible for the rulemaking. Then, the question is: who will advise the Secretary of State on this new rule? Will the Secretary of State be talking to the CAA? Will they be talking to people in the Department for Transport? It looks a little ambiguous, so there needs to be some clarity.
Finally, there also needs to be some clarity on the issues themselves, such as airspace and slots. We are being told what is wrong and what the Government would quite like to do, but I would like examples of things that have really gone wrong and what precisely the Government are thinking of putting in this legislation. There are questions to be answered, but I would like to thank my colleagues and others for referring to general aviation, which is key. I thank the Minister again for coming to the House with the Bill today.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare an interest, as noted in the register, in that I am the current president of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots’ Association. BALPA is strongly supportive of the Bill’s objectives to modernise aviation regulations and to enable airspace reform. The Bill offers an opportunity to create a more responsive and agile framework. In such a safety-critical sector, this flexibility must be matched by clear expectations on effective oversight, better visibility of future workforce needs, and consultation with professional pilots.
First, on the issue of airspace change, modernisation has the potential to deliver more efficient routing and better use of UK airspace, contributing to the long- term sustainability of the sector. My noble friend Lady Antrobus’s references to the drone revolution provided a compelling illustration of the scale of the impending change coming our way. Given its direct impact on flight operations, it is essential that pilots and their representatives are engaged throughout this process, from design through to implementation. I hope the Government will ensure that there is a structured and ongoing consultation with front-line professionals as airspace change proposals are developed, delivered and reviewed once new arrangements become operational.
It should be recognised from the outset that airspace modernisation, alongside possible expansion of major airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, is likely to lead to significantly increased traffic levels in UK airspace over the coming years, and that any material uplift in both flight movements and passenger numbers could lead to an increase in demand for pilots. This opportunity to build a growing, highly skilled, UK-based workforce needs to be understood and positively planned for if we are to avoid facing critical skills gaps at a moment of real and much-needed opportunity and growth.
Of course, airlines operate in the private sector, but there is a strong case for the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor, for example, the make- up of the pilot workforce, including the number of commercial airline pilots approaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. They should consider whether the training pipeline is adequate for future demand, which itself is being driven by public policy decisions such as airspace modernisation. The CAA already publishes a range of key aviation statistics. Should it now also be required to provide a more regular analysis of trends within its licence register data to improve the visibility of workforce dynamics and support more informed planning across the sector? Looking at a very different sector, I note that the Nursing and Midwifery Council publishes regular such assessments of the workforce on which it holds data. Could we not do that in this sector?
On the wider role of the CAA, Clause 8 transfers responsibility for setting detailed aviation safety and operational rules from Parliament and Ministers to the CAA. While this may improve regulatory agility, it represents a significant shift in where practical control of the aviation rulebook sits, with reduced opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. This gives rise to some key questions. How will the Bill ensure meaningful consultation with pilots and other affected groups as rules are reviewed and before rules are created or amended? What mechanisms will allow Parliament to exercise effective oversight of significant or perhaps more novel regulatory changes? How will the CAA be required to provide transparency around decisions, including on the rationale and operational impact of new rules? I hope that we will be able to probe these points in Committee to ensure that the proposed flexibility in rule-making will be balanced with appropriate accountability and expertise to maintain confidence in the UK’s aviation safety framework.
Finally, on the CAA’s role in providing accountability to consumers for the effective enforcement of their rights in aviation, this could be a positive alternative to lengthy, expensive litigation that supports precious few people with legitimate grievances about failures in the sector. But can the Government examine how the CAA will discharge these responsibilities in practice to ensure that it can and will deliver a step change for the better over the current defective arrangements, and address in particular the powerful challenges expressed today by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ramsey, on the difficulties faced by disabled people and others with significant accessibility issues? I look forward to the further stages of this important Bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as an adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, and Simmons & Simmons LLP, as set out in the register. I congratulate the Minister on the way he introduced the Bill. I know he owns a bus; I do not know whether he has a jet.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Given that he made an “end of the runway” comment, it is only fair to say that I have always found him incredibly “plane-speaking”.
I would like to talk about inclusion and innovation, largely because the Bill does not talk very much at all about these issues. There is clause after clause on proposed secondary legislation, but secondary legislation as set out in the Bill is permissive; it is not in any sense mandated. While I can understand, and support, the need for flexibility when it comes to provisions for secondary legislation, that goes to prescription and operational detail and the need for flexibility there; it should not be flexible and permissive when it comes to the principles, particularly around inclusion. Does the Minister not agree that there could be a lot more on the principles of inclusion on the face of the Bill?
“Come fly with me, let’s fly, let’s fly away”.
Lovely words from Mr Sinatra, but what if you are a sight-impaired passenger, or a wheelchair user, or somebody with different mobility or cognitive needs? Perhaps not so much. When it comes to the experience of disabled people, flying can often be torturous and anxious-making before even arriving at the airport. It can be an experience that is not uplifting but dire, sometimes discriminatory and often demeaning. Sometimes you are left in the terminal; sometimes, if you get to board, you are left on the aircraft at the end of the flight. When you finally emerge from the aeroplane, you oftentimes find that your wheelchair or essential mobility equipment has been damaged or destroyed. Come fly with me? Not without greater protection and coverage on the face of the Bill, not least for disabled people.
What about older people, who are not mentioned in the Bill? What about younger people: passengers and minors who are travelling unaccompanied? No increased safeguarding provisions for them are set out in the Bill. There is no equality assessment of passenger complaints and actions taken when it comes to disability and mobility issues. When we look at the current draft of the Bill, we see nothing specifically for disabled people, older people or younger people, or anything specific on equality. Does the Minister not agree that having an inclusive-by-design statutory duty on the face of the Bill would be a huge step forward—yes, for disabled passengers, but for all passengers boarding a plane?
I turn to innovation. This is an industry that has come up with some of the greatest innovations and advances in science, engineering and technology across the country and around the world. It is therefore interesting that, when it comes to new and emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, cyber and quantum, the Bill is again curiously silent. There is nothing on an AI layer for slot allocation and transaction, the issue of passenger redress and, crucially, the issue around airspace itself. What about digital tools for passengers to press their claims, assess their stage and track where they are? They could be empowered through the digital tools that could be put in their hands as a potential consequence of this legislation.
What about data? What about interoperability? Many of the powers in the Bill will potentially dramatically increase the amount of data gathered—commercially sensitive data and data that could easily identify private individuals—yet the Bill is currently silent on that. There is nothing on AI governance, responsible AI or ethical deployment, all of which could be set out at a high level in the Bill without in any sense frustrating the flexibility of the proposed secondary legislation.
To give one example of where AI could positively impact, imagine a system whereby claims under the already mentioned Regulation EC 261/2004 could be assessed automatically by AI and the compensation not only calculated but paid. Similarly, imagine predictive analytics used before disruption has even occurred, looking at data around weather patterns and so on. Imagine what AI could do on slot allocation, using the level of data and analytics already available, if it was brought together with powerful AI tools—and perhaps a blockchain basis for slot allocation and transaction in the first place, to give that immutable record of what is happening in what can sometimes be a somewhat opaque exercise.
If we do not address these technology questions in a framework capacity in the Bill, we will have different approaches to AI and other technologies for consumer redress, passengers tracking their claims, slot allocation and airspace itself. This will differ and be variable, with, crucially, a lack of clarity and consistency. That is completely avoidable if we get it right at this stage.
To conclude, inclusion by design is absolutely essential and currently lacking. Innovation in all its forms is curiously absent from the current draft of the Bill. In many ways, to be only somewhat reductive, we currently have a Bill that in some ways pushes digital by default but is without inclusion by design. If unamended, it will leave exclusion by default and exclusion by design.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I agree with very much of what he said.
As will be clear to my noble friend the Minister, some of us have joined this important Second Reading debate as consumers, not as experts on the aviation industry—unlike, for example, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who will bring his huge knowledge of this sector to bear, I have no doubt, in his contribution; my noble friend Lady Antrobus, whose speech adds to the knowledge and wisdom of this House; and indeed my noble friend Lord Barber.
I very much welcome the part of the Bill that grants direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation to the Civil Aviation Authority. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that, as consumers rather than experts in aviation, we find it a matter of particular satisfaction that the Bill proposes to grant the Civil Aviation Authority these direct enforcement powers over consumer protection legislation, strengthening its existing powers and bringing them into line with those enjoyed by other regulators.
What might this mean in practice? I offer a small but perhaps telling example, drawn from my own experience last Thursday. Noble Lords will recall that it was an exceptionally hot day in the United Kingdom— I can tell them that it was even hotter in Poitiers. As our Ryanair flight landed, I noticed a long queue of passengers standing outside the terminal building, virtually on the tarmac itself, in blazing sunshine, waiting to board the aircraft we were about to leave. I have no idea how long they had been standing there, but, whatever the answer, it was plainly too long. It is not easy to see how such treatment could be justified, unless the overriding priority was to achieve the fastest possible turnaround time, regardless of passenger comfort and, arguably, regardless of considerations of health and safety. I did indeed feel herded at Stansted, but at least my brain did not get fried.
I readily acknowledge that standards of courtesy and general customer service in the budget airline sector have improved significantly over recent years. Until a few years ago, the Ryanair chief executive, Michael O’Leary, was famous for not caring about the brusque and sometimes rude way that his staff treated passengers. But then, famously, speaking at the Paris Air Forum in June 2016, he said:
“If I’d only known that being nice to customers was … so good for my business I would have done it years ago”.
To give credit where credit is due, the staff are indeed very charming, by and large. Nevertheless, much more still needs to be done if consumers are to be treated with the degree of dignity and consideration that they are entitled to expect when buying any product or service.
People understandably choose budget airlines because the fares are low, but they also do so because those airlines frequently serve destinations that few other carriers are willing to fly to at all or at scale. In many places, that gives them what is, in effect, a near-monopoly position. Where that occurs, robust consumer protection becomes all the more important. We may not be able to insist upon better standards in France, but we can and should insist upon them here in the United Kingdom.
It is worth saying—this partly follows the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—that, if you are not tech savvy, do not have a printer available to you or do not know how to use online ticketing, you will be fined. Does the Bill address the issue as one of equality and reasonable adjustments for ability, disability and age? Will this be considered in the new consumer rights that the Bill espouses?
Most passenger rights originate, of course, from European legislation, and this Bill seeks to update it. As my noble friend the Minister said, the Bill is needed, and its three primary objectives are to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, strengthen consumer rights and protections, and enable improved aviation safety. The Bill modernises the regulatory framework for aviation and ensures that it can keep pace with technological change and the evolving consumer landscape, ensuring that the sector remains resilient to disruption and aligned with international standards. It introduces a delegated enabling power for the Secretary of State to amend existing passenger rights regulations and introduce new regulations where necessary. It addresses airspace modernisation, about which I knew absolutely nothing—although, since the contribution of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I feel I know a little more than I did before this debate.
The Bill delegates responsibility for certain aviation safety and operational rule-making to the CAA, enabling highly technical rules to be developed and updated more efficiently and creating a more responsible and agile regulatory framework. It restores powers lost after EU exit to amend and create aviation safety-related criminal offences in assimilated law. In other words, it is an important Bill in all those areas. I welcome it and look forward to being involved in its passage through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare several interests in aviation, the first of which is as quite a long-term private pilot—but not, I am afraid, one now flying in the 21st-century glass cockpits referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus; I have to rely on 20th-century cockpits for my flying. I am the honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association, and I involve myself with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation. I am also a former director of Newcastle International Airport. My interest in aviation goes back a long way and is still very current.
In general, I welcome the Bill. It presents a considerable opportunity to modernise our aviation legislative frame- work and could help to position the United Kingdom as one of the world’s leading aviation markets, particularly in the light of the recently published aviation competitiveness index, which ranks the UK, disappointingly, only sixth out of the eight aviation markets it assessed.
I say so with one substantial qualification, which I imagine the Minister anticipates. Almost in its entirety, this Bill is an enabling measure; it creates no new passenger rights and reforms no single rule; it confers powers on the Secretary of State and the authorities to do those things later by regulation. In relation to other legislation, I have raised my concerns that so much is left for later decisions, often implemented without the full scrutiny that they might deserve at the time. It therefore remains to be seen how Ministers will utilise the new powers contained in this Bill to enable meaningful reform and improve aviation regulation for the benefit of consumers and airlines alike, because that is surely what we all desire.
To take the consumer provisions first, the inherited framework referred to before, Regulation UK 261, was drafted for a different era, and it now imposes liabilities on carriers well beyond anything its authors intended, covering passenger rights when flights are delayed and cancelled and when there is a denial of boarding. This regulation followed our leaving the EU so, although in general it follows the same matters as the similar EU regulation, it is enforced by our authorities, so we have the possibility of both EU and UK regimes applying to flights between the UK and Europe. In the Government’s discussions with their European counterparts, we could certainly benefit by trying to ensure some alignment at least in this international marketplace. The European Union, which wrote the original form of the regulation, has itself concluded that the thresholds no longer work, and its Council agreed last summer to lengthen the qualifying delay to four hours on short-haul flights and six hours on long-haul flights. The power in Clause 1 is an opportunity to bring clarity, not least to the vexed question of what amounts to so-called extraordinary circumstance, which sustains a small industry of litigation and serves passengers and airlines alike very poorly.
On the enforcement powers in Clause 2, I urge greater caution, for, by the authority’s own survey, passenger satisfaction stands at its highest recorded level. Powers of direct penalty should be reserved for genuine and systemic harm and exercised with proper process, and I shall be grateful to know what safeguards the Government intend to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary rigidity.
I come now to the part of the Bill closest to my own concerns as a pilot, on airspace. Ours is the most congested in the world. NATS handles a quarter of Europe’s traffic and barely a 10th of its airspace, yet the basic design has scarcely altered since the 1950s, when the country saw some 200,000 flights a year, against more than 2.5 million now. In 2019, I was asked by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation to undertake an inquiry into lower airspace, particularly because of the pressures on general aviation, and we came up with a number of proposals for change. We concluded, inter alia, that the methodology in which airspace design changes occur was antiquated and in need of radical reform, and called for the scrapping of legislation governing lower airspace design. I wonder if this legislation is at last going to encompass our findings. Could the Minister perhaps confirm it?
Modernisation is now very overdue, and the powers in Clause 4 to see airspace change actually implemented are sensible and necessary, but the new design service, the so-called single guiding mind, was promised to be operational by the end of last year—and I must ask, where is it? An assurance on a revised timetable would be helpful. I ask too that the smaller users of our skies, the gliders and the light aircraft, previously referred to by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Davies, are not again quietly squeezed out, for they have as good a claim to the air as any airliner.
If we are to grow the aviation industry, with developments such as the third runway at Heathrow and capacity growth at many regional airports, we shall need to deal with the shortage of pilots to fly our aircraft. I am not persuaded that that supply can safely be left to the market alone, and I would ask whether the Government or the CAA might take an informed interest in the health of that workforce and encourage more to train for this role. The smaller private training schools need encouragement, not impediment. Of course, at the heart of this legislation will be full and ongoing consultation with professional pilots and their representative organisations to ensure that we adequately respond to the needs of the industry with a more flexible and dynamic system of training and recruitment.
Finally, I want to make a couple of points relating to NATS. First, may I press the Minister to clarify the proposals on charging for air traffic and navigation services? Those responsible to pay for those services, according to the Bill, is to change from
“owners and operators of aircraft”
to, simply, “persons”. General aviation is not, wisely, affected too much by the present arrangements, which apply largely to the airlines, and I would argue that the burden of such charges should remain as at present. Is this change more, perhaps, because of technological developments such as drone delivery systems? The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he could confirm that in his wind-up.
We need to protect general aviation for the future, but my second question relates to liability. When the air traffic control system failed in the summer of 2023, some 2,000 flights were cancelled and over 700,000 passengers disrupted, at a cost that the regulator has put at up to £100 million. The airlines met that bill in its totality. NATS, which we know is a profitable company that was at the very heart of the failures, paid absolutely nothing. The most that could be done was to embark on the clear complications of fining it, but with much lesser redress available. When a carrier causes the delay, it has to pay— without argument, it has to pay. When the monopoly air navigation provider causes it—guess what—the carrier pays again. That surely cannot be right, and I hope that the Minister will say whether this Bill, with all its new powers, might finally correct that imbalance.
I welcome this Bill, and I shall engage constructively as it proceeds, but I return to where I began. This Bill could do a great deal of good. It could also, I am afraid, give great disappointment. I think we all want the former outcome, not the latter, so the Government must be held closely to account.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, imagine the scene: it is 1 am on a freezing Tuesday. A young mother is sitting on the airport floor trying to comfort a crying toddler. Her flight was cancelled four hours ago. The terminal departure boards are completely blank; the airline staff have packed up their desks and vanished; and the automated customer phone lines are dead. For that family and for thousands of travellers, especially those with disabilities, every single week the miracle of modern flight collapses into a nightmare of absolute haplessness.
We are not talking about rare or isolated mishaps. Independent adjudicators handle over 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year. Millions of pounds have to be legally forced out of airlines after they initially reject legitimate customer claims. Shockingly, the Civil Aviation Authority’s own research reveals that, when major flight disruptions strike, only one in 10 passengers feels fully informed of their actual legal rights. That is the grim reality of the British airport floor today, which is why this Bill is not just necessary; it is an urgent economic and moral imperative.
This legislation delivers three undeniable victories for ordinary travellers. First, there is accountability: repeat corporate offenders can no longer break consumer law with impunity. Then there is transparency: passengers will receive honest, real-time, frequent communication during a crisis. Finally, there is oversight: the heavy burden of proof shifts away from individual consumer and on to proactive regulatory enforcement.
Having said that, aviation is one of the ultimate success stories of modern Britain. Our airports handle more than 300 million passengers’ journeys annually. For the vast majority of us, though, air travel is not a luxury but an absolute necessity in modern life. For me, this industry is not just a sector on a spreadsheet; it is deeply personal. My late mother worked for over a quarter of a century for our national flag carrier. Her hard work and the stable, secure employment provided by that airline allowed her to support me through my university years. I saw at first hand how a job in aviation could transform a family’s horizons. In fact, many within her wider circle of friends and our family were able to completely transform their lives thanks to sustainable work in the airline sector around Heathrow. Because of that upbringing, I carry a deep, lifelong degree of loyalty to the industry. Over my career, I have more than repaid that debt.
Years ago, my work commitments meant that I was practically living out of a suitcase. I was working for a North American IT company, tasked with the overwhelming responsibility of working with teams scattered across three-quarters of the globe. This was the dark ages, before the everyday convenience of Zoom, Teams and video conferencing. In those days, virtual collaboration was not an option. If you needed to align a team across continents, you did not just click on a link—you bought a ticket. My friends used to taunt me and say that I was practically living on a plane. I must confess that the lifestyle completely shattered any potential green credentials I could ever hope to claim.
Because I have spent a massive portion of my working life in the air, prioritising our national carriers to repay the generational debt I mentioned, I know the rhythm of our airports like the back of my hand. I have flown through Heathrow, Birmingham, Gatwick and Manchester at every conceivable hour and have seen absolutely the best of this industry. I have watched airline crews and ground staff display heroic professionalism under immense professional and operational pressures.
But, like everyone else, I have also experienced the worst. I know what it feels like to stand in a queue that stretches out of the terminal doors, just like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, watching a hard-fought and important meeting with the opportunities it would bring, or a family milestone, just vanish with the clouds. I have sat stranded on tarmac for three hours with zero explanation. I have received an automated, emotionless text message cancelling a flight just as I reached the airport. I have spent successive evenings playing digital hide-and-seek with airline chatbots, trying to navigate intentionally difficult complaints systems just to submit a complaint.
My travel history has taught me one undeniable truth: the British public are remarkably resilient and reasonable. Passengers understand that aircraft develop technical faults. They know that safety must always come first. They accept that adverse weather and air traffic restrictions can shatter a schedule. What they do not accept—and what this Parliament must no longer tolerate—is being treated like an inconvenience or worse. They do not accept radio silence, a total lack of accountability or being forced to fight like a corporate lawyer just to claim basic rights that already belong to them. That is why I staunchly support this civil aviation Bill.
Concurrently, we must listen closely to the warnings from the aviation sector. Like many noble Lords, I received a Second Reading briefing from Airlines UK, which made a number of serious claims that this House must evaluate. It points to consumer surveys and argues that passenger satisfaction is at an all-time high. It claims that existing complaints procedures and alternative dispute resolution pathways are already providing substantial avenues for redress. It tells us frankly that there is “no strong case” for additional consumer measures and warns us that broad, turnover-based fining powers will create “regulatory uncertainty”.
With respect, I invite the authors of that briefing to leave the boardroom and stand on a terminal floor, because the data tells a completely different story. How can satisfaction be absolute when, as I said earlier, independent adjudicators are inundated with more than 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year? How can the current system be deemed “substantial” when millions of pounds have to be legally dragged out of airlines after they initially reject legitimate customer complaints? Airlines UK argues that the current framework imposes disproportionate liabilities on airlines, but what about the disproportionate burden placed on a lone disabled passenger left stranded without a room, a flight or an explanation? I have been there, like many noble Lords.
On the industry’s fear of new fining powers, I say that there is no uncertainty if you comply with the law. If you communicate honestly, refund promptly and treat the British public with dignity, you will never have to face the sting of these new enforcement powers.
However, let us be fair. The industry note is not entirely without merit. In fact, there are areas where the Government should actively align with our airlines, because consumer protection and industry competitiveness are not mutually exclusive. First, I support the industry’s call to use this Bill to fix the legal definitions surrounding flight disruptions. The current application of what constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” is a mess of uncertainty. It fuels endless litigation that helps neither the carrier nor the traveller. Therefore, I support the Government using the delegated powers in this Bill to establish a clear, non-exhaustive and modern definition.
Secondly, I support Airlines UK on the urgent matter of airspace modernisation and airport slot reform. Our airlines are completely right to call the current system outdated. Modernising our skies, the invisible motorways of the air, is vital for network resilience, reducing delays and cutting emissions. The temporary powers that allow us to govern these frameworks are set to expire on 23 June. We cannot afford to let our regulatory framework lapse into legal limbo. I echo the industry’s urge to the Minister: we need a clear, revised timetable for the UK airspace delivery service. The Government must ensure full delivery of this programme no later than 2035. If the Government want airlines to deliver for passengers, they must deliver the infrastructure to let them fly efficiently.
While I champion these new powers, I ask the Minister for clarity on how they will be deployed. The industry is rightly concerned about broad powers being used recklessly. How will the Government ensure that these enforcement tools are used proportionately, focusing strictly on systemic market failures rather than penalising airlines for genuine, unavoidable operational disruptions?
Legislation is meaningless if it lives only in the statute book; its value must be felt by the passenger standing at the baggage carousel. No Act of Parliament can banish bad weather and no politician can legislate away a mechanical failure on a jet, but we can and must ensure that, when chaos hits, our citizens are treated with dignity, informed with honesty and supported with speed.
At its core, this Bill is about restoring the soul of British aviation. The success of the Bill will not be judged by the speeches we give or the guidance notes we print tomorrow; it will be judged by the travelling public. It will be judged by whether the silence at the gate is replaced by clear communication, whether the agonising delays in payouts disappear and whether basic respect is permanently restored to the passenger experience. If we achieve this, we will not just regulate an industry; we will secure the trust of the nation, restore the dignity of British travellers and ensure that the sky belongs to people who depend on it and not just the corporations that operate within it. I commend the legislation to the House.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, like many Members, I declare an interest as a member of the General Aviation APPG and as an honorary vice-president of the Union of Pilots, Engineers & Cabin Crew.
I want to talk about slots, but before getting to that point, I will say that much of the Bill gives additional powers to the CAA. Can the Minister tell us what the capacity of the CAA is to deal with the extra powers that are being directed towards it? Is that part of the reason for the long delay between the passage of the legislation and its introduction in practice? It seems to me that a huge extra burden has been placed and, if rules are to be made as well as enforced, new skills will be required by the CAA to carry out that activity.
Much has been said about consumer protection, and many of the causes of the problems at airports are actually caused not by the airlines but by the people who operate the airport services—whether that is luggage or other services that are provided. There is always a gap. It seems to me that, when we get to Committee, we will have to probe to see exactly how that can be looked at to ensure that the best possible service is provided.
One issue that is not in the Bill but concerns the welfare of passengers and people who work in the airlines is cabin air quality. It has been largely glossed over for many years but, if it is not monitored properly, it can affect and have a direct impact on not only the people who work on aircraft and in aircraft but the people who use them.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. She is not in her place right now. We all have concerns about the environment. It is not confined to one particular party. We all have concerns. She argued that we should take only two flights a year. That is going to put people like me in some difficulty, I have to say. We have to be realistic. Exporting the pollution to another part of the world at our own expense does not improve the environment or climate in general.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned NATS: something that has largely been passed by. I ask the Minister: is he satisfied that there is sufficient resilience? In 2014, 2023 and 2025 there were significant failures, and the last one was pretty catastrophic. If you are going to redesign with the help of technology, and perhaps AI, how the motorways in the sky are controlled and monitored, there is a capacity issue there to be resolved.
Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the issue of people with mobility issues and other issues. The person who took my seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a war veteran who was severely injured in Afghanistan and is a wheelchair user—was left literally on the tarmac, having the indignity of watching his baggage being offloaded from the plane, which moved off the apron and took off while he was still on the tarmac, because the people who were responsible for bringing the equipment to get him on the plane did not show up. So, there are cases that we cannot ignore—but that is just one, and I am just saying that it is something we have to bear in mind.
I would like to bring slots to the Minister’s attention. Some years ago, I twice brought a Bill to this House, and it was passed twice in this House—the Airports (Amendment) Bill. It passed through this House and went down to the other place. As former Members of the other place will know, there was a particular Member down there who specialised in ensuring that a Private Member’s Bill ended up in a not very good place.
At that particular time, the Minister answering was the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is not in his place. What I was trying to achieve was to ensure that regional airports had access to appropriate slots at Heathrow. Of course, it was primarily a European function, and that is what his line was, because the Government of course did not accept the Bill. The fact is it has nothing to do with PSOs and providing subsidies. If you are a regional airport, the reality is that, in this country, access to a main hub airport to get connectivity internationally is essential. For those of us who do not have access to trains and so on, it is even more important.
In circumstances where a slot owner—let us take the IAG as an example—is acquired by people from the Middle East, for instance, who may find greater value in international flights than in domestic flights, they might decide to move in that particular direction and reduce the number of regional flights. The regions would then be at a disadvantage. In those circumstances, is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will provide the necessary powers? Would the Government be prepared to use those powers to guarantee that regional airports will have sufficient access to Heathrow to ensure proper regional connectivity within the United Kingdom? I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing to do, and we will probe it in Committee to see how we can do it. That was the primary purpose of the Bills that I put through this House, which had very strong support, I have to say. I ask the Minister: is that something that we can do?
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said that slots are not a simple thing. I understand that; they are very complicated. They are very valuable assets, worth tens of millions of pounds. Therefore, you can imagine a future situation where an operator is not nationally minded and is simply looking the best profit that it can make, which is understandable. But the fact is that there are national, regional and consumer rights for the people of this country, and we have to ensure that there are proper circumstances where they can get access. It has a huge economic effect on the United Kingdom as a whole. We talk about the London area, with the principal airports, and that is understandable, but we do not all live in London; there are one or two of us left outside London. I just draw that to your Lordships’ attention. So, it is important that we have that access and I think that most political parties would have that as a fundamental policy in their manifestos.
We may probe that issue in Committee, but I ask the Minister to take that on board so that we can be satisfied that, if circumstances arise where an operator or an owner of the slots is going to reconfigure their schedules to the disadvantage of the regions, that can be corrected by government action. In the past, Ministers were saying that because of our membership of the EU we could not do this; the question is whether this legislation will permit that to happen. Obviously, that is one of the things we will probe.
I point out that this has nothing to do with subsidising routes. There is a PSO for one or two perfectly justifiable routes, but this is not what I am getting at. Most of these routes do not need subsidies; they are perfectly economically viable in their own right, provided, of course, that there is the appropriate access. It is not a Northern Ireland issue; it applies to Scotland, to the north of England, to other areas and of course to the PSO routes as well, and to Cornwall and Scotland.
Can the Minister in summing up address the issue of slots and satisfy us that the Bill in its current form will have sufficient powers? If not, we will look at amendments to bring the necessary certainty that this will be addressed.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the statements of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ramsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, re access. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that disabled air passengers and air passengers with conditions which restrict their mobility should be enabled to travel independently if they so wish? Currently, it is total assisted travel—having to arrive early at airports, not being able to use lounges to work—or absolutely nothing. I have personal experience of being left in what can only be described as holding pens in airports, once being given colouring pencils when I was on my way to Strasbourg to declare an EU-wide climate emergency. I wish, however, to thank OCS assistance staff in the UK, who are kind and resilient.
Disabled passengers deserve equality of dignity. Will the consumer protection powers in the Bill significantly apply to airports and the rights of disabled passengers when flying? Time and again, when coming from the European Parliament to Manchester Airport, I was met with broken-down lifts and escalators, with no advance warning, leaving me stranded. Can my noble friend say whether there is scope for secondary legislation relating to both airlines and airports?
This is not widely known, but I discovered it: most airline staff will not assist with placing hand luggage in overhead compartments on planes, resulting in disabled passengers having to check in even hand luggage in advance or depend on the kindness of strangers. This is stressful and unequal. What measures are there to ensure better protections for air passenger rights, including those of vulnerable groups such as disabled passengers?
I also have a Michael O’Leary story—and this is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and I served on the transport committee in the European Parliament. Michael O’Leary asked for a meeting with the then chair, Brian Simpson. Brian, with his colleagues and his civil servants, asked Michael O’Leary and his staff if they would like a coffee, to which the response came back, “Yes”. Bearing in mind that this was over a decade ago, the chair of the EP transport committee then said, “That will be €3, please”.
What are the powers to amend or create air passenger rights regulations? Will the needs of deaf, blind and visually impaired passengers who wish to travel independently be met? What provision is there for disabled passengers to escalate complaints when needed? Too many disabled passengers are left on planes—the BBC’s Frank Gardner is a case in point, as noble Baronesses have already said. People disembark to find their electric wheelchairs damaged; how will the Bill improve this? Will it give powers to issue direct penalties when an airline or an airport breaches its legal obligations to disabled and less mobile passengers?
The most recent Civil Aviation Authority consumer survey illustrates that, while passenger satisfaction has improved overall, disabled passengers, people who struggle with digital services, and those under financial pressure report lower levels of satisfaction. The most common reasons for dissatisfaction include overcrowding and problems with accessibility. Assistance is required by passengers with pan-impairments, including visible, non-visible, physical and non-physical challenges, neurodivergence and health conditions.
The CAA has taken court action in only one case relating to air passenger rights. That took nearly four years to reach a final judgment, leaving passengers out of pocket and without recourse throughout that period. Can my noble friend the Minister say how this Bill, which I warmly welcome, will improve this?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have been a Back-Bencher for two years, and in that period I have rather assumed that I bored enough people during the previous 14 years, so I have not been making too many speeches. I have a Select Committee and I do my duty there, and most important of all, I vote as my Whip instructs me. However, it was put to me when this Bill came up that, given my background, I had better participate, so the real reason I am speaking now is, frankly, just to say that I am going to participate.
I will give just a little information on my background. I spent 22 years in civil aviation. I spent about eight years as a pilot—not a captain, I am afraid, but a mere co-pilot; status matters in that industry. I spent 16 years as a manager, and very early on in my career I spent three years as a pilot shop steward. Since I spent the rest of my career in one management role or another, it was fascinating to listen to managers talking about strikes, and to recognise that they did not have the faintest idea how trade unions work and the emotions involved in making decisions. But enough of that. That was a fun career.
I have read the Bill and the notes from cover to cover, and frankly, I think it is a pretty good Bill. Generally speaking, I will be supporting it, and perhaps in places defending it. I received a briefing from my old trade union, BALPA, and three points stood out which I intend to explore. Unfortunately, however, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, got the same briefing, so I do not have a lot of original things to say. I will also make a point or two about some of the issues the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised in the debate on the King’s Speech.
Flying is relatively straightforward. I am not talking about the disastrous sort of dangerous flying that the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus—I think it was her; I am not good with names—does. I admire her doing it and am deeply jealous, but, in civil aviation, the flying of the aeroplane is pretty straightforward. This does not mean that it is not fun. Racing down a runway at 200 mph and gently pulling back the control column, persuading 320 tonnes of aeroplane to follow you into the air, has a rather special excitement about it that is matched only by getting the damn thing back on the ground eight hours later.
One thing that has not come up in this debate is that flying is dangerous. It is very dangerous, for a series of reasons. Perhaps the single most significant one is that you do not have little accidents in aviation. When they happen, they are very significant. We have not had any in the UK for several years, but, in the rest of the world, things have not been going well. Aeroplanes have been crashing.
It is important to understand why flying is dangerous. It is not about getting the aeroplane into the air or getting it back on to the ground in those final few feet; it is about all the other things that get in the way. One of the most important hazards is the weather. Way back, I was a private pilot. That is great fun but, if the weather is bad, the key skill of a private pilot is deciding not to fly. In civil aviation, you want to fly right up to the edge of what is possible. You want to fly when there are thunderstorms, when there is fog and when there are gale force winds. But there are other aircraft, and those aircraft have lots of people in them. You have to not fly into them.
Then there are technical problems. It is no good saying, “They’re all right now”. They are all right only because of the considerable efforts that regulators and airlines put into assuring that those technical problems do not become disastrous. There are also communications problems. London has been mentioned. One of the privileges of London is that it is an international centre, but this means that communications are not always that straightforward—and when they go wrong, they can go very wrong.
Lurking in the background is the terrain, especially when you cannot see it at night or when it is covered in fog, in snow and so on. That is the challenge. That is what makes airline operations important, and that is where the pilot comes in. The pilot is in the business of flying these wonderful, modern aeroplanes and coping with all these hazards, which, as we have seen in recent years, all crop up sooner or later.
As my noble friend Lord Barber said, in essence, the three areas that BALPA brought out were: pilot involvement in airspace design; the CAA rules; and the issue of pilot numbers. The first two—airspace design and the pilot rules—must involve pilots and other critical workers, but especially pilots because, without being there, it is almost impossible to appreciate not only each problem individually but how they crowd together. Accidents happen usually—almost exclusively, I would say—when two or three of the issues come together; then a lot of people die. So it is crucial that workers, particularly pilots, are involved in a consultative fashion in airspace design and in the whole issue of the rules so that the redesigned airspace and the rules are workable and acceptable.
BALPA also raised the issue of the pilot workforce, which has been pretty chaotic ever since the Second World War. Broadly speaking, in the early part of that period, the Royal Air Force produced pilots. For many years, the Royal Air Force was a pilot-rich environment. Of course, there are fewer and fewer pilots in the Royal Air Force now, but there are more and more technologies. We are talking about fighter aeroplanes and jet fighters, which carry a swarm of drones with them. Twenty years ago, they tried to carry a swarm of aeroplanes with them, but no longer. It is about single people, and fewer pilots are being produced. When BEA and BOAC had a monopoly, they saw that coming. It was their job to create pilots, and they did so. I was a product of that creation. It all happened in a place called Hamble, and then in larger places.
Then came the issue of who should pay. I was lucky in my university career. We had to pay a mere £1,000. In retrospect, that does not sound like a large amount of money but, if you apply inflation, it is around £27,000. More recently, though, individuals have had to pay. The real cost of achieving the qualification that will make a pilot employable by an airline is £115,000-plus, and there is no scheme of loans. Whatever you think of the student loan scheme, at least it is there and is automatically available. Frankly, if you wanted to become a pilot in recent decades, it was a good idea to be born to an affluent family. More recently, I have to commend my old employer, which has at long last gone back to training its own pilots.
I want to pick up the issue of secondary legislation. Concern has been expressed that there will not be enough parliamentary involvement once the Bill has been passed. I have seen the other side of that, I am afraid. For 14 years, I was Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s odd-job Front-Bench Peer. I used to pick up transport, defence, Treasury matters, and so on. You would batter away at Bills, and the one thing you went for was, “Let’s get some more affirmative orders. Let’s get the Government to come back and get involved in this piece of legislation”. Over and again, I was punished for that. I would end up in the Moses Room with three other Peers: the Government Minister, the Government Minister’s sidekick, and a Lib Dem. Is that really involvement by Parliament?
The problem with our secondary legislation processes is that, in the Commons, the Government always have a majority, but, in this House, there is a constitutional crisis when we vote down an affirmative resolution. It is much more important to get the involvement of the people who know what they are talking about—the trade unions, the owners, the operators, and so on—as well as, of course, customer representation, especially in the important area of disability.
I will be looking out, as this develops, to see that we use secondary legislation, affirmative secondary legislation in particular, only where it will add real value, because I have to tell noble Lords that, in my 14 years of experience—including 40 or 50 appearances in the Moses Room in a year when we were going through Brexit—secondary legislation adds no significant value. We must look for a much wider view of how to input things and have checks and balances.
I hope that we have a good time working through this Bill. I hope that we do not spend too much time on it, going late into the night. The Bill in general is sound. I hope that we fine-tune it, rather than ruin it with unnecessary amendments.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, there is much in this civil aviation Bill that is sensible and worthy of support across the House. As we have been hearing, aviation remains vital to the United Kingdom, island nation that we are. It supports trade, tourism, investment and employment in every region of our country, it connects families and businesses, and it helps sustain Britain’s position as an outward-looking and internationally connected nation, serving passengers across the world.
When those passengers purchase a ticket, they are entitled to fairness, transparency and proper treatment when things go wrong. Consumers should know clearly what they are paying for, should receive timely information when delays or cancellations occur, and should not face endless obstacles when seeking compensation or redress. In that respect, measures to strengthen consumer protections and to improve clarity, by making aviation regulations clearer and less fragmented for consumers and industry, are welcome, provided that such reforms remain subject to proper scrutiny and ongoing review when necessary.
I recognise and support the case for fairer competition within aviation markets and for ensuring that access to airport capacity is not unduly dominated by entrenched, long-standing interests. At some of our major airports, incumbent airlines can become excessively dominant over time, which may reduce competition and ultimately work against the interests of passengers through reduced choice and weaker competitive pressure. However, reforms designed to improve operational efficiency must proceed with proper regard for the communities affected by likely increased aviation activity. At its best, good governance is about balance: balancing economic progress with accountability, transparency and public confidence. It is on that basis that parts of this Bill deserve closer scrutiny.
Too often, modern legislation comes before this House as a broad framework, while substantial powers are left to future regulations, ministerial direction or regulatory interpretation. That matters in this case, where changes presented as technical or operational may have significant consequences for communities far beyond airport boundaries. Parliament should always exercise caution before delegating wide discretionary powers without sufficient safeguards or scrutiny.
To be clear, this is not formally an airport expansion Bill, but it does involve changes to airspace management, operational arrangements and regulatory powers. Sometimes communities have been told that proposed changes are just technical adjustments, only for them to discover over time that the cumulative effect is a substantial increase in aviation intensity which subsequently places them under new or busier flight paths, sometimes far beyond airport boundaries.
For many residents, especially in rural and semi-rural Britain, this can be a serious development. It may well lead to the introduction of aircraft noise over towns and villages hitherto totally unused to it, or an increase for others. There are quite likely to be more runways and expanding regional terminals, along with increased traffic on local roads and pressure on local infrastructure, countryside and green spaces, and the gradual erosion of the quiet character of areas where people have chosen to live and which are all that some people have ever known. Once lost, it is rarely recovered. What does that do for local property values, by the way?
I am not opposed to aviation or economic growth. Britain needs both. However, public confidence depends upon assurance that change will proceed fairly, openly and with proper regard for those affected. This House must not only support economic activity but ensure that decisions command legitimacy and democratic consent. The countryside is not simply spare land awaiting development. Communities likely to be affected are not obstacles to be managed through consultation exercises of questionable sincerity. Quality of life—including quiet, landscape and environmental stability—has genuine public value, even when such things are hard to quantify economically.
While I support many of the broad objectives of the Bill, I hope that Ministers will listen carefully in Committee to concerns regarding parliamentary scrutiny, community consultation, and the cumulative impact of aviation expansion and airspace change. I hope that we can ensure that significant regulatory changes remain subject to proper parliamentary oversight, that communities likely to be affected are properly consulted before decisions are settled, and that environmental and countryside protections remain meaningful safeguards rather than procedural formalities.
If the Bill proceeds in that balanced spirit, supporting consumers and economic activity while respecting communities and democratic accountability, it will be considerably stronger legislation. Ultimately, that is the balance that I hope this House will seek to achieve.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I welcome the Bill and I welcome my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. This Bill focuses on supporting the aviation industry and provides much-needed related consumer rights and safeguards.
To come at it from a Northern Ireland perspective, the aviation industry makes a major contribution to the local economy, employment creation and business development there. Some businesses have grown up around Belfast City Airport. In my former constituency of South Down, when I was in the other place, Collins Aerospace, located in Kilkeel, manufactures aircraft seats and other components for the world aerospace industry. That company and its predecessors have done that for generations. Bradfor, based in Rostrevor, some 10 miles away, manufactures the covers for the seats and Thompson Aero Seating, in Lurgan, makes aircraft components for the global market. Air connectivity and the aerospace industry are vital to the economic development of Northern Ireland.
Like my friend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am a weekly user of return flights between Belfast and London. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that if we were restricted to two flights per year, unfortunately we would not be here very often. On those weekly flights, I witness the challenges which face the aviation industry and its consumers, and like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I speak in this debate as a consumer. Such challenges include flight disruptions caused by weather patterns and climate change, late arriving aircrafts and mechanical difficulties at the airport—as I experienced on Sunday evening at Belfast City Airport. Other challenges include inadequate compensation enforcement and accessibility barriers for vulnerable passengers, including disabled persons, as has been referred to by many noble Lords this evening. To the amateur traveller, airlines can cancel flights at short notice without due consideration for the rights of passengers.
I respect the need for consumer and air safety, but consumer rights need to be recognised. The Bill is designed to address this by giving the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority expanded powers to update and enforce passenger rights. This is a welcome step forward. The Bill will promote economic growth and infrastructure, as air connectivity is key to economic growth.
This piece of legislation will enhance aviation safety and will also seek to modernise UK airspace. Around two years ago, I tabled Questions about air traffic control issues at Gatwick and Edinburgh Airports, which had a knock-on effect on flights to and business with Belfast and Northern Ireland. So many flights were cancelled, which caused immense inconvenience to passengers and businesses. At that stage, I met representatives of NATS, who wanted the Government to bring forward measures to improve and modernise UK airspace and largely welcomed the provisions within this piece of proposed legislation.
Like many noble Lords in the Chamber this evening, I have been contacted by NATS, Airlines UK and the British Airline Pilots Association regarding the legislation. It is worth noting that NATS has no concerns about Clauses 4, 5 and 6, or Schedule 2, as it believes that they are sensible changes which support the practical delivery of airspace modernisation and help ensure that the regulatory charging and appeals framework keeps pace with the way the UK airspace is evolving, such as the integration of new airspace users into UK skies. Clause 4 is seen as strengthening the framework for progressing and implementing airspace change proposals, which would help support the delivery of the airspace modernisation strategy and the work of the UK Airspace Design Service, which the Government have asked NATS to lead on.
NATS also believes that Clause 8 on Civil Aviation Authority rule-making could be usefully strengthened to include two additional safeguards: first, clearer consultation and impact assessment and implementation; and, secondly, a statutory rolling rule-making plan. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the possibilities of government amendments to reflect these sensible safety requirements?
The British Airline Pilots Association is also supportive of the Bill’s objectives to modernise aviation regulation and enable airspace reform. It feels there are several provisions, particularly the delegation of rule-making powers and the delivery of airspace change, that require stronger safeguards around workforce engagement, transparency and strategic planning. In this regard, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the possibilities that the Government could accommodate such changes while ensuring that the best-quality safeguards are in place?
Airlines UK welcomes the legislation and the recognition from the Government that the aviation sector is vital to the UK economy, enabling trade, tourism, business and economic growth while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and underpinning critical national connectivity. It does not believe there is a strong case for additional consumer measures at this time and thinks any legislative updates should focus on improving outcomes by supporting a modern and innovative UK aviation market rather than by adding unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs. I have a certain disagreement with that, but I am sure my noble friend the Minister could provide further clarification. Therefore, what is the position of the Government and the Minister in this regard? Will the Government ensure that the protections for consumers in airspace modernisation in this piece of legislation are sustained?
I believe the provisions in the Bill are constructive and proportionate steps towards delivering a modernised and integrated airspace which is fit for the future. I believe that the environment of the cabins within the aircraft and the wider environment need to be respected, but in terms of the wider environment, we also have to achieve a balance which allows our economy to grow. I welcome the Bill. Undoubtedly, it could be improved in the area of the CAA rule-making framework. Undoubtedly, the aerospace industry makes a major contribution to transportation, connectivity, job creation, tourism and our local economy.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill. In this debate many Peers have been clear about the strength of our aviation sector. Indeed, it has been great to have insight from a flight operations officer, no less, in the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, and from pilots in the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope. This Bill and in particular the air passenger rights are much needed and welcome, along with the modernisation of our airspace.
In many clauses this is, as the Minister described, paving legislation, a framework designed to be filled in later through secondary powers, CAA rules and ministerial directions whose details we are yet to see. Paving legislation, as we have heard from many other Peers, by its nature raises more questions than it answers. But I personally remain hopeful that we will get all those answers either in a few minutes or certainly in Committee, especially with the work of noble Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Particularly welcome was the Minister’s engagement with some of us beforehand, including my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, last week. It gave me an opportunity to raise with the Minister the concerns of my noble friend Lady Brinton and others, which they will pursue in Committee, because of the lived experiences of disabled passengers. That remains a serious and unacceptable part of modern air travel. Our advance conversations went some way to providing reassurance, in particular that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion. We take that in good faith, but good faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee, so we welcome the reassurances already given from the Dispatch Box. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we will be seeking more, and he will understand why. As a long-standing resident of Richmond, he will be only too well aware of the demands and needs, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, of local communities who are under flight paths.
The Minister mentioned the airports national policy statement and said it would be the opportunity for MPs and Peers to scrutinise any changes, but he will also understand that we will seek to embed that within some kind of statutory status. He will be aware that scrutiny of a statement does not sound like a strong opportunity for scrutiny.
I ask the Minister directly whether he can confirm on the record, when he sums up, that the powers in the Bill, including those relating to slot allocation and airspace direction, will not be used in any way to facilitate expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick. If airport expansion is on the agenda, this House deserves, frankly, a very different piece of legislation—one with substantive provisions on the face of the Bill, full environmental impact requirements written into statutes and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage.
That points to a broader concern about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation. The Government are asking this House to endorse a framework before we have sight of the regulations that will give it substance. It is a bit like being asked to buy a house without seeing any of the rooms in it. It is a regular practice that the Conservative and Labour parties in this House do not vote down statutory instruments or support fatal Motions. But without the heft and suggestion of that, we will not achieve what we want to achieve, which is having the potential for detailed scrutiny within the Bill.
Sometimes I miss the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on these occasions, because he will say, “Just vote for the fatal Motion, and then the civil servants will have to work the detail out”. It is a bit of a brutal instrument, but it is sometimes the only place we are left—and, of course, it is entirely academic because the Conservatives will never, or rarely, support a fatal Motion. That is the only way, if secondary legislation is the only direction.
On the face of the Bill, the consumer protection provisions, the new CAA rule-making powers, the reforms to slot allocation and the Secretary of State’s direction over airspace change all carry significant implications. Yet again, we will need more clarity on those.
On what I consider to be one of the most consequential provisions—that relating to slot allocation and airspace change—the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make directions about the implementation of airspace changes. Slot and airspace decisions are not merely technical: they are levers over airport capacity. A reallocation of slots at a level 3 co-ordinated airport, combined with changes to airspace design and air traffic redistribution, can have the practical effect of facilitating expansion, even when the expansion has not been presented to Parliament or to communities as a discrete, clear policy choice. Communities living under flight paths, enduring the noise and breathing the emissions, deserve better than to find that outcome enabled quietly through delegated legislation. Any exercise of these powers that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity must be preceded by meaningful community consultation and a proper environmental impact assessment. My second question to the Minister is this: what environmental and noise tests will apply before the Secretary of State exercises directions under this Bill?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I am intrigued to learn what happened to the consultation, which was in 2023, I believe. I noticed that, in the notes we had when we met with the Minister, there was an assurance that no decisions on specific changes to the airport slots regime have been made yet. It says that industry views will be sought, including through formal consultation. It does not reference the consultation of communities on that. I wonder whether the Minister can elaborate on that, along with the very useful consultation of pilots as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.
I turn to the part of the Bill that we hope is at its heart: consumer and passenger protection. The Bill will grant powers to the UK to diverge from retained EU law as it relates to the aviation industry. It is critical that, where this is done, it does not come at the expense of passengers. UK 261 gives passengers rights to compensation for delays and cancellations, but, as we have heard from noble Lords, it has been patchy. Last year, the CAA had to pursue enforcement action to recover over £1 million in refunds owed to passengers for just one budget airline. It should not require a regulator to chase each airline individually for compliance with basic rights.
The EU is currently reforming EU 261, as we know, including maintaining the right to compensation after a three-hour delay and banning fees for basic check-in and child seating. I would be intrigued to know whether the Government intend to keep pace with that. I do not want us to follow that if it is a low common denominator; let us pursue the highest common denominator, whether it is EU 261 or UK 261. We also believe that there is a compelling case for a passenger charter embedded in this legislation: a clear, accessible statement of a passenger-first approach, with statutory weight, not buried guidance. No one could have made a more eloquent case for something along those lines than the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, so I hope she will support it, but I suspect not, given the Bench she sits on. She gave a very eloquent argument about what I think should be a passenger charter.
On accessibility, the new regulatory framework must ensure the CAA has robust enforcement powers over accessibility rights, not just in guidance. My noble friend Lady Brinton shares similar experiences to those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; the mum of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes; and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has shared in the past with this House her appalling experience at the hands of WhizzGo, which insisted on the impossible task of her removing from her wheelchair and carrying two large batteries, bigger than bus batteries. She was evicted from a flight, stuck in Bucharest for seven hours, and then had to pay an additional £900 to get home. We will work with others to ensure that measures such as a wheelchair passport, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is suggesting, are included in the Bill.
On Clause 8 and the new powers relating to CAA rules, we will want to understand the scope of those powers, when they can be exercised and what parliamentary procedures apply. We look forward to guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report—we have not seen that as yet. The accumulation of wide delegated powers in the Bill deserves this House’s sustained and skilled scrutiny. It is no surprise that so many noble Peers raise this and rightly reference it as an issue, among those the noble Baronesses, Lady Dacres, Lady Foster and Lady Bray, and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Tunnicliffe.
Finally, where high-quality rail alternatives exist or can be developed, they should be promoted, as described by my noble friend Lord Russell. Eurostar’s potential to connect more of Britain to more of Europe is one such opportunity, not as a substitute for all aviation but as part of an intelligent and integrated transport framework that the Bill should sit within. The climate emergency means we cannot ignore this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made clear. I very gently refer the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to recent research by Climate Outreach which suggested that her own party dramatically reduced its own references to the climate emergency in the local May elections. I am very happy to send the research on. The Liberal Democrats were much more explicit on that issue.
Baroness Grender (LD)
We will engage with the Bill at every stage, welcome its stated consumer protection goals, test its environmental safeguards, scrutinise its delegated powers and ensure that communities and passengers sit at the centre of whatever framework emerges. I look forward to the Minister’s response and a thorough Committee stage.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. Most of my points have been made; in the course of the afternoon, I have been tearing up and disposing of parts of the speech that was prepared for me, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if what is left is a little disjointed.
I thank the officials who provided me with a briefing and the Minister for arranging that, and I thank noble Lords for their speeches. I learned a great deal, particularly about the experience of those with disabilities. From my own background, I have had to engage with those having experiences with disabilities on trains and on the railways in particular; to hear the stories today about those who have had problems in the air, and the sorts of problems they have had and the responses they have encountered, has been a very important experience for me. I can certainly say that we will consider sympathetically amendments brought forward to try to offer some sort of redress. I hope that some of those amendments could be brought forward by the Government, because I know that the Minister himself is not unsympathetic to that case. I would have thought that it would be helpful all round if the Government could take a lead. If they do not, I am sure that others in your Lordships’ House will do so.
Like other noble Lords, I want what this Bill does. For example, I want the “powers gap”, as it is known, to be filled. The retained EU law Act expires on 23 June and there is a whole range of areas for which we can no longer make regulations without primary legislation. This Bill addresses that in respect of civil aviation. In fact, I have been berating the Minister in various fora over the last couple of months, saying, “What are you doing about this powers gap arising on 23 June?” I will also take time out now to berate him about it because, while this is being dealt with in relation to aviation, his department still has no answer on the regulation of the marine sector, for example, and in other areas where we will be left completely bereft as a result of a perfectly foreseeable development—namely, the expiration on a known date, which happens to be this month, of an Act passed several years ago.
To go beyond that, not just the Department for Transport but other departments will be affected by the powers gap—but the Government have done nothing except in regard to aviation. We want to see that done: we want to see airspace modernised. My way of putting it is that we want to give a legal basis for passenger protection rights to substitute for their basis in EU law, which will no longer exist. That is what the Bill does: it creates a legal basis for those passenger rights. We want to see that done, but I do not think we really want to see it done this way. We do not want to see it done by the creation of a huge, baggy, all-powerful new regulatory body. We have had 25 years of creating regulators as the answer to everything, and it does not work. We have had 25 years of taking powers away from Ministers and Parliament and giving them to wholly unaccountable regulators, and here we are doing it again. The Civil Aviation Authority is, in essence, a safety regulator, an economic regulator and a regulator of airspace. It is a very focused body and it is very good, but we are now giving it a far broader range of powers.
I am going to read the bits that matter from the memorandum on the European Convention on Human Rights. We find that Clause 1 engages Articles 6 and 8, and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clauses 2 and 3 engage Articles 6 and 10. Clauses 4 to 6 engage Article 6 and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 7 engages Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 8 engages Articles 6 and 7. Clause 9 engages Article 6.
Whole swathes of the Bill are open to challenge. Of course, civil servants believe that they can rebut those challenges in court, but it is no wonder that my noble friend Lord Redwood talked about the possibility of delay because, in effect, large parts of the Bill will be determined not in this Parliament but in a foreign court, as we discover whether these clauses will stand should they be challenged. As an illustration of how wide the powers that are being transferred are, I almost feel that parts of the Bill were written by the Civil Aviation Authority. I will come to some of them, but there is also the question of delegated powers.
Tomorrow or soon after tomorrow, thanks to the information offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, we will get the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Huge swathes of power are being delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority and there are extensive Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. All this needs to be explored and the role of Parliament in it needs to be properly understood. At the moment, we are being emasculated in this. With the great swathes of powers being granted to the CAA, I see no provision in the Bill for parliamentary accountability or, indeed, for any accountability of the CAA to anybody, including to the Minister. How can that be an acceptable way of making law and regulation for the future?
I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but, before I do, I want to say that his speech was one of the most interesting in the debate, because he brought alive for me, in a remarkable way, the experience of being a pilot—even if not a captain—and the things that can happen. I know that other noble Lords with that experience spoke, and I greatly enjoyed his speech and learned from it, but I am going to disappoint him. Of course, I agree with him that, in drafting and preparing regulations, you should consult people who know about things. You should consult pilots, airlines and so forth, and bring them together, but that can be done alongside proper parliamentary scrutiny. While the statutory instrument is an unsatisfactory method for doing so, it is the only one we have. To give up on it completely would be an abandonment of our duty.
I will run through some of the clauses. As I say, many of my points have been made, so I will try not to repeat them, but some things need to be raised. Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to confer enforcement powers on the CAA, so why do we need Clause 2? Clause 2 is one of the bits that I think was written by the CAA. It puts into the Bill all the powers that the Secretary of State already has the power to confer, and these powers are extensive. What is going on there?
Then subsection (3)(e) of the new section inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 creates provisions for the Secretary of State to manage what is going on if two bodies are doing the same enforcement. I do not know which two bodies are meant; I suspect they are the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, but they might be others. One of the principles of enforcement, which those of us with local government experience come across all the time, is that, for one crime, there should be one enforcement agency and one prosecutor. Only in that way do you get clarity and avoid somebody being punished twice for the same thing. We are actually building dual enforcement into the Bill and then giving the Secretary of State some power to manage it from the centre. The Bill should not be doing that; it should be clarifying whether the enforcement is by one or the other—not by both and certainly not by more than two.
Clause 4 is on airspace modernisation. Subsection (2) amends Section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to extend the existing ministerial direction powers, so that the Secretary of State can compel implementation of approved airport changes. This is what we are calling the level of last resort. As a last resort, the Minister can step in and force things to happen. But there is nothing here—I echo the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Bray—about the consultation of the communities that will be affected by airspace modernisation. There will inevitably be winners and losers from that, but where are the communities in this? There is no answer to that, but the Secretary of State can exercise that lever without any regard to community consideration. Is that not too large a power for the Secretary of State to have?
Clause 8 on CAA rule-making is another example of a part of the Bill that I think must have been written by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is astonishingly extensive. First, I want to know what a “rule” is. We have rules in football. There is the offside rule. I know what a “law” is, but I do not know what a “rule” is. What is the force of a rule? Does it have the force of law? The CAA is going to make rules. It has no accountability in how it is going to make rules. There is no requirement in the Bill, particularly about consultation.
Then we have—this must be one of the most bizarre things that anyone has ever written into a Bill, which is one of the reasons I think the CAA wrote it—more in Clause 8 relating to CAA rules. In new Section 61F, we have the power for the Secretary of State to issue a document—note the careful avoidance of the word “guidance”—that
“sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions”.
I have no problem with that. That makes a great deal of sense. We then then go down to new subsection (6), which says:
“The Secretary of State … must consult the CAA in preparing or revising the document and”—
just listen to this—
“may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.
So we have an arrangement where the Secretary of State is allowed in effect to give guidance—of course, if you use the word “guidance” that has a legal meaning, but it is effectively guidance, I hope—to the CAA that the CAA can veto. Does anyone read these things before they print them? How can that possibly be justified?
Then we come to Clause 9 on offences. This is no criticism of noble Lords, but nobody in the course of this debate has mentioned the fact that the CAA is being given the power to create criminal offences—something that Parliament normally reserves to itself. The CAA can create criminal offences and you can get a fine. You can be taken to the magistrates’ court and you can get a fine. Again, what is the parliamentary scrutiny for that? What is the justification for leaving that in just that fashion?
We then have the Henry VIII powers. These are completely unnecessary, because the Government’s delegated powers memorandum, which they have written for the benefit of the Delegated Powers Committee, identifies every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that those amendments are already made in the Bill—so why should they need Henry VIII powers to amend further legislation? What is the further legislation, if they have already identified all the legislation with which the Bill interacts? Unnecessary Henry VIII powers have been loaded in that are simply not needed.
We support aviation. I agree with everything that has been said about its economic importance and its contribution to growth. I cannot none the less allow the Government to sit there and say that that is solely their objective when they themselves have done so much damage to aviation in the country. The SAF mandate, for example, is adding significantly to the costs of fuel, and that is feeding through to what passengers are having to pay. Then we have the astonishing, bone-crunching increases in business rates being imposed on airports. This Bill could be a chance for the Government to do something for the benefit of aviation and make good on their commitment to use aviation as a means for growth. It could be that, but it needs drastic change if is to do so credibly.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today’s debate on the Bill. I have listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points raised across your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to respond to as many questions and concerns as possible, and, where I am not able to, I will follow up in writing. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan says, my contribution is likely to be a little disjointed, even though this Bill is constrained as to its effect. Like the noble Lord, I have learned much from many of the contributions today.
I should start with consumer protection, because virtually every noble Lord who spoke on that aspect was, I think, supportive of the intention of the Bill. A number of noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, Lady Thornton, Lady Gill and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, spoke passionately and with great strength of feeling about the inadequacy of some of the actuality that people have faced, particularly if they are disabled, whether they are physically disabled, neurodivergent or have sensory issues about air travel. The Government have brought this forward because we do not accept that that is inevitable. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was kind enough to say that he knows that I have had previous encounters with this in the Bus Services Bill and the passenger railways services Bill.
In this circumstance, there is clear evidence that the Government need to take action and that the action we need to take is to enable the Civil Aviation Authority to deal with this subject much more easily in future than it has been able to in the past. The fact that it has managed only one prosecution, and that that has taken four years, is evidence that its existing powers are not sufficient. That is why we are bringing this forward.
We are particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for chairing the task and finish group. I will write to her with a current update on where those 16 conclusions have got to. We are determined to do something about this. Access to aviation should be for everybody, not just for people who are physically and mentally fit. I will not go through in greater detail the experiences of noble Lords who have spoken, other than to say that there ought to be real redress about all this in a way that there currently is not.
I noted particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, referred to inclusion by design. I will take that away and think about the extent to which the Bill covers this circumstance. We need to make progress on this, because it is unacceptable. The stories of the individuals concerned that we have heard about today and from people who are able to make a noise about their experiences mean that we should make a change. The noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, asked whether this will apply to airports as well as airlines. The answer is that it will apply to both.
There was a question about divergence from former EU protections. We have heard different views today about whether we should be precisely aligned with the EU. Our position enables us to take a view about the extent to which we align with the EU, not foolishly diverging from things that are obviously useful but using the freedoms that we now have to do so.
On airspace modernisation, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked whether any direction would affect existing rights to be consulted. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also raised that question. The answer is that anything in this Bill will not affect existing rights to be consulted. That must be right, otherwise the existing procedures would have no effect on airspace modernisation.
This is not of itself a measure for expansion; the expansion of capacity in most of the country is limited by runway capacity. The Bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, helping it to grow and remain competitive for decades to come. Some measures in the Bill will support airport expansion across the UK, such as enabling further reforms to airport slot allocation and supporting airspace modernisation to meet future needs. These are not particular to expansion at Heathrow; they are also needed for the broader objectives raised during this approach. Slot co-ordination cannot increase capacity at an airport, but it can help manage that capacity more effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know—because we discussed it prior to this Second Reading debate—that one of the effects of better airspace modernisation and better utilisation of slots is to reduce delays and pollution by better using airspace, rather than having aircraft circling around.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised a question about the single guiding mind. The set-up is now complete, and it is starting work. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the capacity of NATS. We believe that it does have capacity. Notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, was very complimentary about the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS. We agree with her; they do a terrific job. It is important that we recognise the CAA as a competent body to do this work.
The noble Lords, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope, raised the question of the engagement of pilots. In that we agree: the people who pilot planes should be consulted about airspace modernisation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, raised the whole question of drone use for freight, blood, police and the military. This is, of course, one of the main reasons for looking at airspace modernisation and the charging mechanism. These are new uses of airspace; airspace modernisation needs to allow for these uses, and the people who are using the drones need to be appropriately charged.
On the question of wider slot reform, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, said that we should tread carefully, and I think we will. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—I am paraphrasing—that nothing will happen for ages. We do have to be careful with some of these measures, and we should do them properly, but not everything will be delayed for ever. Indeed, many people regard the question of airspace modernisation as urgent, and we do too.
Going back to consumer protection, I hope we regard that as urgent too; it has been a scandal for far too long. So, not everything in this Bill will take years to do. On airspace modernisation slots, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, gave us a very careful exposition of safety in the operation of aircraft. We should be very careful to make sure that what we and government bodies do in this space is always safe and properly considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the question of access to slots at Heathrow for regional flights, about which I know a little through some of my prior work. It is not our intention to interfere with airlines’ commercial decisions, but this Bill will give powers to allow the allocation of slots to be relevant to the evolving context of airlines.
On the questions about delegation to the civil aviation safety rules, we acknowledge that we need to be careful with this, and that is why the Secretary of State is retaining powers to direct. However, we also need to be aware that the environment in which we are making aviation safety rules is highly technical and fast-moving. I too was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, with his experience of business in the Moses Room. We are struggling to keep pace with evolving international standards, and that is why we propose to fix this by placing technical rule-making with the CAA. We will of course listen very carefully indeed to the Delegated Powers Committee when we get its report. I have no doubt at all, bearing in mind the length of time the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spent on it, that we will have a great deal of discussion about the virtues of doing this. However, we must remember that, in whatever we do here, we have to give this industry the ability to keep pace with international standards so that it can continue, as many noble Lords have remarked, to make its contribution to economic growth. I go back to the previous remarks about the competence of the CAA. It is a good regulator, and it will of course have to be staffed to carry out the functions the Bill seeks to give it.
There were some other questions related to delegation to the CAA. As I say, I have no doubt that we will fully discuss that in Committee.
Noble Lords raised a number of other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked whether the CAA has powers to implement all the options for Heathrow expansion. Our current position is that the CAA has not identified any new powers needed to implement the options that have been put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about general aviation. This Government support general aviation. They see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth, and will continue to maintain their interest in general aviation. They note the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it.
The noble Lords, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope, asked about the future supply of pilots. The Government are mindful of future requirements of the industry. I am sure that we can discuss that in Committee as well. We recognise that to have a healthy industry we need to develop new generations of pilots. More will be said about that, no doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about cabin air quality. This was last looked at in 2022, when a review of current evidence concluded there was no significant cause to think that it caused ill effects.
I come to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. First, I welcome her to the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats. She has made a number of very strong points which we will obviously have to answer in Committee. I think I have dealt with the question about whether this is some surrogate vehicle for airport expansion already, but no doubt we will discuss it further. She expressed concerns about delegated powers, which of course we will discuss, and her points about Eurostar were well made. Separately, this Government are very committed to increasing international travel by rail because, of course, if it can be done, it is an environmentally friendly alternative to air travel.
I think that I could better answer many of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in Committee because he will make them again, no doubt. I could answer the questions, for example, about Clause 1 and setting out in Clause 2 the details of the powers that are needed. Perhaps I should just answer that question. We have heard so much about the rights of people who use air travel that I do not think it is a bad thing to point out in the Bill what we are trying to deal with regarding the obligations of airports and airlines to provide adequate service to all sorts of customers, including those who are disabled. I cannot quite see how we can conclude that is such a difficult thing to contemplate.
I will not keep your Lordships any longer. It has been highly encouraging to see such passion and interest on the topic of aviation, and I have noted the broad consensus on the important role that aviation can and does play in supporting our country and the broad consensus on having a Bill of this sort and on dealing with the subjects in it. Strengthening consumer rights and protections, promoting economic growth and infrastructure provision, and enabling improved safety standards will ensure that the UK retains its appeal as a competitive aviation hub.
It has been a privilege to present this Bill to your Lordships’ House for the Second Reading. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of the many noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measure, and I look forward to the detailed discussions we will have in Committee.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 13, Title.