House of Commons
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It would be churlish of me not to recognise England’s wonderful victory in the world cup last night, but there is only one European nation that has three points at the world cup without conceding a goal, and that is indeed Scotland—the new favourites to lift the trophy.
Culture, Media and Sport Ministers have had no recent discussions with counterparts in the Hellenic Republic on mutual exchanges of cultural artefacts. As the hon. Member knows, the Parthenon sculptures are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. The chair of the museum has been in discussions with the Greek Government about a partnership, including reciprocal loans. As I said to the hon. Gentleman from the Dispatch Box last time, this Government would not stand in the way if such loans were agreed.
Andrew George
There is an opportunity for another victory for the United Kingdom if we can find a way of co-operating. Clinging on to half of the Parthenon sculptures while assuring ourselves that we own them, when they were obtained in, at best, highly dubious circumstances two centuries ago, is not a great look for this country. Does the Minister agree that the imminent restoration of the British Museum provides the museum and the Government with a golden opportunity to engage in what would be a better look for this country—a gracious act, reflecting a partnership and a shared love of classical history, but also natural justice—and to see all the sculptures displayed in Athens, where they belong?
Ian Murray
I can only repeat what I have said in previous answers and in my initial response to the hon. Gentleman. The sculptures are owned by the British Museum. The chair of the trustees, the former Chancellor —the hon. Gentleman’s Chancellor in the coalition Government—has had talks with Greek Ministers on this issue to seek a constructive partnership. We support those talks, but it is for the British Museum trustees to reach an agreement with the Greek Government. As I have said, we would not stand in the way if such an agreement was put in place.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government believe that every child in this country has the right to access high-quality arts provision, including music and dance, which gives young people the chance to live a richer, larger life. I am really pleased to tell the House that the music and dance scheme’s allocation of future funding for this financial year represents an increase on the commitment of the previous year.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Wells Cathedral school is in my constituency, and it has 80 young people who are on the music and dance scheme. It is a fantastic scheme, and I pay tribute to the outgoing headteacher, Alastair Tighe, who has done his very best to ensure that the scheme reaches deep into the community and those from less advantaged backgrounds, including one of our local cleaners—she is able to pay just £200 a year for what is a £50,000 a year education. However, there has been a 10-year drift between inflation and the amount of the money that the scheme receives. Can the Secretary of State have another look at this issue and make it absolutely certain that pupils benefit from better funding—
Lisa Nandy
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Alastair Tighe and all the people who make this commitment real. They change children’s lives, and this Government cannot do that alone from Whitehall. What we can do, however, is fund such schemes adequately. Even in these difficult financial circumstances, we made a £36.5 million commitment to the music and dance scheme last year, and we have increased that by £1.3 million to ensure that it can continue.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Musical theatre and dance are important parts of the creative industries. Kristian Thomas Company in my constituency provides extensive training for young people aged four upwards, up to formal qualifications at BTEC and foundation degree level. What financial support is given to organisations such as KTC so that they can continue offering valuable education in the arts for all young people in North West Leicestershire?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is a great champion for North West Leicestershire and for all the young people in her constituency. As I said to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), we have been investing in music and dance in particular, but we have also invested £425 million in the creative foundations fund to support arts venues across the country, because one of the key things that we have identified is that it is not just about the bursaries that we provide to enable access for all; it is about those institutions existing in every part of the country.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that the music and dance scheme supports so many talented young performers from lower-income backgrounds to access an arts education. She will also know that such specialist schools and conservatoires are now subject to VAT, because of changes brought in by her Government. In many cases, the bursaries do not even begin to cover the extreme costs, which are made up by family members, parents and everybody clubbing together to try to find the money. The VAT is still there, and it still makes a difference to whether they can afford it. What assessment has the Department made of the number of families paying VAT on the remaining fees, and how many talented young artists are now unable to attend as a result? I think I heard her right in saying that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, but could she please confirm that?
Lisa Nandy
I am very happy to confirm that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, and we have been able to increase the amount of funding available, which is a recognition of the cost pressures that families face. I very much agree with the hon. Member that bursaries are absolutely essential, which is why we have protected them even in these difficult financial circumstances. However, she will recognise the difficult circumstances we inherited from the previous Government. We have done our best to protect such things, and in the case of music and dance, we have been able to uplift the funding available.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sam Ashford and the Livewire theatre in Harlow on 25 years of supporting young people into music, dance and the theatre with its hard-hitting shows? I pay particular tribute to the work it did to support young people remotely during covid.
Lisa Nandy
Of course, I will. I appreciate the efforts that my hon. Friend puts in not just to ensure that Harlow is referenced in this Chamber at every opportunity, but, sincerely, to change the lives of young people in Harlow and across the whole country. He really is one of the best champions for young people in this House.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Responsibility for managing and funding UNESCO world heritage sites is devolved to local authorities and the devolved Governments. As such, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not typically provide direct funding. Heritage sites can apply for UK Government funding through our arm’s length bodies, notably the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England, which can provide support to world heritage sites through capital grants for conservation, education and community resilience projects.
John Whitby
Cromford Mills in Derbyshire Dales was the world’s first water-powered cotton spinning mill and the birthplace of mass production. In recent decades the Arkwright Society has transformed this UNESCO world heritage site into the much-loved tourist attraction it is today. However, the renewal of the site is not yet complete, with another £1.2 million in match funding needed to help secure its financial viability. Will the Minister therefore agree to officials meeting the Arkwright Society to see what support the Department can give to help Cromford Mill secure this much-needed financial support?
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to the Arkwright Society, which does amazing work in managing Cromford Mills, which is an integral part of the wider Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site. I am therefore pleased that it has already secured £1.3 million of investment from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. I understand the remaining challenges my hon. Friend set out about the longer-term financial viability. He asked for a meeting with officials, and we should set up that meeting, but also with the Minister in the other place, Baroness Twycross, who would be very happy to meet him and the Arkwright Society.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Roman forts of Reculver and Richborough, linked by the Wantsum channel and the River Stour in east Kent, are ambitious to secure UNESCO world heritage site status. Those ambitions will be killed stone dead if the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero supports the building of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes. Would the Minister have a word with that Department to make sure that does not happen?
Ian Murray
It is important that any new site put forward for UNESCO world heritage site status first goes through a robust national assessment process—and the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises will be considered as part of that—before being put on the UK’s tentative list of prospective world heritage nominations. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting with him to discuss what may have to be done to make that application as strong as possible.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The UK’s creative industries are world leading, which is why the Government have made them a priority. We are backing them in our industrial strategy as one of eight industries that we believe have the greatest potential for the future. Our sector plan is working, with the creative industries expanding 3.1% in the last quarter, outperforming the wider economy.
Sarah Green
The Secretary of State will know that nearly a third of those who work in the creative industries are self-employed. I have been contacted by creative freelancers in my area who feel that their voice is not always heard. One of them is a licensed chaperone, responsible for safeguarding those under 16 working on productions away from their parents. She told me that some chaperones are waiting for up to eight months to be paid, caught between agencies and production companies, which blame each other, before everyone moves on to the next production. That is just one example of many. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ways we can better support freelancers in our creatives industries to help them and the sector thrive?
Lisa Nandy
The Government are acutely aware of the challenges of a very casualised industry in which freelancers often do not have the voice they need to stand up for their rights, protect them at work and make sure the industry they work in is fair and safe, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue in this House and for being their voice. I would be delighted to organise a meeting with the relevant officials so that she can discuss this issue. I can also update the House that we have recently appointed the freelance champion role. They will advocate for the creative sector’s freelancers within Government. We will be in a position to announce those names shortly.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Grassroots venues in Newport such as The Cab and Le Pub, where the fan-led review was launched recently, are a vital part of our city’s creative industry, drawing thousands of people into our city centre each month. The ticket levy announced by the Government could help such venues to manage rising costs and develop talent. Larger events were encouraged to participate voluntarily in the scheme, so could we have a bit of a progress report and an idea of next steps?
Lisa Nandy
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to update her on the progress we have made on protecting these vital venues. If I may, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate her on the long overdue recognition for the work she has put into this Chamber and for what she has done in public life.
Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to have a rare truce between Wigan and Chorley and thank you for the work you have done over a long period of time to campaign for Sir Kevin Sinfield to be given a knighthood? It is an absolute privilege to be the Secretary of State who has been able to ensure that both Sir Billy Boston and Sir Kevin Sinfield have been rightly recognised as the first two people from rugby league ever to receive knighthoods, which were long overdue.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The BBC is one of our most important national institutions. Now, more than ever, the need for trusted news and high-quality programming is essential to our democratic and cultural life. We are currently conducting the charter review, which I believe will be the most consequential in the BBC’s history, given the current political climate. We have already announced that, as part of the charter review, we will be putting the BBC on a permanent charter, so that it exists in perpetuity for all of us, forever.
Olly Glover
Yesterday, as part of £500 million cuts, the BBC announced the scrapping of BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme after 56 years, among others. It is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s support for the BBC, but can she say a little more about what she is going to do to protect the future of the BBC, following the end of the BBC charter consultation in March?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I know this issue has raised significant concerns across all our nations and regions. I met the BBC director general recently to discuss the announcement that has just been made. Obviously, those decisions are a matter for the BBC. What is squarely within the Government’s remit, however, is ensuring that, as part of the charter, the BBC is adequately and sustainably funded. We will not accept a smaller BBC. A core objective of the charter review is to expand both the scope and reach of BBC services.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned reports that BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme may be cut. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in the age of fast news, disinformation and misinformation, we need more programmes such as “The World Tonight”, not fewer, and that we need more contemplative journalism so that our voters can understand politics and the world around them more effectively? Does she agree with me that the BBC perhaps ought to look at the vast salaries they pay their stars, both in entertainment and in news, in order to retain programmes such as “The World Tonight”, which will be much missed if it goes?
Lisa Nandy
I concur with my hon. Friend’s view that, now more than ever, the BBC’s role in providing trusted news and information is essential. For all the challenges that the BBC has faced, it remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news across the world. I recognise that the BBC has had some serious challenges to deal with, and has had to make some difficult decisions, but this Government are determined to support its efforts by ensuring that it is adequately funded. We have recently published the first ever local news strategy. Colleagues will know that in the current by-election in Makerfield—next door to me in Wigan—there has been a huge upsurge in the amount of misinformation and disinformation targeted at residents. The BBC has a role to play in countering that, but so too do tremendous outlets such as the Wigan Post, which provide much needed balance.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Last year the BBC lost another 300,000 licence fee payers. The BBC’s current scale and financial model is clearly unsustainable. Yesterday the BBC announced controversial cuts, including “The World Tonight” and “Money Box Live”, without anyone in Parliament expressing a view. That is not right. The Government appear to be restricting parliamentary debate about the future of the BBC. They announced the BBC charter via written statement, not a debate. They have already ruled out some alternative funding models and consideration of the size, scope and scale of the BBC’s operations, leaving the BBC to take action unilaterally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the scope of the charter review, and ensure that Parliament has a proper say on the future of the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
I will try to reassure the hon. Member on that, because we have no intention of restricting debate on the future of the BBC. I share some of his concerns about the way in which the BBC made the recent announcement. One of the things that I was keen to ensure was that decisions that could affect the future of the BBC, and the services on which we all rely, were made by the new director general and not in the interim, in the absence of a permanent director general. The charter process sets out a clear role for Parliament, which this Government will respect and uphold. There will be adequate opportunity to debate the proposals that the Government put forward with the White Paper on the future of the BBC later this year.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
We are fully committed to implementing the measures that we announced last year, which will put fans back at the heart of live events, and eliminate industrial-scale ticket touting—it has been fleecing fans for far too long. We are working at pace to prepare the legislation and intend to publish a draft Bill in this parliamentary Session for pre-legislative scrutiny. That will allow us to draw on expertise from Parliament and across industry to ensure that our legislation is effective and enforceable.
Pete Wishart
It would be churlish not to acknowledge the result last night. The whole House can rowdily congratulate Ghana on their fantastic victory last night. I do not think the Minister fully understands the real sense of disappointment and frustration that those in the live sector feel because there is no full Bill, as has been promised by everybody, from the Prime Minister down. While this Government dither, fans continue to be ripped off by the touts, the profiteers and the spivs, as they suck the lifeblood out of our live music sector. Can the Minister clearly set out how the Bill will progress and when the sector is likely to see an outcome? Can he possibly explain why the outlawed company Viagogo was recently in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, weeks before the announcement was made?
Ian Murray
It is important to lay out that it is a manifesto commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all of us—to get that legislation through. It is incredibly popular legislation. We need to stop fans being ripped off by ticket touts, but it is important to get the legislation right. Given the complexity of what we are proposing, with a price cap, a cap in service fees, resale volume limits, strict legal obligations on the platforms, and strict enforcement, it has to be done right. If there are any loopholes or edges to the legislation, they will be exploited by ticket touts, who are already exploiting fans and the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in trying to get the legislation right.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?
Ian Murray
It is well documented that there have been issues with tickets for this world cup. My hon. Friend the Sport Minister has been having meetings about tickets for Euro 2028, which will take place in this country. It is really important, whether it is sport, music or festivals, that fans are not ripped off by ticket touts, who make huge profits out of ordinary fans who just want to watch their favourite sports or bands. The hon. Member did congratulate England on winning yesterday, but I am disappointed that she did not also congratulate Scotland for their wonderful win on Sunday morning.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Tourism drives growth and jobs across the country, including in Cheshire. VisitBritain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign is showcasing a range of film and TV locations, such as Lyme Park, to global audiences, while our Great British summer savings scheme is encouraging family visits, supporting businesses dependent on summer footfall with a temporary VAT cut on eligible attractions.
Aphra Brandreth
Tourism is vital to Chester South and Eddisbury’s economy. From Snugburys and the Ice Cream Farm to BeWILDerwood and Beeston castle, we are fortunate to have fantastic attractions, and I encourage the Minister to visit them. But as one business told me following the Government’s summer savings announcement:
“It feels a bit like having £100 taken off you, then being given £30 back and being expected to be grateful”.
The scheme is a drop in the ocean compared with the costs imposed by this Government’s damaging policies. Will the Minister tell those businesses what more she is doing to support the sector, not just for the summer but for the long term?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I know she is a great champion for her constituency, and I know that tourism is incredibly important to her constituency. I recognise the challenges, some of which she has outlined. I have done a number of meetings with the sector. Just this week, I was at the Tourism Alliance’s annual general meeting, and I met VisitScotland last week. We do recognise the challenges, but we think that the Great British summer savings will make a big difference to attractions up and down the country.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Next week Stafford’s Gatehouse theatre will launch its annual Shakespeare festival with Richard III. Last year we had over 180,000 visitors. I know that the Government are committed to cultural venues. They have put £1.5 billion into supporting them, but please can the Minister tell me what more the Government are doing to support local theatres, and would they like to attend the gala night with me next week to get away from all the drama?
Stephanie Peacock
I know that my colleague has been working incredibly hard on this issue, and I wish the theatre the very best of luck for next week.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Soaring taxes are putting visitors off coming to the UK—that is what the boss of British Airways says. Does the Minister agree?
Stephanie Peacock
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; I know that he is a big champion for his constituency and the issue. As I outlined, I met with the tourism sector a number of times just in the last week. We do recognise the challenges it is facing, but we back the sector.
Joe Robertson
Oh dear, that is not an answer to the question I asked. My question was about the tax burden on the tourism sector in this country. National insurance is up, and we have new taxes on part-time work. An overnight visitor levy is in the pipeline, and there are extra taxes on air passengers and ferry passengers. This Government’s assault on the Great British holiday has been brutal. It is no wonder young people are struggling to find their first job. Will the Minister recommit to the Government’s target to have 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030, and will she tell the Chancellor to cut the brutal tax regime in order to get us there?
Stephanie Peacock
I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman, given the inheritance from the previous Conservative Government. If he had been paying any attention—I know he does not usually sit on the Front Bench—he would know that I have indeed committed to increasing visitor numbers. I regret his talking down our tourism industry, especially with the Isle of Wight festival starting today. It is going from strength to strength and I wish it the very best of luck.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
A tremendous question. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. At last year’s UK-EU summit, the UK and the European Commission committed to supporting cultural exchange, recognising those touring artists. I discussed cultural professionals’ working conditions with the European culture commissioner at the first high-level meeting on culture in March. Digital ATA carnets that enable movement without customs declarations or duties were launched on 1 June across the UK, EU, Norway and Switzerland. We continue to engage with our EU counterparts at all levels and with industry to support touring.
Jeff Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer; there is some good news there. One of the many negatives of Brexit is that it has placed barriers on UK artists being able to tour in Europe. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has just published its report, featuring a number of practical measures that the Government can take to remove those barriers. Will Ministers act on those recommendations? I point to one in particular. As well as leaving the EU, the UK decided not to participate in the Creative Europe scheme, which we were net beneficiaries of. Ahead of the upcoming EU-UK summit, a signal that we intend to participate in the successor scheme, AgoraEU, would be a positive message to our creative artists.
Ian Murray
I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I welcome its continued interest in recognising the importance of international touring to the UK’s world-leading arts and creative industries sector. We are carefully considering the recommendations and will form the response in due course.
The Prime Minister agreed with the European Commission President on Tuesday to press ahead with the UK-EU summit on 22 July, so that people on both sides can feel the benefits of the UK-EU collaboration as soon as possible. Touring artists were mentioned in the summit agreement last year. I cannot comment on the ongoing negotiations, but we are determined to ensure that UK touring artists can tour again in the EU as best as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very fortunate that I have exceptional talent in my constituency, and for those who wish to take their talents across Europe and other parts of the world, the opportunity is there. The Minister was positive in his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith). Will the same enthusiasm, energy and commitment be shown to our Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he does the same for my constituents in Strangford?
Ian Murray
As well as sending artists across the European Union, Strangford sends the very best to this Chamber. There is a firm commitment on the EU side to take this forward. I met Commissioner Micaleff at the high-level meeting, and also discussed the matter at the Culture Ministers’ meeting. We are determined to ensure that there can be as much ease as possible for UK touring artists in Europe. That is the manifesto commitment, and we are doing everything that we possibly can. It is complicated. There are a number of Commission elements to this—it is not just about visas but transportation, marketing and all those kinds of issues—but we are trying our very best to get through those as quickly as possible.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I know that Members across this House will be horrified and disgusted at the serious allegations of abuse against women in the TV industry that have emerged recently. Everyone has the right to be safe and treated with dignity. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts recently met Channel 4 about the serious allegations that have emerged about “Married at First Sight”. We are not satisfied as a Government with the response that we have received, and I will discuss that further with Channel 4 in the coming week.
Since we last met, Mr Speaker, we have launched a new partnership with Gareth Southgate and the King’s Trust to provide mentors for young people, as part of our commitment through the national youth strategy to ensure that every young person in this country has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. We have also launched “Every Child Can” to give young people, wherever they live, the chance to find their spark and build the confidence and positive relationships they need to succeed. As the world cup gets under way, and after such a strong start, the whole House will join me in wishing both home nations every success.
Peter Swallow
Whether it is cheering along to every one of those England goals, bawling our eyes out as we watch the heartbreaking social drama “Tip Toe”, or even following the latest twists and turns at Westminster from trusted news sources, it is undoubtable that public sector broadcasting enriches all our lives. We have heard about a lot of the challenges today, but what will the Secretary of State do to champion public sector broadcasting and ensure that it is fit and ready for the future?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will have heard my answer to colleagues about the future of the BBC. The Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC is set up on a sustainable basis for the future through the charter review, so that it can thrive for many years to come. But the BBC, he is right to say, is not the only public service broadcaster in this country. We have public service broadcasting that is the envy of the world, and the Government are determined to do everything we can to support and safeguard it, including by challenging where necessary—as we have with the response to “Married at First Sight” by Channel 4—when we believe that those standards are not being upheld.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s introductory comments and congratulate England and Scotland on a great start to the world cup.
Since coming to power, this Government have cut funding for school sport, listed places of worship, tourism marketing and so much more, yet they have found billions for welfare, Chagos and inflation-busting pay rises for their union mates. Last Sunday, the Secretary of State went on telly to say that she was in discussions about cutting DCMS spending even further. Well, where and when? And who is to blame: is it the Prime Minister, for his weakness and failure to tackle welfare spending, or is it the Chancellor, for her utter economic incompetence?
Lisa Nandy
One thing I learned at school was that the answer to a multiple choice question is usually option (c). The hon. Member missed option (c) out, because the real answer to “Who is to blame for the situation this country is in?” is him and his colleagues, because of the appalling mess they made over 14 years of Conservative government. They cut our armed forces to a size that has not been seen for generations, they refused to treat our veterans with respect, they crashed the economy and they left working-class people in every nation and region paying a very heavy price.
We are investing: we have announced the biggest uplift to arts funding, in a single Parliament, in history; we are investing additional resources in young people to turn around the life chances of a generation; and we have invested more than £1 billion in school sport, which the hon. Member’s Government squandered. He should be ashamed of himself—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have only four minutes left, and we have to get through the Order Paper.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate England on their brilliant win last night, and he is right to mention the T20 world cup. I was delighted to be at the tournament launch; I held a women’s sport taskforce event in Southampton to coincide with the match on Tuesday. The Government are investing £3 million in all- weather domes. I visited the England and Wales Cricket Board schools programme at Worsbrough in my constituency, which is increasing attendance at cricket in state schools.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology laid out to the House on 18 March, we are taking forward four big strategic priorities—digital replicas, AI labelling, creative control and licensing—to get this right. No country in the world has been able to resolve this problem, but the UK is uniquely placed to try to resolve it. We want to work across the House and with both the tech and creative industries to get it right.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
We are working very closely with the Department for Education to ensure that the national centre is launched in September, and we will update my hon. Friend and the House very shortly on the progress that we are making.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Grassroots sports clubs such as Wokingham Town football club are at the heart of our communities, but many clubs struggle to find and maintain facilities and equipment. Would the Secretary of State consider convening twice-yearly meetings with grassroots sports governing bodies to strengthen collaboration and advocacy for community sport?
Stephanie Peacock
The Government are fully committed to working with the sports sector to support our vital grassroots clubs. We work closely with Sports England, an arm’s length body, to engage with grassroots sports across the country and ensure that all sports are seen, heard and supported. Rather than duplicating existing forums, I welcome the creation of groups such as the national governing body coalition and look forward to working alongside it to effectively support the sector.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
Through the national youth strategy, we were absolutely horrified to find that a majority of young people in this country spend all, or almost all, of their free time alone in their bedrooms online. As part of the commitment to keep young people safe online and to get them out of their bedrooms and into the real world, we have been pleased to announce a significant uplift in funding for young people to ensure that we build the next generation of youth clubs and grassroots sports facilities, rebuild youth work and ensure that every young person has those opportunities in our country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Recognising the answers that the right hon. Lady gave earlier, may I ask her to ensure that before the charter review comes out, she absolutely emphasises the need for radio news? Many people do not get to watch television news—I am sure she will be travelling later today and will not be able to watch the TV. May I ask her at this early stage to ensure that the BBC recognises just how important these radio news programmes are?
Lisa Nandy
Wow—can I not associate myself with those remarks? [Laughter.]
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of radio and regional news. Recently, the outgoing director general of the BBC told me that regional news now has greater reach than national news. That includes local radio as well, and we will of course ensure that it becomes a priority through the charter review.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Ian Murray
The Redditch local history museum deserve all the support it can get. Local museums are hugely important, and decisions on the operation of cultural organisations are taken locally, independent of Government, through Arts Council England. The national development agency for museums may be able to offer some advice, and I wish Redditch good luck in the town of culture bid.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Grassroots music venues in the constituency I represent, such as the Talleyrand, face increasing costs from business rates despite the emergency relief that has been provided. Can the Minister tell me how the music plan will help tackle the structural issues facing grassroots venues, such as the Talleyrand, and how it will secure the venue’s long-term future in our community and cultural landscapes?
Ian Murray
The music plan is to help grassroots music. It is part of a whole package that this Government are putting in place to ensure that music thrives, and continues to thrive, in this country, including the £30 million music growth fund. We have the music plan, which will be coming out and announced shortly, but we also have the ticket levy—a £1 voluntary ticket levy on every single ticket sold for major concerts—which is putting money straight into grassroots music. That has put in half a million; there is another million to come, so that is hugely good news for grassroots music.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I am so proud to back Filton’s bid to become the UK town of culture 2028. From our vibrant community to our vast heritage, including as the British home of Concorde, we have so much to offer the whole country. Will the Minister agree to meet me to hear more about this bid and what makes Filton so special?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for being such an outstanding champion for her constituency. She and I have discussed the great, vibrant, diverse cultural offer and contribution that her community has to make, including the fact that it is the home of Concorde. Through the town of culture, we hope that many towns across the country can up their cultural offer, shout loudly about their achievements, take wings and soar.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State rule out extending the BBC licence fee to streaming services such as Netflix?
Lisa Nandy
We have been very careful not to get drawn into speculation about the future funding arrangements for the BBC, except to say that we have ruled out a levy on streamers, and we have also ruled out direct taxation going to fund the BBC because of the need for the BBC to retain its independence. But I look forward to debating this issue with the hon. Member and for the whole House to come together to ensure that we get this right through the charter process.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)
All voters, including blind and visually impaired voters, should be able to vote independently and secretly. In its reports on elections in 2024 and 2025, the commission found that there have been improvements to the support available and that returning officers provided a range of accessibility equipment and support. The commission will publish a report on the May 2026 polls in the autumn, including consideration of accessibility. However, there is more to be done, and the commission has recommended improving awareness of the support available, including providing clear information on poll cards and in polling stations.
Ms Minns
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer. Responses to a survey by the Royal National Institute of Blind People at the time of the last general election showed that 73% of people who are blind and visually impaired did not know that those adjustments were available at polling stations. I have tabled an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would require those adjustments to be made available. In the meantime, could he set out what more the commission can do ahead of the next elections to ensure that blind and visually impaired people can vote independently and in secret?
Sir Jeremy Wright
As I have said, the commission will review what happened in the May 2026 polls and make any further recommendations it feels necessary as a result. The hon. Lady makes two important points. It is important that equipment is available, and she will know that tactile devices have been found by the commission to have been available in every polling station. Her other important point is that people who are blind or partially sighted need to know about that, and communicating that information is crucial—she is absolutely right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. The RNIB has been in touch with me in relation to an issue in Northern Ireland. Access to elections is imperative if we are to encourage true democracy, and there must be confidence that any and every polling station has easy access. Will he consider ensuring that those with blue badges are permitted to drive into polling stations and do not have to park outside the gates, as is currently the situation in some Northern Ireland polling stations? It is a very specific issue for us in Northern Ireland but hopefully one that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can help us with.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I will certainly make sure the commission hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will appreciate that judgments on these things are often for returning officers or for those managing individual polling stations, but he makes an important point about access. As I say, I will make sure the commission hears what he has said.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
I am pleased to report that good progress has been made on reducing the number of cleaning products we use that are not certified as cruelty-free. My hon. Friend has rightly pushed us on this matter. In total, we use around 40 cleaning products. Since early 2025, we have reduced the number of products used that are not certified as cruelty-free from nine to three. For the remaining three products, the cleaning contractor is in the process of identifying suitable replacements that meet the required standard.
Alex Mayer
I very much welcome the progress that is being made; we are going in the right direction, from the figure of nine when I originally asked to three today. Would my hon. Friend be willing to meet with the body that runs the international approval programme for cruelty-free products, to see whether we can speed this up and make Parliament fully cruelty-free?
Nick Smith
The cleaning contractor will continue to work on identifying suitable alternatives from its suppliers, and I would be pleased to put it in touch with the body that my hon. Friend suggests can provide good advice.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church of England is committed to improving accessibility, so that all who wish to attend churches, whether for worship or community activities, are able to do so. Parishes may apply to the parish accessibility fund for up to £50,000 or a small grant of up to £5,000 for project proposals to improve accessibility features, such as the installation of an accessible toilet, step-free access and production of large-print materials.
Daniel Francis
In April, St Paul’s cathedral opened a Changing Places toilet, providing disabled people with an accessible, dignified and safe toilet. That new facility gives visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access the cathedral, as well as contributing to the local economy. Can my hon. Friend outline how other cathedrals across the UK can be supported to open Changing Places toilets, to provide disabled people with the facilities they need to visit these historic locations?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and note all his work in this area; he is a true champion for disabled people, especially since coming to this place. The opening of the Changing Places toilet in St Paul’s is incredibly welcome and, as he points out, it will open up access to that historic space for many people to enjoy. I am pleased to say that places like Blackburn cathedral already have such a facility, and Lambeth Palace, just over the river, is also soon to open a new space. I encourage all hon. Members to contact their local churches to encourage them to look into the disability project and to apply for the parish accessibility fund, so that they can improve their welcome to all their communities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Marsha De Cordova
The Church delivers community projects across the country to support individuals and families with the cost of living. These programmes offer practical support, companionship and advice to those facing hardship, demonstrating the Church’s ongoing commitment to serving and standing with all our communities nationwide.
Chris Vince
I want to pay tribute to three fantastic women in Harlow: Caroline Hatton, Alison Taylor and, in particular, the Rev. Jokey Poyntz at my local church, St Mary’s in Little Parndon, who for many years has run a church furniture fund—she has got me to move the odd sofa—providing furniture to those in need across our town. What work are the Church Commissioners doing to recognise the work of local churches, like St Mary’s in Little Parndon, and to learn from that good practice?
Marsha De Cordova
I join my hon. Friend in noting the incredible work in his constituency and the work of Rev. Jokey at both St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches. I believe that St Paul’s runs the Bounty café, in association with the Harlow food bank.
Marsha De Cordova
Wonderful! That café offers low-cost refreshments and light lunches at an affordable cost. My hon. Friend’s constituency really is a fantastic example of community support in the Church, and I know what a champion of that work he is. I encourage Members across the House, if they have not already done so, to make contact with their local churches to see the work they are doing in their community and their huge impact locally.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The places of worship renewal fund was announced at the start of this year and formally launched in May. Historic England is managing the operation of the new fund on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The first application window closed on 14 June and the second round is expected to follow soon, in September this year.
Douglas McAllister
While the UK Labour Government introduced a £92 million fund for places of worship in England, the scheme does not apply to Scottish parishes now that it has gone from being a VAT rebate to a capital grant. The Scottish Government received the Barnett consequentials. However, no similar scheme was set up, despite the fact that they were told about the change by the UK Government as far back as January 2025. Will the Church Commissioners, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, raise this matter with their Scottish counterparts as a matter of urgency to ensure that Scottish parishes have access to much-needed funding?
Marsha De Cordova
The National Church Institutions are very conscious that the new places of worship fund is not available in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is correct to say that there has been a conscious decision by the Government to move away from the old VAT rebate scheme to a grants-based system, and he will know that that decision was not made by the Church. The Church has been supporting the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office, as well as churches in Wales and other parts of the UK, and I would be happy to put my hon. Friend in touch with the team in Scotland if that would be helpful. I also urge him to do what all hon. Members should do when they want something to happen: to lobby the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the issue.
Ben Goldsborough
There are 124 round-tower churches in Norfolk. In South Norfolk, we have St Peter’s church in Forncett and St Mary & St Walstan church in Bawburgh, to name just two. I have written to all my local churches to make them aware of the fund, but will my hon. Friend help to ensure that all rural churches are encouraged to apply?
Marsha De Cordova
What a fantastic question. My hon. Friend champions the beautiful churches across his constituency, and he is absolutely right to highlight both their cultural importance and the opportunities provided by the places of worship renewal fund. I thank him for writing to all his churches to share details about the fund, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to do the same if they are able.
The National Church Institutions have actively encouraged all parishes to make full use of the new fund and share the details as widely as possible through their clergy network, church wardens and so on. I know that they are regularly in touch, through targeted advice, newsletters and engagement with diocesan officers, to make everybody aware of the new capital grant scheme.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
It is good to give my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) a break.
The Commission has considered the proposed changes to the education outreach model. The changes are designed to save money—over half a million pounds every year— and to ensure that we reach more students across the UK and increase the opportunities that Members have to meet children and young people. Although more than 30 Members have signed an early-day motion on the topic, in 2025-26 no events were held in nearly a third of our constituencies.
Under the proposals, the current model will be replaced by a digital model of outreach to increase opportunities for Members to speak to students. The proposed new service will help to reach schools in every constituency. A final decision on the proposals will be made following the consultation proposal.
Tom Rutland
The parliamentary education outreach service plays a vital role in delivering in-person democratic engagement workshops in schools across the country, especially those that are disadvantaged and harder to reach, by engaging them in the work of our political system. Does my hon. Friend agree that the closure of the in-person service risks making Parliament more removed from young people across the country?
Nick Smith
We understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about these proposals, but the new model is designed to increase engagement with schools across the UK. Given the high number of constituencies that receive no outreach visits at all, the key benefit here is that the proposals would remove geography as a barrier so that schools everywhere can access these sessions. Furthermore, the proposed model will sit alongside other UK-wide programmes that continue to provide in-person opportunities, including our UK Parliament Week; teacher training activity delivered around the country; the travel subsidy scheme, which supports visits to Parliament; and the “Learn with the Lords” programme. With those programmes taken together, Parliament will continue to have a strong and visible presence beyond Westminster.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I have to say, I am dismayed by the fact that there will not be humans in contact with young people. From my experience, I know that young people are really engaged when somebody turns up in their place, particularly in their school. At a time when we are trying to reduce the screen time of young people, I want to speak up in support of having people going into schools, especially when they are slightly more distant from London—it is something so very different. I shall certainly reply to the consultation when it comes along, if I have not missed the boat, and I will speak up for this particular scheme; it is fantastic.
Nick Smith
The scoping work focused on large-scale and ambitious digital education outreach work across the UK. Case studies included in the research were the Royal Ballet and the North East Museums’ “Hadrian’s Wall Live” focus day, which both attracted very high levels of interest.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church remains steadfast in its support for Palestinians. The relentless attacks on the Christian population in Palestine and the wider region by the Israeli Government are abhorrent. We have also seen Christian communities in Lebanon cut off, with Palestinian refugees being the main target there. We have seen settlement expansion again in the west bank, too, which we know is in breach of international law. The bishops in the other place have publicly highlighted their concerns by condemning the violence, and they have joined His Holiness the Pope and the local heads of Churches, who have called for the protection of all innocent civilians.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
One of my constituents has written to me about Natalie Abu Dayyeh, a young Christian girl from Birzeit in the west bank who was seized at gunpoint by Israeli forces earlier this month. Her family do not know where she is being held—they do not even know whether she is alive and being treated well. This is a repeated pattern of behaviour: Layan Nasir, another Palestinian Christian, was treated in the same way last year. I have written to the relevant Minister at the Foreign Office, but can I also ask what representations the Church has made to advocate for Natalie’s release and for the protection of other Palestinian Christians facing detention?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. It is clear that the Israeli Government are breaching international law, and this must be called out. The attacks on Palestinian Christians, and indeed any Palestinians, are totally wrong, and we need them to stop. The Bishops of Southwark, Gloucester, Norwich and Chelmsford wrote a joint letter on 5 June to the Right Rev. Dr Imad Haddad, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, about the case of Natalie Abu Dayyeh. They were clear in their letter that Natalie’s detention is a violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention. The bishops have renewed their call on the Government of Israel to immediately abolish their punitive practice of administrative detention, and to immediately release Natalie and all those who are presently being held. We all know that these are cruel measures, and as Christians, we must all speak out for the defenceless, the destitute and the voiceless. I will continue to do all I can in my capacity as both a Member of Parliament and the Second Church Estates Commissioner to ensure that the Church stands against the violence we have seen across the region for far too long.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for not being in the Chamber earlier. The sad reality is that many Christians in the west bank and Gaza face direct challenges for forced conversion to Islam, and in the Holy Lands now there is not an attempt to increase the number of Christians and bear witness. Will the Church reach out to encourage and promote Christianity in the Holy Lands, so that we can see more Christians there, rather than fewer?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He may or may not be aware that the situation in Palestine and across the region features regularly at Church Commissioners questions, and I have highlighted in the past the work that not just the Church, but the wider Anglican communion, is doing in that region.
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
(1 day, 7 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
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the progress made since the publication of Dame Louise Casey’s review into group-based child sexual exploitation, and the impact of recent developments on confidence in the Government’s statutory inquiry.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Tuesday marked one year since the publication of Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The House will recall that the Government accepted all 12 recommendations of what was a landmark report, exposing more than a decade of failure and inaction on the part of the state. Scandalously, the most vulnerable in society were let down by the very institutions that should have protected them.
As the Home Secretary made clear in her written statement to the House earlier this week, this Government are determined to directly and decisively confront the failings that occurred. We have made good progress against the mandate for change set out by Baroness Casey, with action taken or ongoing in relation to all 12 of her recommendations. We have changed the law on rape to remove any ambiguity about the ability of 13 to 16-year-olds to consent to sex; established a new national police operation, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency and backed by £38 million of funding this year; legislated to disregard any convictions for so-called child prostitution; and commissioned new research into the drivers of these heinous crimes, including ethnicity, religion, cultural factors, group dynamics and the role of online technologies.
Central to our response is the statutory independent inquiry into grooming gangs. Having been formally established in April, the work of the inquiry is under way and it will shortly announce the first local areas that will face investigation. The terms of reference have been shaped by the testimony, priorities and lived experience of victims and survivors. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them, and to all who have campaigned to get us to this point.
The inquiry will have a laser focus on grooming gangs, including the role that ethnicity, religion and culture played in these terrible crimes. Our message is clear: we will do whatever it takes to secure justice for those who were so badly let down—pursuing the evidence wherever it may lead, exposing failings and taking every necessary step to protect the most vulnerable in our society. For too long, questions about what was and will forever be one of the darkest moments in this country’s history have gone unanswered. That must change, which is why the Government have established a full independent inquiry to shine a light on past horrors. That is happening alongside our wider work to tackle exploitation and abuse, backed by a record £100 million in Home Office funding this year, in an unrelenting effort to keep our children safe from harm.
Mims Davies
I thank the Minister for her answer. It has been one year since Dame Louise Casey’s stark and deeply troubling review of group-based child sexual exploitation, known rightly as the rape gangs. She exposed what we now know was a culture of institutional blindness, weak data and fragmented accountability and a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths and ultimately to stand up for women and girls who have been systematically abused, or a culture where people simply chose not to act for the bigger fear of being labelled racist. It is disgraceful. Deep concerns remain that progress on justice has been too slow, and in some areas is simply superficial.
The Minister has rightly warned of a box-ticking culture. This Government talk a good game, but recent ministerial Home Office resignations have raised serious questions about what they are delivering in practice. How does the Minister respond to the deeply distressing but bold testimony of Fiona Goddard, who has bravely highlighted that some of the men convicted of abusing her have been released early, with others potentially due for release soon? These are Labour’s choices, and we warned about them. What action is being taken to rebuild the confidence of the victims in this process? Does the Minister deeply regret opposing measures to prevent early release in such heartbreaking and horrific cases?
Finally, how are the Government ensuring that sentencing and post-release supervision reflect the severity of these crimes? I remind the House that we warned them about the consequences of their dire choices for the safety of women and girls. What are they going to do about it? Will anything change before the next election, or is this issue simply in the long grass? Survivors’ voices and community concerns need to be heard. This is a matter of justice, accountability and trust. This Government need to step up and protect our women and our girls.
Sarah Jones
I think we can agree on some of what the hon. Lady has said. She is right that there was institutional blindness. We have seen that in other ways across the state, and not just in these horrific cases. It is something that we know we need to change. She is right to speak of the victims and the horrors that they have suffered, and she is right to keep a focus on that.
The hon. Lady said that the Opposition warned us about the prison situation; I gently say that we warned them, for very many years, about the state of our prison estate. When we came into government, we found a catastrophic situation: simply not enough prison places, and the whole system at the point of collapse. We have had to respond to that. As Policing Minister, I have a duty to ensure that our police are policing our streets and keeping everybody safe. We always ensure that we keep an eye, in the right way, on former criminals who come out of prison, and I spend a lot of my time talking to the police about how we do that.
We all greatly admire Louise Casey and are very grateful for the work that she continues to do. Of course she is right to push us to go faster, as she always will. That is why we asked her to do the job: because she demands the best from us. She has also praised the progress made by the Government in establishing the inquiry and in the work that has been done to date. She is understandably pushing us on three areas: the non-child prostitution convictions of some people who have been groomed, having the right information flows for Operation Beaconport, and Whitehall treating this issue with the urgency that it needs.
On all those issues, we are going as fast as we can and responding to the questions that Louise Casey has rightly asked. We are pushing to get all that work done as quickly as possible. She was clear that the inquiry should be relatively speedy. That was one of the challenges of the Professor Jay inquiry, which took many years, excellent though it was. The inquiry will be concluded by 2029. It has £65 million of funding. We will get to the answers.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Spicer review of 2018 into the handling of the widespread sexual exploitation of children and vulnerable adults in Newcastle found a culture that enabled and did not investigate the exploitation and rape of children and vulnerable adults, and a culture of victim blaming. It also praised Newcastle city council and Northumbria police’s actions following the investigation.
I have repeatedly contacted Northumbria police to raise issues around child exploitation and to seek reassurances about its actions. Given the comments in the Casey review, how can I ensure that Northumbria police has the resources and support it needs to identify and support victims, believe them and encourage them to come forward, and to create a culture of investigation, openness and transparency to reassure my constituents?
Sarah Jones
I am happy to facilitate conversations, but it sounds like my hon. Friend is already having them. As she will know, we are working on police culture. The Hillsborough law and some of the wider work we are doing across Government aim to ensure that we have the right openness, transparency and culture of being professionally curious and seeking out solutions. That is very important. All forces across the country have had a funding increase this year, and Operation Beaconport has its own fund of £38 million. The funding should be there, but I am happy to have further conversations with her about that.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer.
I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?
Sarah Jones
The inquiry, led by Anne Longfield, will look at previous inquiries and recommendations and bring them all into the inquiry’s remit. I encourage the hon. Lady to sit down and talk to Anne Longfield, if she has not done so already, to ensure that her concerns in that space are felt.
Sarah Jones
I see that she has done so already.
The hon. Lady’s point about inquiry recommendations is not unreasonable. I recently gave evidence to the Nottingham inquiry which, among other things, is considering the fact that Government inquiries happen over many years, recommendations are made, and then there is no oversight. The Cabinet Office is acting on that, bringing bodies together and ensuring that it can drive things forward, and that whatever the Department and whatever our role, we prioritise those recommendations from inquiries.
We are making progress on all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations—I would say we are making good progress. The hon. Lady is right, of course, that we need to push as fast as we can.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Victims and survivors absolutely must be at the heart of this inquiry. How are they being put at the centre of this work in practice, are they being provided with access to support, and what meaningful opportunities do they have to shape the outcomes of the inquiry?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the role of victims and the need to be survivor-focused and trauma-informed throughout—that is exactly what the inquiry is focused on. The inquiry is working on a victims charter that it will publish soon, which will set out answers to all the questions she has asked about how we ensure that we are both supporting the victims and hearing their voices front and centre, when we know they were not listened to for so long.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for 14 years. We saw the first exposé of the scandals of the grooming gangs, particularly in Rochdale and other places in the north of England. Dame Louise Casey came in front of us and made recommendations that have still not been carried out, so full power to the Minister to actually make this happen.
The sad reality, as I understand it, is that police forces are resisting the collection of ethnicity data, and indeed resisting investigations into those who turned a blind eye to what was going on with the grooming gangs. Will the Minister ensure that police forces carry out their duties properly and that those who turned a blind eye to what was going on are brought to justice and suffer the consequences of not protecting vulnerable girls?
Sarah Jones
I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about any information he may have about police forces and what he has heard on that front. It would be very worrying if what he describes were the case. We have made it clear that ethnicity needs to be reported for the grooming-based CSE that we are dealing with here. In addition, in the police reform White Paper, which was announced in the King’s Speech and will be introduced soon, we committed ourselves to doing that across the board, so ethnicity reporting will be mandatory for the police.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned institutional blindness to these horrific crimes. Will she outline how this vital inquiry’s terms of reference have been designed to ensure a thorough examination of those institutional failings, which meant that action was not taken to protect children?
Sarah Jones
The terms of reference are very wide and very clear. They will look at culture, ethnicity, race and any kind of bias that was in the system. There is a wider question that Louise Casey has talked about many times, and which I am trying to drive through in policing, and others are trying to drive through in other areas of work, which is about professional curiosity: keeping an open mind; problem solving; looking and finding; being curious to get to the bottom of what is happening; and finding those connections. There is also a big piece of work around information sharing across different organisations, because there is a blindness that comes from all the different institutions not talking to each other in the way that they should and not picking up vulnerability where we should. We saw that with Southport and Nottingham, and we see it here. There is a big job to be done there, too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The abuse of children is the most disgusting of crimes, and anyone who is involved in it, or who protects someone involved in it, must face justice. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I note is not in his place, published his report this week, and my constituents are eager to understand why the statutory inquiry will take three years—[Interruption.] Another two years—several years. Why is the Government-backed inquiry going to take so long?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has done a piece of work. I welcome the work that he has done, and hope that he will pass on to the police and the inquiry any evidence, criminal or otherwise, that he has gathered. This is an independent statutory inquiry—it is a very different thing. It will be absolutely ruthless in making sure that we can outline every single part of what has gone wrong here and learn every single lesson that we have to learn, so it is a completely different thing.
Statutory inquiries have taken years and years in the past, and Louise Casey was very clear that she wanted it to be time limited, so we have said that we want it finished, which is unusual for an inquiry—some inquiries that the previous Government set up are still ongoing. It will be done by 2029, but it is a completely different piece of work. It will be enormously thorough, get to the bottom of what happened, and bring us the answers that I know victims and the whole country want to see.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The grooming gangs represent the most profound betrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and the victims were failed by the very institutions that should have protected them. Justice was denied, while perpetrators escaped accountability. The vile individuals who systemically groomed, abused and violated these girls must face the full force of the law. Can the Minister provide an update on Operation Beaconport and explain how its work is helping to identify offenders, secure justice for victims, and strengthen the national response to tackling these heinous crimes?
Sarah Jones
Operation Beaconport is being led by the National Crime Agency, which is the very best of our serious organised crime operators, and we are treating this issue as we would treat serious organised crime, which is what it is. We are treating it with the utmost seriousness. The NCA is working with local police forces around the country to review of closed cases. It made an announcement yesterday—Members can see it online—about reopening cases, and this year it has received £38 million of funding, which is a substantial amount of money and will enable the NCA to uncover, go back over and reopen cases where it feels that injustice has been done and that they need to be opened again.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
For the inquiry to secure justice for victims and survivors in Wales, it is essential that it fully understands the devolved context in Wales and the various lines of accountability that arise from it. One way to achieve that would be for Wales to receive a specific investigation as one of the inquiry’s designated local areas. Will the Minister consider that?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the inquiry is entirely independent, so it is not for us to say where it should lead. I know that the inquiry will shortly announce the first tranche of areas that it will go to, so he will be able to see the that soon.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Minister believe that the inquiry has the appropriate powers and flexibility to allow it to follow the evidence, wherever it leads, so that the recommendations can drive lasting improvements in safeguarding and child protection? Is she in dialogue with the Scottish Government on these matters?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend can be reassured that this inquiry has all the powers it needs to go, without fear or favour, to find the answers we all seek. This issue is too important for us not to have ensured that, so we absolutely have. I know that the Minister for Safeguarding will be in contact with her counterparts in the Scottish Government to make sure we are joined up in in our approach.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I echo the comments about how disgusting these particular crimes are. Lady Casey has identified how, in quashing convictions, the Government have failed to take account of the whole picture. Quashing convictions for under-age prostitution is laudable, but there are other convictions such as for possessing the drugs given to those who are abused by their abusers or carrying them under coercion. The Minister referred to professional curiosity. Could she encourage people around her to engage in exactly that, and to look further than just the very first or main conviction to sort this out?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Lady says, we have quashed convictions for people under 18 who were tried for prostitution—a very important part of this picture—and Louise Casey is suggesting that we go further. At the moment, victims can come in and apply, and I think she wants a more proactive response, so we are working on more proactive guidance for victims.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response, and for her reassurance that this inquiry will have the powers to go wherever and to whomever it needs to get the answers for families in Redditch and other areas affected by these heinous crimes. When the initial set of inquiries are announced, if the area I represent is not included, but I still want to persist and ensure families get the justice they require, how am I best placed to do that via the Department and the Minister?
Sarah Jones
As I have said, the inquiry is independent of the Government, as is right and proper. I suggest he speaks to Anne Longfield, who is leading this work, or her panel. When they make their announcement, I am sure people will say, “Well, what about other areas?” I am sure they will be working through that and dealing with the priorities as they see them, and I am sure they would welcome input from my hon. Friend.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister has referred to the grooming gangs inquiry carried out by our friend, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), and early-day motion 380 makes a number of recommendations. Will the Minister engage with the hon. Member to ensure that his ideas and recommendations can be taken forward, because we do not want to have to wait until Baroness Casey’s report in three years’ time?
Sarah Jones
First, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not waiting three years until the inquiry’s report to act. We are already doing a lot of work, as I have outlined—such as Operation Beaconport to reopen cases—and we are using the legislative process to do what we need with data collection and ending the statutory rape definition. We are doing a whole raft of work, and we of course have our wider piece of work on violence against women and girls, with our ambition to halve it in 10 years.
I hope the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) is talking to Anne Longfield, who is chairing the independent inquiry and will take all information from all places. I hope he is feeding his information to her, and that if he has criminal evidence he is passing that to the police. I am sure he has uncovered the most grievous harm and talked to victims of it, and we want to make sure that they see the Government are acting in the most appropriate way.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the victims of the despicable grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the numerous actions that this Government have taken to protect women and girls, hon. Members sometimes use language, both inside and outside the House, that allows the spread online of tropes about my party and hon. Members on this side that—I speak from personal experience here—have real-world implications? Those online tropes affect the behaviour of people in the real world. Does she agree that it is incumbent on right hon. and hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, to use temperate language? Opposition is needed and expected, but politicising such an important issue can create real risks for hon. Members and others in the real world.
Sarah Jones
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We all have a duty to try to use language in a way that does not incite hatred and division. Of course, there are very strong feelings around this area in particular, because the crimes are so heinous and there was so much that was wrong about the way that the state, in all its forms, responded to those crimes. I understand the anger, but I urge all hon. Members to be careful with their language. We have all seen, in real life, the impact of what we are seeing online. That can be very scary and very dangerous, so I urge everybody to treat this issue with the respect it deserves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her encouraging answers, and put on record that no one doubts her commitment to delivering justice. We thank her for it. What urgent steps will the Government take to action the recommendations on the mandatory ethnicity recording of offenders and the deportation of all foreign national perpetrators, and those relating to the full institutional failures by the police, the social services, local authorities and the NHS? Will she follow through with a national public inquiry, with subpoena powers?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. On ethnicity, we will legislate in the police reform Bill, which will come before Parliament shortly, to ensure ethnicity is recorded in the way that I think everyone in this House wants. He will know that we have increased very substantially the number of foreign national offenders being deported. Since the previous Government, there has been a big increase. That is quite right, and we will continue with that. We will continue to do the work across all our Departments to make sure that people are acting in the way that they should. There is a whole raft of work under way across multiple Departments to make sure of that.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the upcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 22 June will include:
Monday 22 June—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
Tuesday 23 June—Opposition day (first allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 24 June—Debate on motions to approve ways and means resolutions relating to the taxation of energy and vehicles, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and Shipping) Regulations 2026 and the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026.
Thursday 25 June—General debate on Windrush day 2026, followed by general debate on the diagnosis and treatment of PANS, or paediatric acute-onset neuro- psychiatric syndrome, and PANDAS—paediatric auto- immune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 June includes:
Monday 29 June—Estimates day (first allotted day). Subject to the agreement of the House, there will be debates on estimates relating to the Cabinet Office, in so far as it relates to security and resilience; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, in so far as it relates to criminal justice.
Tuesday 30 June—Estimates day (second allotted day). Subject to the agreement of the House, there will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in so far as it relates to sport and youth services; the Department of Health and Social Care, in so far as it relates to pharmaceutical procurement; and the Department for Work and Pensions, in so far as it relates to spending priorities and performance. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Wednesday 1 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill.
Thursday 2 July—Debate on a motion on commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property managing agents, followed by general debate on access to further education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.
Joy Morrissey
It is a pleasure to be responding again to the Leader of the House. It is the day after England started their world cup campaign, and it is fair to say that they already have our hopes up; I am a bit cheered out.
Today, many of our colleagues are pounding the pavement for the by-elections. I am sure that the Leader of the House is waiting with bated breath to see if the self-anointed king of the north is shortly to begin his long march south to save the Labour party from the Greens. Or maybe the Leader of the House is waiting more keenly for the next intervention from the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), bemoaning the Prime Minister’s
“poor leadership, poor judgment and bad politics”.
While the comedy of errors of this Labour Government is playing out, the serious issues facing our country go unaddressed: grooming gangs, the murder of Henry Nowak, the two-tier justice system, benefits Britain and, in particular, the irresponsible failure of the Prime Minister and this Labour Government to support our armed forces with a defence investment plan fit for the dangerous world we face.
The Prime Minister and the Labour Government are prepared to see our veterans subjected to continuing persecution and relentless lawfare. It is a failure of leadership. It is a failure to put our country before party. It is a failure to put our brave servicemen and women before personal political survival. It is a failure to protect those who have fought to keep us safe and free.
It is easy to say that the first duty of Government is to protect the country; it is much harder to make the choices needed to deliver on that duty. We know that the root cause of that failure is that Labour MPs put “Benefits Street” before anything or anyone else. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions kindly confirmed that when he told Peter Mandelson that the only question Labour MPs ask him is: who can they tax, in order to pay more benefits? The Prime Minister did not have the backbone to confront his Back Benchers and tackle the out-of-control welfare bill. There will be £333 billion of welfare spending this year—£18 billion higher than last year. As the Centre for Social Justice pointed out recently, that £18 billion could have been invested in our armed forces. It could have bought 200 fighter jets or 12 warships, or funded 250,000 extra soldiers. Labour is taking the wealth created by hard-working families, small businesses and millions of Britons, and making it clear that in Labour’s Britain, working just does not pay. In Labour’s Britain, “Benefits Street” comes first.
That brings me back to Andy Burnham, a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who has shown that he has exactly the same flexibility of principle as the current Labour leader. This is a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who thinks that governing will be as simple as out-Greening the Greens—spend more, tax more, repeat. This Labour party can never and will never change. Our armed forces, hard-working families and the small business across Britain deserve better. It is time for this Government to keep their promise, or go.
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I will get to her remarks in just a second, but before I do, may I say that I was saddened to hear this week of the passing of Roy Hattersley, former deputy Labour leader? It is an overused word, but he was a true giant of the Labour party, and he will be remembered for his role in reforming it. He gave decades of service, and I send my condolences to his friends and family.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the family and colleagues of PC Jess Turnbull, a Northumbria police officer who was killed on duty. Police officers risk their lives each day to help people and make a difference. PC Turnbull was a committed and dedicated officer, and she will be sorely missed.
I congratulate the parliamentarians and those associated with Parliament who were recognised in the King’s birthday honours last week. It is right and proper that people who make an exemplary contribution to public service are recognised in the way that many others across our country are recognised.
This week, we have announced that social media will be banned for under-16s. We are going further than any country in the world, and we are putting wider protections in place to give young people their childhood back. Yesterday, this House passed the National Security (State Threats) Bill. Many Members have raised the issue of national security with me in this forum, so they will be pleased to see that the Bill gave the Home Secretary new counter-terrorism-style powers to stand up to foreign state organisations and state-linked groups that threaten the UK’s national security and the safety of our communities.
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating England and Scotland on winning their opening world cup matches. I particularly congratulate Scotland on their performance, which was their first win in the men’s world cup for 36 years.
The hon. Lady started by referring to the king of the north. Her remarks were disappointing, because I thought for a moment that she was referring to me, but clearly not. She is right to say that leadership is a serious matter, but she is a late convert to that. As I have pointed out before, she was one of the last people in the bunker with Boris Johnson, and when that ended, she leapt to Liz Truss. I ask her just one question: how did that turn out?
On a serious point, this Prime Minister has done much more than his predecessors to make our country safe, by working hard on the diplomatic stage and on defence. I remind the House that the hon. Lady’s Government “hollowed out” defence—not my words, but those of a former Defence Secretary in the Government in which she served. As for welfare, we are getting on with the job of tackling the broken welfare system that her Government left behind. We are also renewing public services, as well as keeping our country safe. It is not an either/or; we are doing both those things.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Many of my constituents rely on the 96, the 428 and the 492 bus routes, which serve Darent Valley hospital and Bluewater shopping centre. Reform-led Kent county council proposed a substantial increase to its bus tax, which Transport for London bus services pay to use the fast-track bus way at Bluewater. That is putting services at risk that many of my residents and those in neighbouring constituencies rely on to access the hospital and the shopping centre. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that Kent county council reconsiders its proposal, and that Transport for London works with local MPs and the local council to ensure that these essential bus routes are safeguarded for my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring this matter to the House’s attention. Buses are the most used form of public transport, and they are a lifeline for many communities. The last Conservative Government’s record on bus routes is appalling. They raised fares and left communities stranded, and I am sorry that the Reform councillors appear to be following that example. I hope that they have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks today and that they reconsider their decision.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here for business questions once again, subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean).
Last week the NHS published the first ever official figures on corridor care, which ripped off the plaster and revealed a scandal that many of us have seen at first hand. In one month, patients across the country were treated in corridors at least 69,000 times, and that is with major trusts such as Birmingham failing to share their figures. The practice has become dangerously normalised across our NHS. We on the Lib Dem Benches believe that amounts to serious and continual negligence, and Ministers should be held to account before a corridor care tribunal of patients, bereaved families and frontline NHS staff.
Behind every one of those numbers is an NHS trust or a hospital starved of resources and capital funds, and a social care system in crisis that leaves hospitals full of people who cannot leave, despite being desperate to do so, because the care package they need is not available. Meanwhile, A&E waiting rooms are heaving with patients waiting to be seen. Nowhere is the crumbling estate behind this crisis clearer than at Stepping Hill hospital in my patch, with its growing £134 million repair backlog. There have been collapsing ceilings, leaking roofs that forced the temporary closure of the intensive care unit, and times when just four of the 14 lifts were working, meaning that anyone using a wheelchair was unable to visit a higher-floor ward and that patients were carried up and down stairs in scoops.
Will the Government therefore make time for an urgent debate on the corridor care crisis and the state of the NHS estate to ensure that patients, including those in my Hazel Grove constituency, are no longer treated in corridors, or left waiting in them for hours for the treatment they deserve?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me be clear: no one should receive care in a corridor. The situation we inherited is unacceptable and undignified, and we are determined to end it. That is why, for the first time, we are publishing the data to show where problems are greatest and to ensure that trusts get the support they need. We are also taking action, investing £450 million to expand urgent and emergency care services. Although there is still a way to go, ambulance response times are now the fastest they have been in five years. The hon. Lady asked for a debate. The Health Bill has just gone into Committee— I think its first sitting is today—so I am sure there will be ample opportunity, both in Committee and when the Bill returns to this House, to debate the matters she raises.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It has been quite the month for races in my constituency. A couple of weeks ago we saw the Consett cycle race from the Derwent reservoir to Consett town centre, and on 9 June we had the famous Blaydon race, with over 5,000 taking part. Both races, centred in the local community, are important parts of our local spirit. Those magnificent events highlight just how deeply residents across Blaydon and Consett value their shared identity. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on central funding for regional heritage events and projects?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House. She is right that ensuring that communities can come together is vital, and the Government are providing funding to help local areas breathe life back into their high streets and restore community pride—not only by giving them investment, but by allowing them to make the choices. Hers is a very beautiful part of the country, and I know that many Members will see the benefits of those community events and of commemorating both the Consett cycle race and the Blaydon race. I recommend an Adjournment debate as the best way to discuss how beautiful her constituency is and to find out how much the Government support what she aspires to.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, next Thursday, in the Chamber, there will be a statement from the Work and Pensions Committee on its recent report. The Backbench Business Committee received eight high-quality bids for estimates day debates, and we had to disappoint two. As the Leader of the House announced, we have allocated three debates on each day. I make a plea to him to avoid Government statements on those two days, because the debates are well subscribed and Back Benchers will want to have their say about the estimates.
The Backbench business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 23 June will be a debate on fly-tipping in residential areas and the associated impacts. On Thursday 25 June there will be a statement from the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, followed by a debate on the national lung cancer screening programme, followed by a debate on ports and port connectivity. On Tuesday 30 June there will be a debate on Government support for removing unlawful storefronts from, and regenerating, local high streets. On Thursday 2 July there will be a debate on reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke, followed by a debate on Government plans to tackle air pollution.
Given my experience this morning, I was tempted to ask the Leader of the House for a statement on the performance of London Underground, but as that is a devolved responsibility to the failed Mayor of London, I have something much more joyous to relate: Sunday will be the International Day of Yoga, which has been celebrated across the world since 2015 and will be celebrated next week in Parliament. Personally, I do my yoga stretches first thing in the morning when I wake up. Yoga is now recognised by the national health service as extremely valuable to individual health, and I recommend it to everyone. May we have a statement next week, presumably from a Health Minister, on the benefits of yoga for personal health?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work of his Committee and for his update to the House on the business for which it is responsible. I certainly hear what he says about statements on the days of the estimates day debates. I am keen to ensure as much time as possible for those debates to go ahead and for people to take part, but there is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, as he knows, between allowing for debates and keeping the House updated on matters.
I can tell the House that I do not do yoga stretches of a morning—that will come as a surprise to many, I know—but I will certainly think about it. People get into all sorts of positions in this place, don’t they? I had better stop this before it goes any further, but my understanding is that yoga has a calming effect, so maybe the Commission could consider the question of introducing it as part of what we do in the House before we start our business.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Ashington, Blyth and Tyne train line, which was closed during the Beeching cuts of the ’60s, reopened in December 2024 and has already been used by more than 1.5 million passengers. There is a burning desire to extend the line to the coast at Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, via Woodhorn colliery. Can we have a debate in Government time on the merits and the social and economic benefits of well-supported local train lines and infrastructure to my communities in the likes of Ashington, Blyth and Bedlington and to other communities across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that line in the House, and I pay tribute to him for all his hard work to secure it. I also pay tribute to the hard work of our late hon. Friend Ronnie Campbell, who worked extraordinarily hard on the project while he was a Member of this House. He was much respected and is much missed.
The Government are bringing rail services back into public ownership to ensure that our railways work for all the communities they serve. I recommend that my hon. Friend seeks an Adjournment debate to make his case not just about the remarkable success of the current line, but about its potential for expansion in the area he represents.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 16 April I raised with the Leader of the House the failure of Capita to administer properly the civil service pension scheme. Ever courteous, he passed that information and my concerns to the Cabinet Office. The deputy director of the Government People Group responded on 30 April, saying:
“The Second Permanent Secretary at HMRC…is personally leading a specialist Pensions Recovery Taskforce to restore service levels…we are now focused on a backlog of approximately 25,000 outstanding pension quotations.”
In response to my concerns about Capita, she said:
“Capita is a strategic supplier to the government”
and it has
“more than 80 contracts across the public sector.”
She also said,
“we are holding Capita to rigorous account through every available commercial lever.”
May I gently ask the Leader of the House whether it is not now time for the Cabinet Secretary to come to the House to make a statement and face questions on this matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly frustrated on this matter, and he is right to be, because this has been raised not just by him but by other Members of the House for almost as long as I have been in this role. The response he got does reflect the fact that the Government take this seriously and that efforts are being made to improve the situation, but he is seeking an update, and I will go to the Department and see if we can get that update.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know how important housing is, and I applaud the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes, but we have seen Enfield, where we now have a Conservative-led council propped up by the Greens, decide to axe completely the Government’s proposal for 21,000 new homes. Does the Leader of the House not think it would be good to have a debate in Government time on how we can reprofile that spending with the Mayor of London, to ensure that constituencies such as Hackney South and Shoreditch and neighbouring east London constituencies can get the housing we need? Even if it is not a new town in one big space, we could consider a revision of the Government policy to create new towns with a cluster of smaller developments in seats such as mine.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these matters, and I can hear in her voice the frustration about such decisions being taken without the recognition that we need more houses. They are needed not just for people to make a home, but as a driver of economic growth, which we all seek. I respectfully suggest that, should she seek a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, she will find that other Members across the House will want to speak and to get an update on the Government’s plan.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May we have a debate in Government time on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposed changes to the way it compensates those who give their time as coastguard volunteers? The agency’s current proposals are causing massive concern among volunteer coastguards in my constituency and right around the coastline. We risk seeing those volunteers being forced to walk away, leaving communities without the necessary protection as a result. Surely the Leader of the House can agree that not to take on board those concerns before making the changes demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for those who volunteer their services in this way.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the decision to move to a new model was the result of a Court of Appeal judgment that found that the current arrangements could not legally continue. That should not suggest any disrespect for the coastguard service, which is instrumental in keeping people safe around our communities. I represent a coastal community, as he knows, and I am acutely aware of the importance of the coastguard service and of the need to get this right. The matter was raised at Transport questions by a number of colleagues, and the Transport Minister at that point agreed to meet colleagues. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that such a meeting would help him to make his case—and it is a strong case—then I will help to arrange it.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall has organisations like Young People Cornwall that deliver vital services in, frankly, substandard premises, and they are doing brilliant work with limited resources, but they need investment in buildings to expand their impact. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could ask the relevant Minister to outline the timeline for the next phase of the better youth spaces fund and how the criteria will be changed so that it also benefits rural and coastal areas. At the moment, the criteria are similar to the Pride in Place criteria, which excludes some of those areas.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of youth services. Our vision is to establish a much more straightforward funding system, to provide young people with opportunities where and when they need them most. We will be providing further details regarding eligibility criteria later this year, but I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears my hon. Friend’s concerns and gives her an update.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I think Members on both sides of the House are deeply appreciative of the work of civil servants right across the country. To pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), we have a real issue here. There are pensioners in my constituency who have dedicated their life to the civil service but are not in receipt of their pension from March. As a Member of Parliament who continuously writes to those administering the scheme to follow up these issues, I know that they do not have the courtesy to even respond and say what they are doing. Can the relevant Minister come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is being done to support our civil servants who have retired?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he says, this has already been raised; it is raised at most business questions, if I am honest. As I said in a previous answer, the Government do take this seriously. We are acting to turn around what is a very difficult situation, but I hear what he says about getting an update, and I will see what I can achieve.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As a former history teacher, the Leader of the House will know that Newport was the site of the UK’s last armed insurrection. Every year in Newport, we honour and commemorate the Chartists’ sacrifice at the annual Newport Rising festival, and I am delighted to say that the torchlit march is being considered for the UNESCO inventory of living heritage in Wales. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should take every opportunity in this House to debate and recognise the sacrifice of people’s movements that helped to shape our democracy in this House, especially at a time when our democracy is under threat?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her very well-deserved damehood, announced last week. She is right to draw attention to the story of Chartism, because it is a vital part of the story of democracy in our country, not least the Newport rising in 1839. Our democracy is absolutely central to who we are as a country, and the Chartists helped to build that. We can take pride in the evolution of democracy, and as a Government, we have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it.
I will give some thought as to how we might be able to mark the contribution of Chartists and others who have played a part in the extension of democracy, and I invite other Members to do so too. In the meantime, there is what was once a secret door between the previous Chamber in this House and the cloisters. The workmen who were repairing it in 1851 slept among the cloisters and appear on the census that year. Although I am not sure we would approve it at this time, they covered the door with Chartist graffiti.
Sir Alan Campbell
Indeed. If anyone wants to see that graffiti, which is a remarkable example of the messages that Chartists leave for our history, I am sure the House can facilitate that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I want to raise the case of Hughie Stirling from Ullapool. He was on board a flotilla proceeding to Gaza with aid when the Israelis intercepted them in international waters and took them into custody. His partner tells me that he and others were shockingly mistreated—we are talking about physical abuse and even being beaten up. When his partner made appeals to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for information or assistance, the silence was utterly deafening. Hughie is a British citizen and has his rights, surely. Could we have a debate in this House on consular support and protection of UK nationals delivering aid abroad?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. It is not acceptable that a British citizen should be treated in such a way, and I am also disappointed in the disappointing response so far from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I will give some thought to what he asks about consular support. If he wishes to meet a Foreign Office Minister to express those concerns directly, I will help him to arrange that.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Labour Government’s summer of savings programme—cutting VAT on visitor attractions and children’s meals and providing free bus travel for under-16s this August—is welcome news for families in Derbyshire and those visiting the county, which is a much-loved holiday destination. It is also an important shot in the arm for a sector that is struggling. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that, once we have assessed how successful that scheme has been, we have a debate in Government time in the autumn to bring insights from constituencies across the country on what more we can do for the sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Great British summer of savings programme. The measures will help families to enjoy a day out for less and support businesses that depend on footfall over the summer. On his more substantive point, I will ensure that he gets a response from the Treasury, not just on the policy but on learning lessons going forward.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
This week, we have been discussing civility in public life, yet almost a year ago, I formally reported Rutland Councillor Mark Chatfield to the Liberal Democrats for a year’s worth of offensive social media posts, including, I am sorry to say, a racist post against my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), comparing him to different shades of toast. He has also attacked local journalists, calling for them to be named and shamed, and uses phrases such as “beet-faced Tory expletive” on his social media. What do we do when we go through the formal processes that political parties have put in place but they refuse to do anything at all when their councillors are clearly bringing their parties into such disrepute?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s experiences, particularly at a time when we are marking the 10th anniversary of the death of our friend Jo Cox. This House has marked that anniversary in a particular way and talked about civility in politics. I am very disappointed that such comments were made in the first instance, but also that that has not been followed up. I hope that the council hears the hon. Lady’s words and that it acts: it has been a while and it needs to get on with it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It was great to see so many Lionesses honoured in the recent King’s birthday honours, including Jess Carter, who hails from Warwick and started her career at Warwick juniors. As we celebrate Pride Month, we do so, I fear, at a time that has dark echoes of the 1930s. Sadly in Warwickshire, the Reform UK council leader George Finch has said that libraries are promoting “contested gender ideology” and has promised “a comprehensive policy” to combat that trend. These libraries simply had Pride Month books and displays. We should be under no illusion: this is clear dog-whistle politics against the LGBTQ+ community. May we therefore have a debate on the crucial role of our councils in delivering community cohesion, not division?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that my hon. Friend’s council hears his remarks, because it is important that councillors reflect the whole of the communities that they serve. Once again, it sounds as if this is a Reform council that is disappointing the very people who probably voted for those councillors with so much hope, so I hope that they hear what he says and they reflect the whole of the community that they are meant to serve.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Nearly seven years ago, National Highways spent £40 million building a ghost junction on the M49 that was left entirely unconnected to the local road network. South Gloucestershire council stepped in and is on track to complete the slip road this year, but National Highways now tells me that the junction is unsafe and cannot open, with no timeline for remedy, meaning my constituents will continue to have lorries thundering through their villages, shredding the roads. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the accountability of National Highways for this farcical situation?
Sir Alan Campbell
The lorries thundering through must be deeply frustrating for the hon. Lady’s constituents, and they must be frustrated at not having the road network they thought they would get. It is an ideal topic either for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, so that she can hear from a Minister what could be done to take this matter through to completion.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
To keep with the current theme of the beautiful game, the Buza youth football academy in Ilford South has been running for only six years, but, in that time, the youngsters—the under-nines—have won the Echo junior league, and the under-11s and under-13s have won cups and competed abroad. Two of its players now have contracts with West Ham United; they are aged only six and eight, but they are talented. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this wonderful club on the quick strides it has made, its wonderful coaches and the work of the parents, in helping these children progress so quickly?
Sir Alan Campbell
Football and sport in general provide such richness and experience to the lives of young people. That is one reason the Government are providing a £400 million package for grassroots sports facilities across the UK. I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Buza youth football academy on so many incredible achievements. I wish it and the young people who have gone on to West Ham’s books all the best for a bright future.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The landmark 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence by the United States takes place in the week commencing 29 June. I have applied for an Adjournment debate, but will the Leader of the House enable more Members to be able to participate in marking that historic event?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a historic event, and I will give some thought to what the hon. Gentleman asks.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Everybody knows that my constituency is one of the most beautiful and the No. 1 tourist destination in the United Kingdom, so the safety of those who live on and visit the stunning coastline is a priority. I heard the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) ask a question about coastguard rescue officers. Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate in this House on the impact of the decision to stop paying coastguard rescue officers for emergency call-outs from September, following a recent Court of Appeal ruling? What support will be provided to the volunteer coastguard teams, including those at Rhossili, Oxwich and Mumbles in my constituency, to maintain effective emergency response capability?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for her constituency, and I share her support for and appreciation of the work of the coastguard service. She will have heard my response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the offer I extended to him. A Transport Minister has said that they will meet concerned MPs, and I extend that offer to my hon. Friend. Should she seek a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, I am sure it would be well attended, because this matter will affect a number of constituencies.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I raise the matter of repayments of overpaid corporation tax identified by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs after a company has been dissolved? Businesses in my part of Somerset have had repayments, but they are not able to cash them; it is their money, but the business no longer exists, so effectively the cheque cannot be paid in, and the account has quite rightly been closed. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chancellor to assess the current processes, including the transfer of such funds to the bona vacantia division, so that former shareholders of solvent but dissolved companies can recover funds in a way that is successful? That is particularly the case for small businesses.
Sir Alan Campbell
I draw to the attention of the hon. Lady the fact that it is Treasury questions next week. She might want to raise this issue then, but I will also draw her remarks to the attention of Treasury Ministers and see if one of them can provide an update.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I was delighted this week by the Government’s announcement that, among other measures, we will be banning social media for under-16s. Throughout the consultation, I met hundreds of people in Beckenham and Penge, including parents, teachers and students, but one family I met have really stuck with me. Chris and Jo Barber from Beckenham tragically lost their wonderful son Leo, who took his own life in November 2023 aged just 16. The inquest into Leo’s death found that exposure to harmful content online significantly contributed to his mental health struggles. I have been working with Chris and Jo to advocate for this change, and on Saturday I am also joining them for the launch of Leo’s Safe Haven, a charity they have set up to provide mental health support for other autistic children and young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the ban on social media as a major step forward in protecting the welfare of children and young people, and in paying tribute to the courage of bereaved parents, like Chris and Jo, who turn personal tragedy into positive change for others?
Sir Alan Campbell
I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiment about the ban on social media that was announced earlier this week, and I join him in paying tribute to the bravery of Chris, Jo, and all the campaigners who use their tragic and unimaginable experiences to bring about change for the better. We are taking action; we are going further than any other country to keep children safe online, and will set out further measures in July. In the meantime, I wish my hon. Friend and everybody concerned all the very best for their event on Saturday.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Across my constituency, from Hagley to Wythall, from Cofton Hackett to Belbroughton and in the villages in between, it feels as if there is a barrage of speculative planning applications from developers who have been emboldened by this Government. There are around 1 million long-term empty homes in England alone, which would go a long way towards helping the Government alleviate the pressure on the green belt as they seek to deliver their housing target. Can we please have a statement from the Housing Minister on the Government’s long-term empty homes strategy as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the Housing Minister and make sure he gets an update. However, as he knows—because he has raised these matters before—it is important that we have the housing that the country needs. I understand that has to be done in a sensitive way, but it is important that we get on with it. It is also important that we deal with the issue of empty homes, but that alone will not resolve the housing crisis.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the young Northumbria police officer who so sadly and tragically died last week while protecting and serving our region.
The A1 motorway forms the boundary of my constituency at Etal Lane. There is an open play area next to cars racing past at 60 mph or more. For a decade now, my constituents have been raising concerns about the unsightly and—more importantly—unsafe fencing there. For the past five years, led by former Labour councillor Alex Hay, they have been passed from Newcastle city council to the Highways Agency. In the meantime, the fencing has fallen into total disrepair; in some places, it no longer exists, forming a clear and present danger to a whole generation of Geordie children. The Highways Agency has finally accepted responsibility, but now says that it may or may not fix it next year—at the earliest. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure a culture of taking responsibility among Government agencies, rather than passing the buck?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I pay tribute to Alex Hay and everyone else who has campaigned on this issue—I understand how upsetting it will have been, particularly to parents in that area. I am pleased to hear that it will be resolved, but not about the timescale that is envisaged. I hope the Highways Agency has heard my hon. Friend’s question and that, if possible, it will do something more timely, but I will also draw the matter to the attention of Transport Ministers to ensure that the Highways Agency is held to account.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
In Taunton and Wellington, people recognise the need for new homes, and indeed have supported thousands of new homes. Taunton is the town that has grown most in the south-west—its population growth is 2% ahead of the national average. However, we do not accept the blinkered idea that that cannot go hand in hand with protecting our most precious green spaces, although the proposed new national planning policy framework will make that so much harder. The longest established environmental development charity in the world, the Town and Country Planning Association, has called the framework an unprecedented change. The public are debating it, and the Government are consulting on it. Can this House have a debate on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which is more far-reaching than the recent Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises understandable concerns, but as I have said before, the country needs houses. It is therefore a question of balance. Should he seek a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, not only will other colleagues be able to raise their concerns about their areas, but he will hear directly from the Minister responsible.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Health and social care partnerships across Scotland face a funding gap of half a billion pounds in their budgets this year alone. That is the result of years of under-investment by the Scottish National party. That has real-life consequences, because tomorrow in Renfrewshire we face the prospect of our local disability resource centre in Paisley being closed, our Autism Connections programme being cut, and our day centres for adults with learning disabilities being merged. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than cutting vital services that my constituents rely on, the SNP Government in Holyrood should invest in our communities using the record funding they have had from this Labour Government, and put the constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South first?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter with the House this morning. The Scottish Government have had the biggest single investment since devolution, so my hon. Friend and her constituents will rightly be scratching their heads as to why community facilities are being lost in the way that they are. I hope that the Scottish Government have heard her remarks today. She is a great champion for her constituents, and I hope that something can be done to save these community facilities, as they are so important.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Those who care for our loved ones at home are unsung heroes and reduce the financial burden on the NHS. It is therefore tragic when they are subjected to harm or crime from those they bring into their homes. Yet without a carers’ register, families are left open to abuse by those who do not have Disclosure and Barring Service checks or, worse, do not have verified training in first aid, dementia and safeguarding. It is reasonable to expect that the people who provide the most personal care are safe, competent and trained. We undervalue those who work in care, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on professional standards in social care?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to carers. They are unsung heroes, and I assure her that this Government respect the contribution that they make. She raises an important point about carers and people being cared for being able to expect safety as they live their lives. I will therefore draw what she says to the attention of the Department responsible, but she might also want to raise this issue in a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate and hear directly from the Minister.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week I visited St Regis Church of England academy in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, and I was impressed to see its outdoor learning space and nature reserve. This week I met a young constituent in Parliament who is participating in an environmental leadership programme. I see young people with a growing passion for protecting and enjoying the environment. In the light of our commitment to protect our young people online, what alternative opportunities will this Government provide so that our young people can also enjoy outdoor activities, green spaces and the environment?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Alongside our action this week on social media, we are also giving every child greater access to a range of opportunities, including in nature, through the “Every Child Can” programme. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate to hear from the Minister about what more can be done.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My constituent Marika built Fortitude gym in Williton from scratch at just 27 years old after selling her own house mid-covid. It has grown into a community wellbeing hub with classes and events, offering support to members coming back from injury, illness and addiction, one of whom went from being on crutches to running a half marathon. Outfits like Marika’s are doing preventive health work that takes pressure off the NHS, but business rates and overheads continue to push them towards closure. Will the Leader of the House make the case to his Treasury colleagues for fairer business rate treatment for small, independent health and fitness-focused providers, so they can keep doing the vital preventive work that the NHS relies on?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that the Government are seeking to balance the moneys that the Government need to renew public services while ensuring that businesses are treated fairly. I will raise her concerns directly with Treasury Ministers and get her an update on what further action the Government intend to take. We want community businesses and facilities to be retained wherever possible.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Local businesses are the backbone of our high streets, and on that basis I congratulate Souvlaki Corner on its hugely successful opening in Morley this week, following its rip-roaring success in Wortley; should you find yourself in our part of the world, Mr Speaker, you and the Leader of the House are welcome to join me there any time. Given that this Government are backing our high streets with £10 million for high street rental auctions to get empty shops filled, can we have a debate on this and the other things we can do to help genuine local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating the success of Souvlaki Corner; as I just said, small businesses are at the heart of our economy, and we are committed to supporting them. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year and build on our work to regenerate high streets across the country. I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that he and other hon. Members can raise ideas about how best to further support local businesses, which has been a theme of today’s deliberations.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I put on record a tribute to former councillor Jeanette Sunderland; many by-elections are taking place today, but the one in Idle and Thackley, in Bradford, is taking place as a result of her tragic passing earlier this year. She had a record of more than 30 years serving the community, and she was a true Yorkshire Liberal.
On the weekend just gone, I took part in the Great Knaresborough bed race, which is celebrating its 60th year. It was a fantastic event. The population of Knaresborough nearly doubled for the day, and that came with challenges for wi-fi and cellular network capacity, which meant that local businesses struggled to trade on the day. Can the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the relevant Government Departments to ensure that, at next year’s event, people can get the trade into their businesses, pubs, shops and more?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to Councillor Sunderland’s work and send condolences to her friends and family. She and I may not have shared a political point of view, but we certainly respect people who serve their local communities.
It sounds as if the Great Knaresborough bed race is something to behold. I will raise the matter with a Minister, and if the hon. Gentleman wants a meeting with the relevant Minister, I will help him to get one.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
My constituent Abdul faced three on-the-day cancellations of his asylum interview because of challenges securing an interpreter. He then had a fourth interview, in his second language, in which he is not proficient. He is now appealing his decision on the basis that he was unable to answer questions to the best of his ability. With his appeal date next month, he faces his fifth trip to London without an interpreter being present. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to make a statement on what steps the Government are taking to tackle interpreter-related interview cancellations for people like Abdul?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a distressing case. I am not surprised that she does so, because she has an outstanding record of working hard on behalf of her constituents. If she provides me with the details of the case in writing, I will ensure that the Home Office receives them and that she gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Eight months after changes to FP69 flagging were made, GPs in Wokingham remain concerned that many patients marked for removal from lists are from ethnic minority backgrounds or other vulnerable groups. Will the Leader of the House make time so that Department of Health and Social Care Ministers can update the House on whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken or whether one is planned?
Sir Alan Campbell
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer off the top of my head, but I will draw that matter to the attention of Health Ministers and get him the update he seeks.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I was delighted to be able to congratulate Auchinleck Talbot football club from my constituency on their recent remarkable achievement in winning the Scottish junior cup for a record 15th time. They came from behind to defeat their Ayrshire rivals Largs Thistle, demonstrating the resilience, determination and community spirit that has made the club one of the most successful and respected names across Scottish junior football. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team once again, as well as the volunteers, the supporters and all at the club, on this outstanding success and acknowledge the important role that local football clubs play for local communities in bringing together and inspiring our young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her local team and club on an outstanding achievement. Local football clubs—indeed, local sporting clubs—play such an important part in our local communities. On this occasion, not only will they celebrate their success, but I am sure they will be watching the television, looking at the performance of their national team and maybe even dreaming that they may be part of that in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Leader of the House will always be the king of the north as far as I am concerned—[Laughter.] I believe that many others in the House will be of the same opinion.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on freedom of religion or belief in Vietnam following the arrest of Pastor Siu Yúi and church member Siu Dok in Gia Lai province on 1 June on charges of undermining national unity, including what representations the Government have made to the Vietnamese authorities on the use of national security provisions against Montagnard Christians and other religious minorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I pay tribute to his tireless work in this regard. He knows that the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. We have regularly raised concerns in that regard in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Government, including through the work of our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), and we will continue to do so. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Dartmoor ponies are vital for the biodiversity of the moor and the economy of the south-west. They are so iconic that they feature as the logo of the national park. However, Natural England’s policies mean that the population of ponies has fallen from over 5,000 10 years ago to under 1,000 today. The Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have made it clear that they do not support any pony cull, whether by design or by default. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the role of Natural England and its responsibilities to deliver on the Fursdon review?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which has caused some concern after the reporting on it. Dartmoor ponies are an important part of Dartmoor’s heritage and are important in supporting its habitats. Natural England is not recommending a cull—I do not believe it is in its power to do anything about that anyway—and let me put it quite clearly on the record that the Government would not allow one.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
My constituents and I are deeply concerned about proposals to develop what would be one of England’s largest onshore wind farms right next to the Yorkshire Dales national park. With turbines as tall as the Gherkin, it would have a huge impact on the visual landscape in one of the most beautiful parts of our country and could damage our precious peatland in the moors, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is a natural resource that we are lucky to have. Will he join me in praising the work of Councillor Thompson and the Hope Moor wind farm action group for organising our community? Will he support both their and my efforts to ensure that our local voices are heard loudly during the process?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place; I would have thought that No. 10 was a rough place to be, but it sounds as though he has been in the wars more recently, although perhaps of a different nature. He is right to raise this matter on behalf of his constituency. I know his area well; it is a very beautiful part of the world, and I understand the concern that people there have. I offer my congratulations to Councillor Thompson and the local people on raising their concerns. Whatever the outcome, it is important that local people have their voices heard, because it is very much part of their heritage.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
During the recent heatwave, bus drivers reported soaring temperatures in their cabs and steering wheels that in some cases were literally too hot to handle. Will the Leader of the House consider bringing forward a debate in Government time on maximum working temperatures? As the climate changes, this issue will be of increasing importance to workers across the country.
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her diligent campaigning on this matter. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that workplaces are safe in the modern world, and we have committed to look at how to modernise health and safety guidance for extreme temperatures as part of that. The Health and Safety Executive is reviewing the approved code of practice for workplace regulations to ensure that it is fit for purpose. At the appropriate time, I am sure that the relevant Minister will want to update the House.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Morrisons has proposed closing its shop in Highfields, which hosts the local post office. Closing it would remove a vital service from our community, which people rely on every day for banking and bill payments. For many residents—particularly older people and those without access to a car—the nearest alternative in Rising Brook is not a realistic option; it is also open for much shorter hours, which would not serve the needs of many of my constituents. I have already met Morrisons and the Post Office to raise these points. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the role of post offices in local communities—something that impacts not just my community, but communities across the country—recognising that accessibility is key? This would allow Members to discuss the impact of the loss of those services on residents who depend on them for day-to-day activities.
Sir Alan Campbell
We certainly recognise the impact of closures on communities and their access to essential services. I hope that even at this late stage, an alternative site is found. This week, we opened a call for evidence as part of the access to banking services review, and I urge my hon. Friend and other Members across the House to contribute to that and to make their voices heard. Should she wish to follow up on the specific local example in her constituency, I would encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I seek the guidance of the Leader of the House. David, a constituent of mine, has raised serious concerns about the handling of a deeply distressing paternity case involving a child who was taken out of the country and was later confirmed to be his daughter. Key lines of inquiry were not pursued by West Midlands police, and evidence that was relied upon has been found to be false. Significant delays and errors have been experienced in the proceedings in Latvia, and concerns remain regarding the child’s welfare and contact with the father. How would the Leader of the House suggest I support my constituent and help to reunite this father and daughter as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s constituent’s distressing situation. If he writes to me with the details, I am sure that the relevant Minister will get a response to him. If he wishes to speak to the Minister directly instead, I will help him to arrange that meeting.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
After my constituent successfully took his employer to an industrial tribunal, a financial award was made to him, but it was never paid. He knows that the current enforcement system is ineffective. I am aware that Ministers are working to provide a better system to ensure that people like my constituent receive the payments they are due. Will the Leader of the House update me and the House on progress so far, and would a debate on the issue be of use to Ministers in teasing out the many issues that are no doubt involved?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a concerning matter. The law is clear that workers should receive the payments to which they are entitled. We are committed to strengthening enforcement options and, as she alludes to, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have set up the dispute resolution system taskforce to provide insights and to feed back on longer-term system reform proposals. I will ensure that she receives an update on that work.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the long-term funding challenges facing our palliative care sector due to real-terms funding cuts over many years. As a result, St Clare hospice in my constituency of Harlow is consulting on streamlining services. I welcome the fact that the Government will publish the modern services framework in the autumn, and I met the Minister for Care to discuss this yesterday, but can the Leader of the House find time for us to discuss this important issue in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important matter, and we recognise the difficult financial situation that many hospices are facing. We have supported the hospice sector in England with a £125 million capital funding boost, but I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate to raise his concerns, which I know are shared by colleagues from across the House, and to hear from the Minister directly.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is a privilege to serve our constituents in this place. We have a multifaceted role. There are many things that Back- Bench MPs can do in this place—some are welcome, and some are perhaps not so welcome. Sometimes Back Benchers even get above their station, such is the allure of high office. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate the role of Members of Parliament? As we know, there is no job description, no employer—save for our constituents—and perhaps not even a Government Department that could answer. But I think it is important that we debate and suggest ideas—in addition to those that we can send to the Modernisation Committee, as I have done repeatedly—about how we can improve the role of MPs. It is much misunderstood, and some might say under-resourced, and we can probably do better.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a fascinating issue, and I agree that the role of MPs has evolved but is of no less importance than it was. As he says, there is no job description for MPs, and each MP will have a different interpretation of their role, both as a constituency representative and in scrutinising the Government and legislation.
My hon. Friend raises this issue in the context of metro mayors. In my experience, it often comes down to personal relationships, the way in which metro mayors regard their powers and their job, and how MPs might work more closely with them. At the end of the day, it matters not what party people come from, but what we are prepared to do collectively to serve the constituencies and regions that metro mayors and MPs represent. However, the Government are absolutely determined to shift power out of Westminster, with more local decision making, better services and a stronger voice for local people, which means that this debate will rumble on. My hon. Friend may want to find forums in which the House can debate these matters going forward.
Regional Innovation and Growth
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. However, Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. On behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I put on the record our thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this inquiry.
We are told on a daily, if not hourly, basis that the source of all our political, public service and economic woes is the lack of economic growth. The Labour Government were elected on a platform of delivering economic growth across the country through their “unashamedly place-based” modern industrial strategy. Across the UK, we have world-class scientific research institutions and universities, two of which are in my constituency: Newcastle University and Northumbria University. Indeed, the importance of the innovation ecosystem is reflected in the Government’s pledge to spend £86 billion of public money on R&D by 2030, and to leverage at least £3 of private investment for every £1 of public investment.
The Committee launched its inquiry in December 2024 to assess the role of our innovation ecosystem in achieving this Government’s wider economic growth mission across the UK. Our call for evidence assessed the role of structural factors in influencing the success of start-ups, spin-outs and other innovation-focused enterprises; these included the tax system, regulatory requirements and standards. Across six sessions, we heard from innovators, investors, local and regional leaders, universities, Ministers, UK Research and Innovation, and Innovate UK. I place on the record my thanks to those who gave evidence. By doing so, they helped us to shape our report, and we are very grateful.
Our report, entitled “Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions”, was published in March. Profound policy mistakes have led to a multi-decade failure to foster even economic growth geographically. From a productivity and GDP per head perspective, we are two nations: Greater London and the south-east, and everywhere else. Last year, GDP per head in the UK averaged just over £39,000. Every region in the country is below that figure, apart from the south-east, at £41,000, and London, at a whopping £69,000. My Committee’s report found that if the £86 billion of public funds is accompanied by unlocking private investment across the country to commercialise innovation, it could deliver regional economic growth and therefore better living standards and quality of life for all our constituents. Although we welcome the Government’s commitments, including a £500 million fund for regional innovation clusters, that is less than 1% of our public research spend.
The work of our Committee member and former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), rightly emphasised the power of clusters. Our report found that there is still untapped potential for innovation-driven activity across the regions, with an increase in the number of innovation-led clusters. Regional inequalities continue to persist in R&D funding. The golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London receives significant public R&D funding and private investment, absorbing 46% of non-business R&D despite having only 36% of the population. The Minister for Science has asserted that cutting-edge research is best carried out in centres of excellence, and we found such centres in Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Newcastle, among many others.
Geographic clusters can drive productivity, foster concentrated networks of expertise, infrastructure and collaboration, and support regional growth. Their success relies on sustained investment, established infrastructure and skills concentration. We have said that the Government should establish a national framework for cluster development that embeds regional key performance indicators. We have said that the Government should take a data-driven approach and comprehensively monitor, map and support the growth of innovation-led clusters across the regions. We have also said that the Government should publish annual data covering the performance and impact of innovation clusters. The data should set out any gaps in infrastructure, skills, and commercialisation outcomes, and detail how public investment is being used across different parts of the country.
Throughout our inquiry, we heard of major shortfalls in gathering and sharing data relating to innovation policy, meaning that there is currently no clear way to track the pipeline from R&D research to capital investment, company growth and wider economic benefit. There is no system that brings together the data on all research and innovation spending across the public sector. The Public Accounts Committee noted in July last year that UKRI aimed to link up all such data across Government but had not given a target date, and that “significant limitations” in its data systems make it hard to manage its budget strategically.
We concluded that the UK is flying blind when it comes to public and private R&D spending, and it is unacceptable that we cannot measure and map R&D spending and private sector investment. The Secretary of State rightly told us of her desire to leverage public funds to unlock private investment in innovation- led activity across the country, but without clear and transparent measures of what is being done and its impact, it is impossible to assess existing policies or identify improvements.
I thank the Government for their response, which was published on Tuesday. There is much to welcome in it, particularly the Government’s joined-up contribution from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
I welcome the Government’s agreement with the key thematic areas highlighted in our report, and their acceptance of the need for better data. More specifically, the promise of
“a more robust and joined-up approach to monitoring the development of innovation clusters over time”
is a step in the right direction. The Government also committed to doing more to help innovators access public funding and, crucially, to prioritise the procurement of innovation, which is the best way for the Government to support the development of sovereign UK alternatives to global technology providers. I note and welcome the Chancellor’s recent directions to Ministers on this topic.
However, I am disappointed by the Government’s rejection of our call to establish a framework for monitoring cluster development, and by the fact that they will not designate a Minister responsible for championing innovation in each region of the UK. That leaves us with only a Minister with responsibility for Cambridge and Oxford innovation—the Minister for Science. The Government have argued that they should not be supporting the establishment of a Midlands Mindforge or a Northern Gritstone, and they have not accepted our recommendation to establish regional branches of the British Business Bank. By failing to accept these recommendations, the Government are depending too heavily on an industrial strategy that does not have appropriate regional data.
We chose to call our report “Flying Blind” because that was the best summary of the approach of successive Governments to innovation policy. Regional growth and development can transform a region and rebalance our nation’s economy, helping to address the inequalities that drive division. Greater Manchester is an example. Under Mayor Andy Burnham’s leadership, we have seen 3.1% annual growth sustained over 10 years, which is faster than London and twice that in the UK as a whole. That shows the power of regional leadership and investment.
The current Government deserve credit for backing our national research and development ecosystem, but without a clearer picture of what works for different regions and a greater engagement with local leaders on what support their local innovation ecosystems need, we will continue to be flying blind.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the report and thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her diligent work on it. In Yorkshire, we receive less funding per head across the board for transport, schools and, importantly, health research. We know that Yorkshire receives a quarter of the funding per head that London receives, despite worse cancer incidence and worse cancer outcomes, which are key health aspects. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that, given that regional imbalance, tackling health inequalities means making sure that research funding is better allocated across our regions?
Dame Chi Onwurah
First, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to the Select Committee while he served on it. He is absolutely right to trace the link between research funding and key issues such as health inequalities, from which we also suffer in the north-east of England. He is right to identify the need to address the differences in health research funding, but without the appropriate data and information, it is hard to do so. He is also right to look for that to be addressed by the Government, and we shall be looking at the actions of both DSIT and the Department of Health and Social Care in this area.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which is very interesting and important. I briefly draw her attention to the agreement between Rugby borough council and Frasers Group, which is setting up its global HQ in my constituency. Under the agreement, Frasers Group is providing £10 million for a much-needed training and innovation hub in Rugby town centre. Does she agree that encouraging businesses, such as Frasers Group and many others, to invest in towns and not just cities is vital? We need to remind our Government that cities are wonderful and attract lots of investment, but they have a lot going for them already, and we need to do more for our towns. What she said in her statement gives me some hope in that regard.
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to Frasers Group. Innovation and its benefits are for everyone across our country, and that is particularly important in towns that may traditionally not have seen those benefits, or may have done so in centuries past but not recently. Having a local employer and business drive innovation and innovation-sustained jobs in his town is of particular benefit to his constituents, not just now but in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Chair and the Select Committee for their report. The hon. Lady has clearly identified the regional shortcomings when it comes to innovation, growth and where we are. In the discussions she would have had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and perhaps with the Minister as well, about identifying the shortcomings of regional funding for us in Northern Ireland, what recommendations were put forward to improve that?
Dame Chi Onwurah
The hon. Member is always a champion of Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him on the examples of innovation and its contribution to economic growth that the Committee found in Northern Ireland. We did not have a specific discussion about that when the Minister for Science came before the Committee, but the hon. Member raises very good points, and I am very happy to take them up with the Minister.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour for her statement. Does she agree with me that devolved authorities, such as the North East combined authority, have the local knowledge to inspire, support, drive and encourage innovation and growth in places such as our very own Tyneside?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her question, and she is absolutely right. As I highlighted in my concluding remarks, we have seen how in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has had over 10 years to make such a difference—we see this in Liverpool as well—having local leadership that values innovation and knows the local economy’s needs, skills and strengths can really drive regional growth. I know that the mayor f the North East combined authority, Kim McGuinness, is fully seized of the importance of innovation in driving great jobs and a sustainable economy in the north-east, particularly on Tyneside.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their report. Can she say a little more about the role of the Scottish Government in this area, and whether the Select Committee had any observations about the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in that regard? She has referred to the role of devolution in this space, so is that relationship securing the gathering and sharing of data that she might expect and that she raised in her statement, and if not, what more can be done?
Dame Chi Onwurah
We looked at innovation in the ecosystems around Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and we found fantastic examples of world leadership in scientific research and innovation in Scotland. However, we did not find the collection of regional data at a level that would have enabled us to measure effectively what works best. There were some concerns about the funding of research, particularly high-intensity research, across Scotland, but I would be willing to discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friend.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her report; I found it fascinating. A statistic I cannot get out of my head is that cities around the UK have seen growth accelerate at a rate of 10.7% in the past 10 years, but it has been 5.4% in our towns—almost half. Our towns were the hubs of innovation in the industrial revolution. Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government plan must have towns at its heart to support innovation and the good jobs that come with it?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the north-east, our great history of industrial innovation and growth was based around towns as well as cities, and that is what we must aspire to again. The focus on clusters and data would enable us—through the industrial strategy, which has so much to be welcomed and supported—to ensure we can drive innovation across a region and in particular look at hubs that are based around towns, as well as cities. We found that there is much good work done by universities. Having hubs in towns and around the region can drive innovation and therefore, with the right support, growth.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) has stolen my thunder by speaking about towns, for which I will never forgive her! [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for her report. I am going to bang on about towns, because the report’s title perfectly describes the frustrations and the situation in Redditch. We sit at the heart of a precision and research engineering supply chain that contributes millions to the economy, yet we receive a fraction of the research and development funding from Government or from private investment. To support the excellent firms in Redditch, does she agree that we need granular regional tracking to get the metrics in place to support the clusters that exist outside towns and metro areas, so we can grow our towns and get the regional and national growth that the Government so desperately want?
Dame Chi Onwurah
One can never bang on too much about towns and innovation and growth. That is what all our constituents across our country deserve, because it is only by having growth in every town across the country that we will address the cost of living crisis and the economic conditions that we need to improve. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to understand, in concert with local leaders, what innovation is happening around Redditch and what works best to ensure that Redditch and the towns in his area get the innovation support they deserve and which they can put to the best use for his constituents and all our constituents.
Courts and Tribunals Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief questions directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the Minister. Front Benchers may, of course, take part should they wish.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in February as a response to the Crown court crisis. There were over 80,000 outstanding cases as of December 2025, with some trials being listed into 2030. That harms victims, defendants and witnesses alike. We recognise the urgency of that crisis and acknowledge that continuing with the status quo is not an option.
In response to the crisis, the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his independent review of criminal courts, which has been published in two extensive parts and makes 180 recommendations to address the crisis and reduce the backlog. The Government’s Bill has been informed by Sir Brian’s review, although it deviates from his recommendations in some key areas.
Last Wednesday, the Justice Committee published a report setting out our critique of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, based upon three oral evidence sessions and over 130 written submissions. I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the report, in particular Committee members of all parties, many of whom are here today, and of course our secretariat. Our report makes recommendations to improve the Bill and draws attention to some of its unintended consequences, and it aims to inform further scrutiny of the Bill in both Houses. I note that we do not yet have a confirmed date for the Bill’s return to this House on Report. I hope we will have that soon.
The Government introduced the Bill without publishing a formal response to part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. The Government also declined to allow the Justice Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. We instead launched our inquiry a matter of days after the Bill’s publication, as we felt this landmark piece of legislation required proper, in-depth parliamentary scrutiny. We know it is hard for the Government to change course once a Bill is introduced, but this is an area where the Government should have enabled more parliamentary input before pushing forward, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions will not come into force until March 2028 at the earliest. Our report is analytical, but crucially it is constructive and aims to improve rather than dismiss what the Government have proposed. It covers all clauses of the Bill dealing with reform of the criminal courts, but I will focus my remarks on a few key areas.
First, let me address the impact on magistrates courts, which will significantly increase owing to the removal of the right for defendants to elect for Crown court trial and by increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our principal finding on this point is that we are not convinced that the magistrates courts will be able to cope. It seems unrealistic to propose that 7,000 magistrates can be recruited in three years so that there will be 21,000 magistrates by 2029. Previous recruitment campaigns have fallen far short of their targets. Retention also remains a persistent challenge and there is a chronic shortage of suitably qualified legal advisers. The Government must demonstrate, in more detail than they have done so far, that expanding capacity in the magistrates court is deliverable. As part of that, we recommend that the Government should significantly increase the number of salaried district judges. They must also ensure that the pay of legal advisers matches comparable legal roles in the public sector.
The Government seek the authority to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months or even 24 months—double what they are now. Until recently the maximum was six months, and then from October 2024, 12 months. Sir Brian said that this should be set permanently at 12 months and that the Government should not be able to vary it at will. We say at the least that any change should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and debated in Parliament. Otherwise, every time there is a peak in prisoner numbers, the Government will shift magistrates’ sentencing powers down to six or 12 months and then back up to 18 or 24 when they stabilise again.
On appeals from the magistrates court, we recognise the Government’s concern that, as more cases are retained, unmanaged growth in appeal volumes could place additional pressure on the Crown court. We also accept that the current automatic right to a full rehearing can, in some cases, place a stressful burden on victims and witnesses. However, appeals currently represent a small and declining proportion of overall Crown court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates court decisions appealed in 2025. They are resolved quickly and with a high success rate, suggesting that the right to a full rehearing plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes.
The Bill provides for the introduction of audio recording in magistrates courts for trial and sentencing. This would allow for an accurate record of proceedings to be transcribed in support of an appeal. Several submissions we received raised concerns about the scale of such an undertaking and the practicalities of equipping magistrates courts with the necessary facilities. It would benefit no one if changes were introduced before recording systems were properly functioning or if they subsequently failed. We recommend that any changes to magistrates appeals should be introduced only once recording of all magistrates court proceedings has been introduced and is proven to be operating effectively.
The main public and professional criticisms of the Bill have been around judge-only trials, and the creation of a Crown court bench division. Our report focuses more on the question of whether that will work in practice rather than the principles of the reform. We decided the proposal to introduce judge-only trials hangs on allocation to a jury trial or the bench division. That will be done by an assessment, at the first hearing in the Crown court, as to whether the defendant would receive a sentence of three years or more.
While many cases will be straightforward, the allocation process could consume a significant amount of court time and judicial resource overall. We think the three-year threshold for deciding which sort of trial a defendant gets will need some more consideration. At present, when magistrates decide whether a case should be allocated to the Crown court, they consider the length of the potential sentence, but they also can consider the circumstances of the case. Should the Crown court not also be able to say that a case is likely to have a sentence of less than three years, but should still have a jury trial?
We conclude that the allocation process as currently designed is likely to be complex, time consuming and will lead to unintended consequences. Reliance on likely sentence length as the sole criteria will mean that defendants with previous convictions are more likely to face a jury trial than those without, and that children are less likely to face a jury than adults accused of the same offence. We recommend that children should be exempt from being tried at the bench division. We also raise concerns that the predicted 20% time saving of judge-only trials, so heavily relied on in both the Bill and Sir Brian’s review, lacks sufficient evidential basis.
Finally, on equality, we share the concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the Bill, particularly in relation to race. An unreformed justice system already perpetuates a range of inequalities, and we do not feel that the Government have tackled those head on through the Bill. The Bill proposes to expand the role of both the magistrates court and judge-only Crown court proceedings, while reducing the role of juries.
The Lammy review, in 2017, concluded that juries are one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where black and ethnic minority defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. It is shocking that only 1% of Crown court judges are black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. This has serious implications for the trust that black defendants may have in the bench division, where judges will sit alone. We recommend that the Government take action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary, and that they set a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035.
We recognise the need to reform our criminal justice system and commend the Government for commissioning the Leveson review and proposing comprehensive reforms. We hope, however, that they will take note of our recommendations, which we believe would improve the Bill while maintaining the core values of justice and fairness in our criminal justice system.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I put it on the record that I voted for an alternative report that I felt better reflected my concerns, but I accept that the report is a fair reflection of the Committee’s view.
Given that the last recruitment drive for magistrates failed to deliver the much-needed uplift at that point, and with the expansion of magistrate-led trials adding further pressure, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should publish regular statistics on magistrate recruitment to ensure that they are on track to achieve the 21,000 by 2029?
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Member is right to mention that there was a dissenting report, which was not approved by the Committee. Other members may wish to raise that issue. From my point of view, it was reassuring that the analysis in both reports was very similar. I hope that I correctly reflected some of those concerns in my statement. What the outcome of those concerns should be may have been a matter of difference between different parties, but that all adds to the spice of life on Select Committees. I agree with the hon. Member on magistrates. There has been so much attention on the issue of judge-only trials, which is crucial, but the Bill will succeed or fail on recruitment and the type and nature of magistrates court proceedings. They are being asked to do a huge amount of heavy lifting, and it is only fair that the Government keep us up to date on progress.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that there has been quite a bit of opposition to having judge-only trials. Given that only 1% of the judiciary are black, does he agree that it is now even more urgent to look at how the judiciary are appointed? Something appears to be seriously wrong with the selection procedure.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is an assiduous member of the Committee. In the same week that the Committee published this report, we published our report on the pre-appointment hearing for the new Judicial Appointments Commission chair. We feel strongly that the Government need to look at judicial appointments and progression, because it is clearly not working at the moment. It undermines the credibility of a judiciary that we all take huge pride in if they are not reflective of the population at large. That was true before the Bill; it is even more true after it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I too voted for the minority report, mainly because I am particularly concerned that the Government are going much further than the Leveson report. On judge-only trials, if magistrates’ sentencing powers are increased to 24 months, it is not impossible that cases with sentences of up to two and a half years could be retained by the magistrates court, which might mean that there is little work for the Crown court bench division; it will only have a narrow tranche of cases. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is merit in looking at other jurisdictions, and seeing whether there are other mechanisms for allocating cases that might be fairer and more efficient?
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Lady is also an assiduous member of the Committee, and I appreciate what she said about important respects in which the Government, without evidencing the reasons, have departed from Leveson—for example, on whether magistrates should sit with judges in the bench division. She makes a good point: because the Government have deviated from what Leveson recommended, there is a narrow window between what can happen in the magistrates court and what is left for the Crown court bench division to do. The Government will have to look at that again. Some Members may think that that is a good thing, because they are not supportive of the Crown court bench division, but we have to have a system that has credibility and works seamlessly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recommendations. Many are specific to England and Wales, but could be helpful for us in Northern Ireland. I always ask this question, because it is important that it be put on record: has the Committee suggested that the recommendations could be helpful to us in Northern Ireland? If we can get UK-wide improvement, then we must.
Andy Slaughter
I rely on the hon. Gentleman to attend these statements, so that he can make that point, as he has done during every Justice Committee statement on the Floor of the House. He is right that, even though the Bill will apply in England and Wales, the lessons can be learned elsewhere. I will undertake to go back to my officials and ensure that that work is done.
Backbench Business
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Clive Efford, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.
At the outset, I would like to bear witness to those who have fought for justice for so long, and who have given evidence to the inquiry. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson).
I am aware that many Members who would like to be here are in Makerfield for the by-election, so I may ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have a lot to cover, because a lot of people are missing. The Government are about to lay another set of orders before Parliament, and the community and campaigners have demanded that we make representations on their behalf before they are laid, so I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for moving us up the list and granting us this debate in such short time.
I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for securing the funds to get the compensation process under way. I know that he takes the matter to heart, and it would be understandable if he felt slightly harshly treated, given that he has secured £9.8 billion for the compensation process, but I am sure he understands that because the community of the infected and affected have had to fight so hard for so long, and have lost many friends and relatives along the way in the face of huge opposition, they are not ready to praise anyone—not until everyone has received justice.
In his address during the service of remembrance and reflection at St Paul’s, Sir Brian Langstaff said that this catastrophe was no accident. It has been called the deadliest man-made disaster in post-war history. In the ’70s and ’80s, people knowingly gave infected products to unsuspecting patients. In the USA, the production of blood products farmed from volunteers and prisoners took off after the USA deregulated harvesting blood products. Pooling products from different people meant that entire supplies became infected. As early as 1975, “World in Action” exposed the dangers of these products. In 1983, Government experts knew of the risks of contaminated blood products. Costs meant that heat treatment to clean the products was not introduced.
In 1989, the then Government were advised to provide victims with compensation on humanitarian grounds. The Government rejected that advice on financial grounds. The Government continued to withhold information from the infected and their families. Had they been told, they could have sought medical help, and many would have avoided tragedy. The World Health Organisation expressed concern about the commercial supply of products from paid donors, but still the practice went on, and victims were kept in the dark.
Pupils at Treloar’s school were experimented on. Between 1970 and 1987, 122 pupils with haemophilia attended the school. At the time that the evidence was given to the inquiry, only 30 remained alive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that your constituent Gary Webster is one of those; another is my constituent Lee Moorey. I am pleased to say that he is still with us. Lee did not find out until he was 14 that he had been infected with HIV. He was in his 30s when he found out that he had been infected with hepatitis C, and he found out that he has hepatitis B only last year. There is no escaping the fact that, had people been under an obligation to tell the truth at the outset, many lives would have been saved.
We welcome the changes that the Government announced on 14 April this year, following the consultation that they held from October 2025 to January 2026. However, there remain concerns that some elements of the compensation system still require change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for setting the scene so well, and I am sure that everyone in the House is committed to the same objectives. The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the issues. My constituents back home face significant stress over delays, and unfair deductions when compensation is passed on to the estate of the bereaved. Does he agree that we need a timescale for the moneys to be paid out, so that all those who have experienced delays will know the timeframe? Perhaps the Minister, who is always very responsive and helpful, will come to the House regularly to update us on that before the end of this year, and certainly by the conclusion of spring 2027.
Clive Efford
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later.
There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000.
But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood.
Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing.
Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend may be aware of the work that the National Audit Office has done, looking at different compensation schemes. Does he think that there are lessons that this and any future Government need to take on board when proposing a compensation scheme? Some matters are dealt with by compensation, and some through bureaucratic procedures of the civil service; other resolutions come about as a result of a campaign, like the one he led with others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Are there lessons from this that should be applied more widely, and has he had conversations with the Government about taking that approach?
Clive Efford
I have not had conversations with the Government about an approach like that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address that later. The Government need to learn lessons, and to set up a system, so that we do not have to learn all over again all the lessons of paying compensation and implementing inquiries’ recommendations every time this happens.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has set the point out very powerfully. It is distressing for any of us in this House, and particularly for those of us who cannot imagine our children being put through that in such a callous way. In addition to the questions around compensation, one of the most horrendous things is the additional burden being put on parents where they have to prove, with documented evidence, that they lived with their child 40 or 50 years ago when that was done to their baby, to the future of their family. Will the hon. Gentleman touch on how outrageous it is that that is required, and the additional heartache and burden that that puts on those families?
Clive Efford
I will touch on that and I will make that very point. There are areas of evidence required that are unreasonable. I thought we had agreed that that sort of evidence would not be asked for.
In his statement on 14 April, the Paymaster General announced, for all those claimants who can demonstrate to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority that they meet the criteria, that all care and financial loss claims can be backdated to 2017, when the special category mechanism was first established. The community of people I have spoken to feels strongly that compensation must cover actual costs, whenever they occurred, and that there should not be an arbitrary cut-off date of 2017.
On the issue of evidence, which the hon. Lady just referred to, the Government did not accept the inquiry’s recommendation for IBCA to be less stringent on overall evidence for the psychological harm award, and instead advised that people apply to the special category mechanism award. There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism.
The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice.
The current scheme has not enabled family members who gave up work to be compensated for the sacrifices they made in their lives and the opportunities that they lost as a result. The supplementary compensation scheme should enable carers to claim the actual financial and personal losses that they have suffered as a result of providing care.
My constituent Mary Grindley wrote to me on that issue:
“I understand that the Cabinet Office is considering a supplementary route to further compensation for the affected on top of the lump sum at present offered.
While considering this, please bear in mind many of us gave up our jobs and careers to look after our beloved ones often with little support. Also many had difficulty returning to work later or were too traumatised to do so. (I personally gave up work to look after my husband, giving up my teaching career. I tried to return after he died as my son was a minor and after two terms had a breakdown in the classroom in front of the children. I never worked again.)
Loss of earnings should be taken into account.”
She continued:
“Other considerations that should be taken into account—being unable to have a child or more children, loss of a proper marriage (we were told that if my husband infected me he could be put in prison), harassment at home and work (we had to move twice, once with the help of the police) to living in poor housing due to not being able to get insurance for a mortgage.
Regards, Mary Grindley”.
When we read testimonies such as Mary’s they bring home the multitude of wrongs that must be recognised.
There is a growing concern among the community about the pace of payments. After an upturn towards the end of last year, things have slowed down. There seems to be an upturn in IBCA’s demand for documentation, despite it being agreed previously that that would not be required from claimants. After so many years, some documents are impossible to find and such requests will slow down the system. In some cases, people have been asked to provide proof that they were living with their parents as children at the time of their claim. Will the Government instruct IBCA to alter its current stance on that requirement?
The people infected and affected have been campaigning for decades, and many are very elderly. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we set timelines to end the limbo that they have been left in?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Government need to work with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to drive forward the final compensation scheme and address the concerns about timelines that he rightly talks about?
Clive Efford
Yes, where we can improve the system by working together, I think we should do it. That is absolutely right.
We welcome the introduction of an ongoing dialogue between the infected and affected community and the Government. That was lacking throughout the process, from when the Government started to set the tariffs and set up IBCA, and that led to a lot of mistrust. A two- way dialogue is needed if good relationships and trust are to be maintained and if we are to restore trust in the process.
We must learn the lessons of all inquiries and compensation bodies that the Government have had to set up. We must not keep reinventing the wheel every time an inquiry reports and makes recommendations.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as Chair of the APPG and with the contaminated blood community. On the issue he has just raised, there is growing support for a national oversight mechanism to monitor and intervene when recommendations from public inquiries are being ignored or misapplied. Does he agree that it is particularly important in the case of contaminated blood, where there have been so many false starts and delays? Although the Minister has announced a new mechanism to raise concerns about how compensation schemes function, does he agree that such monitoring must be statutory and self-resourced to ensure fair and timely compensation for victims and their families?
Clive Efford
I agree. We need to put this on a statutory footing—if nothing else, to give rights to the people who have been wronged in the process.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman referred to “reinventing the wheel”. There is no possible way that anybody can be really compensated for the loss of a child, a husband or a wife. However, those of us who still bear the scars of the thalidomide scandal are seeing the wheel reinvented again and again. Surely there has to be a system that allows compensation and allows the Government to act as the insurer of last resort and then to make claims against those who are actually culpable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Clive Efford
Yes, I agree. We keep repeating the experience with inquiry after inquiry. The time has come for us to set up a body that retains that experience so that it can represent the people who have been wronged and ensure that the issues that have been raised by them, through whatever inquiry has taken place, can be addressed.
Dame Meg Hillier
There are some discussions going on about how there should be oversight of Government’s acceptance of recommendations from public inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) talked about the statutory option, but there are also discussions about whether Select Committees should have a role in that space. That would bring the matter right to the heart of Parliament, in full view of the public. Sunlight shone on things means they might be followed through. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have any thoughts on that process?
Clive Efford
It would be an improvement if we were to set up a system that reviewed what action is taken in response to inquiries. For instance, if we had acted on the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we might not have had the Grenfell fire. Those things are just left to gather dust on a shelf, and we need to address that. We must set up a body for compensation payments so that skills and experience are not lost and do not have to be learned time and again. We must also have a duty of candour; the Hillsborough law must be introduced in its entirety.
One person whom I know the campaigners, the infected and the affected would like to thank, overall, is Sir Brian Langstaff. I will finish with his address at the remembrance service at St Paul’s. He said that the catastrophe was no accident, and quoted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who said on the publication of the final report in 2024:
“We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern of injustice, so familiar from other inquiries, such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 666.]
In response, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that
“we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 668.]
In the conclusion to his oration, Sir Brian said:
“Putting into practice these principles—prioritising patients’ safety, embracing candour, transparency and involvement, recognising and remedying injustice, truly valuing people—is a challenge for the here and now. These principles need to be not just matters of words, but together provide a practical route map to follow.”
Had we been following Sir Brian’s advice, we would have got to the truth much earlier, saved lives and perhaps avoided other catastrophes. As we go forward, we must heed his words, involve people, value them, listen to them and act.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) did, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to him for securing it and for all his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. He puts an awful lot of work into it—it is not like a normal APPG—and we are all very grateful.
This scandal is of such a scale that probably every MP has at least one constituent who has been infected or affected, but in my constituency it has a particular weight attached to it because East Hampshire is home to Treloar’s school and college. Treloar’s is an internationally recognised centre of excellence in which incredibly committed people provide the most remarkable level of support, care, nurture and education for children and young people with some of the most profound disabilities imaginable, but it was also the place where, in the 1970s and 1980s, there was the single biggest concentration of people who were victims of these terrible practices. The reason was that at any one time there were 40 to 50 haemophiliac patients there. It was seen as an opportunity to study the disease; the NHS haemophilia centre was established nearby, and it later moved into the school grounds.
Treloar’s looms large in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report: an entire section is given over to it. It describes how research objectives were put ahead of the interests of children and how those children were subjected to unethical research techniques, without them or their parents being informed or consulted about the risks attached. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of the 122 children with haemophilia who attended the school between 1970 and 1987, only about 30 are alive now. There have been much wider effects, too: the stigma that could be attached, the interrupted education, the long-term mental scarring for the people and their families, and the trauma through families that has lasted for decades. This is a story of lost childhoods and lost futures.
It has been my privilege to meet a number of the Treloar’s boys over time. There is one gentleman in particular, Adrian Goodyear, with whom I have been in contact since I was first elected in 2010; he had previously been in contact with my predecessor Michael Mates for many years. In our 2010 debate, I read out a line from one of Ade’s emails to me that haunted me then and haunts me now:
“We’ve now lost so many of our friends from the Treloar days—in fact, we stopped counting at 40”.
I pay tribute to Ade, to all the Treloar’s boys and to everybody in this community who has kept up the fight, for their remarkable tenacity in seeking justice in the name and memory of their friends lost.
I thank the Paymaster General for his continued and consistent positive engagement on the subject. He always comes to these events in person, which I think the House really appreciates. I have a few questions that I hope he will address later in the debate.
First, I have been asked specifically to raise the lack of parity between bereaved parents whose child was over 18 and those whose child was younger. I hope that the Minister can comment on that point and on whether a change may be possible.
On further elements of the award, I thank the Minister for his letter in response to our exchange at Cabinet Office questions about the special category mechanism and the psychological harm payments, but I continue to receive questions from my constituents about the unethical research awards. The increase in the amount is very welcome, but in our November 2024 debate I asked how the figures had been reached, and even with the higher number I am still being asked that question. Clearly one cannot put a value on this tragic loss or say that any amount of money could compensate it, but even if the answer is that there is no way of calculating such a number, it would be helpful to have that set out.
I think IBCA has tried to engage well with MPs, which is welcome, but clearly the administration of the scheme needs to accelerate. Inevitably with these processes, things move relatively well at first with the more straightforward cases, but it becomes harder when we get on to the more complex cases. As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst says, we are talking about victims who are increasingly elderly and who, tragically, may die before they receive the compensation they have been promised.
Alicia Kearns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this debate. It is very difficult for any of us to contain our unadulterated rage at what happened.
My constituent lost her mother to infected blood. Unfortunately, her father is now in his final days, and soon she will lose him as well. He received compensation, and of course there was no inheritance tax on it then, but as his child she knows that the Government will be putting inheritance tax on that money when it passes to her in a very short time. Will my right hon. Friend give his view, which I am sure will be heard on the Government Front Bench, on how we are to ensure that when that compensation passes down from a father who lost his wife to a daughter who lost her mother, it does not incur inheritance tax?
Damian Hinds
My word! My hon. Friend puts it in very striking terms. [Interruption.] I see the Minister indicating that he has heard her question, so I think it is right that I defer to him to say a word about the matter when he makes his speech.
As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst and other colleagues have said, this is not the first compensation scheme that has been set up. Obviously every case is somewhat different and involves different categories of harm, but it seems that every time this happens, processes and systems have to be set up and time is thereby lost. We want lessons to be learned from this scheme, but they should also have been learned from previous schemes. I welcome the fact that the Public Accounts Committee is conducting its inquiry; I hope to hear a commitment from the Minister that lessons will be learned, particularly from that inquiry.
The last thing I want to mention is the possibility of a criminal investigation. I know that you and your constituent have been involved in discussions about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that you and I have both had discussions with the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire, Donna Jones. This is clearly not a question for this Minister or any Minister—not for the Cabinet Office or the Home Office; it is about the criminal justice system, the police and whether a threshold has been met. But I want to take this opportunity through the debate, without expecting the Minister to respond directly, to say that with all the passage of time, there is a premium on knowing what will happen and if we will move in this regard.
Nothing will ever or could ever make up for the multiple failings of the state in this case—from successive Governments, the civil service, the national health service and many more—but we can and must ensure that at this point, we have a compensation scheme that now does pay out in a timely way, and is as effective and humane as possible for all the victims and their families. We must face up clearly to our failings as a state and —let’s be honest—as a political system over those many years, and give truth to that phrase, “Never again”.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I too thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent and assiduous work on the APPG. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that it is a very different APPG, and my hon. Friend does a fantastic job with it. I also my hon. Friend for articulating so well the asks of the community; mine is a general plea, but it is keenly felt by my constituents, and I fully support all his asks and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Over the last 15 years in this Chamber, I have raised the cases of the Newport East families impacted by the contaminated blood scandal over 20 times. I really hope that we are closer to the point where I do not have to raise them again, as we now have the compensation scheme and the money, and I thank the Minister for that. We appreciate that he is doing a very difficult job—I want him to know that. I also pay tribute to all those who have brought us to this stage, especially the victims and the families who have campaigned absolutely tirelessly and provided us with the vital evidence over the years.
I pay particular tribute to Colin and Janet Smith and their family, who have lived with this nightmare since 1983 when their toddler son Colin was given infected blood sourced from a prison in Arkansas. I am going to remember Colin again in this Chamber now—he died aged just seven; it is really important that we remember today the people we are here for. The Smiths are some of the strongest and most dignified people I have ever met. It is an immense privilege to have them as my constituents—and I really mean that. For them, this fight has been about justice and has never been about the money, but the Smiths, like so many others—I understand that there are about 92 estates in Wales—have not been invited to apply for compensation yet, even though we have the scheme and the money to pay the claims. They registered their intent to claim and pre-qualified for interim payments, but are still waiting to be invited. All these families just need to know what the hold-up is. The authorities have done the checks and have the information—the system appears to be doubling up. It would be helpful to know why people cannot just apply and why they have to wait to be invited to.
We need to move much faster than we are now. The current pace of delivery is just adding to the stress that these people have already endured for decades. On behalf of the families, the Hepatitis Trust and the Haemophilia Society, I urge the Minister to look at what we can do to increase the speed of the scheme’s delivery and about people waiting to be invited. These people have fought long enough. Crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst said, it is important that we continue to listen to the community, and prioritise the elderly and the terminally ill. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, the community are getting older, and it has now been more than two years since Sir Brian Langstaff delivered his recommendations and around 20 months since the Chancellor set out the £11.8 billion required to settle all the claims. Those affected want the chance to move on from this painful chapter, and the many bereaved parents want the chance to live their remaining years with a sense of closure after what, for them, has been more than 40 years of struggle.
These families deserve the closure before it is too late, and we have it in our gift to make that happen. Please can we increase the pace and bring this long injustice to an end? I support all the asks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My final plea to the Government is: please continue to listen to the community.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like others before me, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He is the driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group, which has done so much to highlight this terrible tragedy.
I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about having been alerted to this as far back as 2010. In my case, it was not quite so far back; it was 2015, but that is still more than a decade ago. I spoke in this House about the case of my constituent Lesley, which illustrated how long it often took for victims of contaminated blood to discover that they indeed had been infected. I pointed out that in 1970, she and her future husband had been involved in a serious road traffic accident, and she had to receive no fewer than 44 pints of blood. For many years, she knew nothing about the fact that she had been infected, although over those years she had many visits to GPs and hospitals, with numerous symptoms of illness, and considerable pain and suffering. It was only in 2014 that she finally discovered that she had been infected with hepatitis C by NHS contaminated blood.
Another example of a constituent who is in regular contact with me and my office is Stephen. He came to see me in August 2023. He was diagnosed as haemophiliac as an eight-year-old in the late 1960s. He thinks that he was infected with hepatitis C in 1974, which persisted for nearly 15 years before it eventually cleared from his system. He says that although it did not inhibit his professional life too badly, it had a deep impact on his personal life. He was married in 1986, and he was constantly having to have testing for fear every time that he had to have a transfusion that he might be being infected. He was told in quite firm terms not to have children, and he said that he was often too scared to have treatment. Once he had quite a bad leg injury, which led to complications, and his fear of treatment led to him being effectively disabled for a period of time.
Stephen’s brother’s case was far worse, because he was one of about 400 chronic hepatitis C victims of this scandal. To this day, he can only effectively live on a day-to-day basis; he cannot plan because the complications of his infection mean that whether he will be able to do something will depend on how he is on the day in question.
In Portcullis House on Tuesday, we benefited from briefings from a number of organisations that are concerned with this scandal. I will briefly touch on a couple. One was a campaign about a condition of which I was previously unaware, called thalassaemia. This rare blood disorder requires sufferers to have a transfusion every three to four weeks—a blood transfusion every month. These people are at a very high risk of having been infected, and many of them were. These regular blood transfusions deposit more iron into the major organs, which, coupled with the hepatitis C virus with which they had been infected, maximises the prospect of their developing cirrhosis and liver cancer.
The drug interferon has been mentioned a couple of times already. I am old enough to remember when interferon was first regarded as a great breakthrough in the treatment of some cancers. Sadly, like so many medical interventions, it has side effects that can be harmful. Taken in combination with what these patients are also suffering from by way of infection and, in the case of thalassaemia sufferers, the build-up of iron, the interferon used in their cases also has complicating adverse effects. That was a point impressed on me at the briefing by the representative of the Terrence Higgins Trust, who pointed to the additional negative impact of treatment with interferon, which was for a significant time the only option available for HIV-positive patients.
I am indebted to the Haemophilia Society for briefing material that I hope will simply add to the excellent statement and laying of the groundwork in the opening speech so ably delivered by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. The Haemophilia Society draws attention to one or two specific points that I would like to put before the House.
We all acknowledge that the infected blood community has fought valiantly for the truth for decades. We also accept that the Government are clearly committed to compensation following the inquiry. The debate now focuses on how to deliver that commitment and how to make sure that people are compensated without further delay and that the compensation is truly fair.
In this connection, I would like to make reference to a detailed opportunity I had virtually to participate in exchanges with senior people—in fact, the most senior people—at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority back in June last year. Again, that was at the initiative of the chairman of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My participation was online, but I was able, as was he, to discuss all these matters with the interim chairman at the time, Sir Robert Francis; the chief executive, David Foley; and other key officials.
In particular, we were able to talk directly with members of IBCA’s cases team. I must say that I, for one, found them to be both compassionate and empathetic. I was very impressed with the calibre of people who are involved in this agency, and I am hopeful that if they are given the direction they need and the resources they require, they can succeed. I got the feeling that this is an organisation that really does want to help the people it has been set up to support, not an organisation that wants to be in any way obstructive. I hope everything can be done to encourage it. I know that it is operating in uncharted waters with a tragedy of this magnitude, but I hope it can succeed in overcoming the obstacles that have been causing the delays.
More than two years have passed since the Government accepted the need for compensation, but the majority of eligible people are still waiting to begin their claims. That includes infected people not previously on a support scheme and affected people—namely, the partners and family members of those who are sadly no longer with us. We have heard concern from the community that progress has slowed while IBCA works out how to grapple with these categories of claims in a process that it calls test and learn.
Every month of delay matters, because many infected and affected people are elderly or seriously ill. We would like to know from the Minister his latest assessment of the timescale by which IBCA will compensate each of the categories of claimant. IBCA’s latest figures show that just 30 affected people have been paid compensation so far. Over 14,000 affected people are waiting to start their claim. At what point does the Minister expect IBCA to truly start making a dent in those very large numbers? In particular, we would like to know what specific steps are being taken to accelerate compensation payments over the next 12 months.
Finally, there is an issue to do with claims that relate to the estates of those who died before the scheme commenced. Those who survived until the scheme commencement are rightly entitled to financial loss compensation from the date of their infection right up to the national age of healthy life expectancy that they should have had. In contrast, those who died before the scheme started have their financial loss calculated only from the date of their infection until the date of their death, which may have been a lot earlier than the normal expectation of a term of life that would have been their lot had this catastrophe not befallen them.
There can be no doubt that this creates a stark and unjust two-tier system. Those who died earlier will often have suffered the same or worse than those who died later, and the financial loss to their estate is clear, yet the Government’s position seems to be that those killed by their infections the soonest deserve less compensation and recognition than those who survived for longer. In many cases, this amounts to a very substantial reduction in compensation—potentially decades of lost earnings. Bereaved families should not receive lesser justice because their loved one died before the scheme was established. The result is that timing, not harm, is determining value, meaning that compensation depends on whether someone survived long enough to see the scheme introduced. As I said, this is about avoiding a two-tier compensation system.
In conclusion, I would like the Minister to explain how it can be in accordance with natural justice for those who died earlier due to their infection to receive less compensation than those who died later from a similar infection. Will the Government commit to reviewing their position on estate claims, to ensure families are not disadvantaged because their relative died earlier?
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
We have got to boil this down very, very simply. This has been described as the biggest tragedy the NHS has ever seen. As a result, lots of people have sadly passed on, and people are still dying on a frequent basis at a time when there are still issues in paying their compensation. People are dying as a result of contaminated blood as we sit here—they are dying on a regular basis.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who I think has done a marvellous job. But I have made the point time and again, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford)—I think I have spoken in 10 debates in the Commons on this—about the issues with this scheme. The Minister has afforded as many meetings as have been required—he is totally dedicated to the scheme—but the reality is that it is failing the people who are still awaiting compensation. That is the reality, despite everybody’s best efforts and despite the fact that IBCA is doing a really good job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. I have been to IBCA and had a look at how it operates. Regardless of all the Sirs, the chairman and the chief executive, it is the staff who are so dedicated and compassionate. As it is in my area, I am not too surprised that that is the case.
I pay tribute to the victims, the families, the friends, the supporters and the campaigners because without their persistence and commitment I am not sure where we would be. I am saddened that the latest iteration of the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme still falls short of what the victims and their families have been expecting. We have to question why might that be—why is this the case?
The Government have had the chairman of the inquiry into this scandal, Sir Brian Langstaff, intervene to provide guidance in November 2024 and they have had months of further consultations, but still the victims and their families feel that they and their representatives have not been listened to properly. They still find that they face unacceptable provisions in the scheme, as has been explained by a number of hon. Members already, regarding matters such as adequate compensation for all classes of relatives of deceased victims, for the suffering stemming from treatments and for the periods of financial losses experienced. There are still huge difficulties with this scheme. They are feeling like they might be let down by this Government. I share their frustrations, as hon. Members can hear from the tone of my contribution today. Again I thank the Paymaster General for the fact that the Labour Government allocated £11 billion to compensate the victims, but the reality is that that compensation needs to get to those who justly deserve it.
In November 2024, I said in this House:
“The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 208.]
Many of the points have already been raised, but I am compelled to raise a number of the outstanding issues. The excellent work and the determination of the Paymaster General means that we are in the position that we are in today, with lots of progress made, and I thank him for his engagement with the infected blood community. There are a few points that I would like to raise. I want to talk about the changes many believe are still needed to the compensation scheme, about the pace of compensation and about the impact the compensation scheme is having.
Fundamental injustices clearly remain in the compensation scheme that I hope can still be addressed. Interferon treatment is still not properly recognised under the latest proposals. For example, people treated with interferon are excluded from the additional injury award if they later developed more severe conditions, like cirrhosis. That is supposed to reflect the fact that they are already compensated for a higher level of injury, but the harm caused by interferon treatment is distinct and additional to the harm caused by infection of any severity. It should be acknowledged in its own right. Will the Paymaster General look again at extending the additional injury award to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other conditions?
On estate claims, we are going to see families ending up with very different amounts of compensation depending on when their loved one died. In practice, that means that those who died earlier can end up worse off, which is ludicrous and perverse. It cannot be right that families receive less just because their loved one died before the scheme was up and running.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am going to try to make my intervention without crying. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impassioned speech. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and this subject came before us a couple of weeks ago when we examined the impact of the infected blood scandal as part of a much wider report on Government compensation schemes. These cases are always marked by a profound injustice, but nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the infected blood scandal. Each week people die before receiving the compensation they are promised, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a moral stain upon our country.
Ian Lavery
I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments.
On the estate claims, what has just been explained cannot be right, as the right hon. Member—sorry, I am promoting the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Sorry! The right hon. Member for New Forest East set that out. Will the Minister be able to announce a change of approach for the families who have already suffered so much, so that they are not penalised because of the date when their relative died?
Carer’s contributions still are not properly recognised in the way they should be. Many family members provided unpaid care for many years, putting their lives and careers on hold, as has already been mentioned. This is especially stark for children and young people who took on caring responsibilities that went far beyond what would normally be expected, often at real cost to their education, wellbeing and future prospects. The supplementary compensation route should be amended to recognise both the financial and personal losses of carers, as well as recognising the additional impact caring duties have placed on children.
To his credit, the Paymaster General has engaged with the community, parliamentarians and advocates. I know he will listen closely today, and I hope that there may be further changes before the next regulations are introduced. I hope that the latest proposals are not the last word and that we will ultimately have a scheme that is free from the clear inequities that I have already described.
The other top priority now must be for compensation to be delivered faster. We need to focus on delivery and accountability. Too many people are still waiting, and the system is not moving fast enough. Many people are wondering how long it will take for their cases to be considered if this pace remains the same. The scheme made some initial progress, but it now feels as if it has slighted stalled.
Most of the progress IBCA has made is among the most straightforward category of claims—living infected people who are already on a support scheme. We also need to see faster progress across all remaining categories of claims, including infected people who were never previously compensated, affected people and estate claims. A lot of those cases should be relatively straightforward, for example with many estate claims where probate is already in place and interim payments have been made. There is strong argument for prioritising those so families can get closure sooner. There is also a growing concern that IBCA’s test-and-learn approach is not working and is not delivering speed or fairness. Would it not be in most people’s best interests to deal with these straightforward cases rapidly so that thousands of people get closure and can move on with their lives?
The haemophilia centres do fantastic work, but ongoing operational problems in the regulations are causing avoidable delays and placing additional burdens on them. Clinicians and haemophilia centres are under real pressure as a result. Many are being asked for historical records that no longer exist, and the administrative burden of finding evidence and responding to IBCA is falling on already-stretched NHS teams. There are cases where centre staff, whose primary focus should be on the treatment and care of people with bleeding disorders, are working every weekend to keep on top of compensation administration.
It is important to note that haemophilia care is already facing challenges. The most recent peer review found major gaps, with 93% of haemophilia centres staffed below the target standard. Compensation claim admin should be properly resourced and funded through IBCA, rather than relying on haemophilia clinicians to pick up the slack. I hope that will be accepted by the Paymaster General.
Finally, will the Paymaster General clarify a point about regulation 12, regarding the switching of payments? Sean Cavens, a great campaigner who has suffered greatly as a result of this tragedy, thought it was possible to switch his payments. He is asking that if an individual is on yearly support payments, which were previously guaranteed for life, they can switch it to take a lump sum payment.
To clarify, Sean believed there would be an appropriate lump sum payment. However, he is 45 years of age. If he commuted his support payments to a lump sum payment, it would represent only four years of support payments. When was that changed? Surely it cannot be right that if somebody wants to transfer their support payments, basically forget about the situation and move on, they are not allowed more than four years of support payments as a lump sum.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). Where to start? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute on behalf of my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing and opening this debate and on all his sterling work.
Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have constituents who stick in my mind and who I want to stand up for. My constituent Robert Ellinor has given me a huge understanding of the terrible injustice in this particular area, just as the Webster family has done in your own constituency. I thank Robert, who is from East Grinstead and who I have known for some time. He has done sterling activity and parliamentary engagement on this subject, which affects him, and with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood.
I am keen to raise points on behalf of Josie, from Turners Hill, and her father, Andrew Quin. Much of what I will say today will be her words, on behalf of her father. It reflects much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, and it also reflects engagement that I have had with the Cabinet Office on behalf of Josie and her father.
Josie writes:
“I am writing to you as my family is one of the first 15 families to be asked to begin our compensation claim for the estate of an infected blood victim, this being my dad, Andrew Quin who passed away in May 2020.
We are now a few weeks into the claim process and frustratingly and sadly I feel my dad is being completely failed by the core route and I’m doubtful at this point that the proposed supplementary route is going to be any different, for the following reasons:
CORE ROUTE:
My father was infected with Hepatitis C and developed cirrhosis of the liver, we believe around 2017, which puts him in the severity level 3 of the core route.
However, in 2018 my father underwent a 12 week course of Harvoni Hep C treatment… after completion of the 12 week course, it not only failed but at the very same time, my father was also told he had developed Mantle Cell Lymphoma, which could have been a side effect of the Harvoni treatment or could have simply been caused by the Hep C.
My father was told he was too ill to undergo full chemo, due to his liver cirrhosis and other ailments caused by the Hep C, and so he did not have the required 2 rounds of chemo needed to qualify for severity level 4.
My father died on 16th May 2020 from Hep C liver cirrhosis and lymphoma.
What could possibly be more severe than the above?
To summarise, my father died because he was infected with Hep C, which caused liver cirrhosis and gave him lymphoma, ‘for which he was too ill to receive the required 2 rounds of chemo’ and consequently he died!
Yet my father does not qualify for the highest severity level 4?”
That is the highest severity level. Josie continues:
“Ironically, had my father’s health not been as severely impacted by the Hep C, he would have been well enough to have had the required 2 rounds of chemo, in order for him to qualify for severity level 4 of the compensation scheme, and may have even still been with us today!
I believe my father has been discriminated against for being ‘too ill to receive 2 rounds of chemo’, which I find utterly disgraceful!
SUPPLEMENTARY ROUTE:
The supplementary route, requires victims to have had at least 12 weeks’ treatment of Interferon, in order for them to be considered for the next severity level, this being a level 3 or a new level between 2 and 3. I strongly object to this as some victims, including my father, had such severe side effects, such as chronic depression and a mild heart attack, etc, that they were un-able to sustain 12 weeks of Interferon. Not that this would even benefit my father’s claim as he is already in severity level 3 due to him developing cirrhosis—i.e. the supplementary route is no help to my father either.
To summarise, once again, I believe victims who were too ill to sustain 12 weeks of interferon treatment are being discriminated against.
I do not believe anything could be more severe than the death of an infected blood victim—‘a death which was caused by their infection!’
At present neither the core route nor the supplementary route addresses this injustice.
I would sincerely appreciate your help and support in this matter—help to identify and rectify this injustice—in order to bring about the rightful justice the infected blood victims deserve.
As the family of an infected blood victim, we desperately want to put all the hurt and pain behind us, but we cannot do that if we are still discriminated against and unfairly treated.”
This week, Josie wrote to me again. She was very keen that I speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to her. She wrote:
“The letter you forwarded me from the Minister for the cabinet office stated that infected blood victims would not be discriminated against for not being well enough to receive treatment, however, IBCA will not recognise this despite my making them aware of what the Minister for the cabinet office stated in their letter.
IBCA have stated that in order for them to recognise this statement and not discriminate against victims who were not well enough to have treatment, this statement made by the Minister for the cabinet office would have to be made law.”
Josie urged me to raise this issue today in Parliament, on behalf of
“all the victims who were not well enough to receive treatment, because as it stands, victims who were not well enough to receive treatment and have died as a result of their infections will receive less compensation than those victims who were well enough to receive treatment and survived. I’m sure you will agree that this is an injustice and needs to be addressed”
today. Those are Josie’s words. She and families like hers must get justice and proper compensation, and must feel that the process works for them and reflects the impact on them and their loved ones. We know that all of this is so wrong; we must make it right. I hope that the Paymaster General can give Josie and many families like hers the comfort they deserve.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent work, and for securing another debate on this issue—an opportunity for us to speak up for our constituents and express our continued frustration at the pace and disparities of the roll-out of the compensation scheme. I pay a huge tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly for so many long years, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her sterling work.
Before I turn to concerns about the scheme, I want to take a moment to remind us of what an appalling scandal the infected blood scandal has been. It has absolutely ruined lives and destroyed families. It is appalling enough that people were infected in the first place, leaving them with lifelong health problems, and having a devastating impact on them and their families—but of course, that was compounded by the fact that they, and their families, were not told the truth; by the continued use of products after their risks had become known; by medical records going missing; by cover-ups, obfuscation and the deliberate withholding of information; by the stigma that surrounded HIV; by the limited treatments available; and by the endless delays in getting to where we are today. Hopes were raised, only to be dashed again. There was anticipation, expectation, and then disappointment. People have been waiting years and years for compensation. Many of the infected and affected have passed away before seeing any redress, but many are still waiting, wondering if they will get redress in their lifetime.
I turn to some specific issues and cases. I will mention three of my constituents, but we only get a tiny glimpse into their life; we can never know the anguish that they and their families have endured, the obstacles they have encountered, the continual battles they have had to fight just to live their life, or the injustice, anger and despair that they have felt. So often, we have felt inadequate as MPs; there was so little that we could do. Like them, we were waiting.
The mother of one of my constituents is 98 years old. She was only 52 when her son was infected; she has had to see him suffer, and she has cared for him. It has been 46 years, and she still has not received any redress or compensation. Let us remind ourselves of the trauma that mothers like her have lived through, seeing their children suffer and looking after them. I had understood that the older members of the affected community were to be prioritised, but just how old do you have to be? Is 98 not old enough to be a priority? Of course, any redress or compensation is totally inadequate in the light of what has happened, and can never make up for what the infected and their families have been through, but my constituent’s mother at least deserves recognition in her lifetime. They have still had no redress and no recognition, and the worry is that they may not even live to see it. I appreciate the arguments about getting the scheme right and learning the lessons from small numbers, but now really is the time to ramp up and speed up the roll-out of the compensation.
Another of my constituents was infected very young. Again, we can never know the anguish he and his family suffered, but because of his age, there was never any proper accounting for his earning potential—any recognition of what he would have achieved if his childhood had not been dominated and ruined by the very serious consequences of his infection. He quite rightly feels that it has all been too little, too late, and that the payments do not reflect what he has been through. Again, his family—his mother, his sister and his children—are still waiting, and no one is getting any younger. His case, as the person infected, is all documented, so surely it should not be difficult to deal with the family members who have been affected as a result of his being infected.
Then there is the family of Damian Lewis, who was infected with HIV in 1983 as the result of bone marrow treatment in a London hospital, and who subsequently developed AIDS and died in 1995, when he was just 19 years old. To compound matters, this was another case in which the parents, Brian and Joan, were not told straightaway what had really happened, and only found out the truth later. The impact of Damian’s infection on him and the family was devastating; his surviving twin brother tells how his parents never got over it. They had their lives destroyed by losing Damian. His mother Joan passed away in 2021—all those long years after Damian was infected—having seen only the first three years of the inquiry. She sacrificed her career as a nursing midwifery manager to look after him in his final years. Even after so many years, Damian’s family have never had redress or an apology. They never saw matters resolved, and as Joan passed away in 2021, her estate will never be eligible for any compensation, because claims can be made by estates only when the affected person dies between 20 May 2024 and 30 May 2031. That just seems so unfair, unjustifiable and morally wrong, particularly as there have been so many delays. Even now, the pace at which the affected are being dealt with is glacial.
Like so many others, Damian’s surviving twin is shocked at the disparity between the living infected and the infected who have passed away, who never received answers or redress. There are also disparities in the ways that the various family members are treated; there are substantial differences in the treatment of partners, parents, children and siblings, despite family members experiencing the same events and witnessing the same injury, suffering and injustice. He would like answers on these issues. Of course, while delays continue, those still waiting for payments see the worth of their entitlement eroded by inflation, and are missing out on the opportunity to earn interest on their money.
I turn to the current situation. We all appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard on this issue, and has secured £11 billion in funding for the scheme. He is the latest in a long line of Ministers dealing with this, and many of the delays happened before he was appointed, but nevertheless, he is the one who now has the power to expedite matters. The cry from everyone is: can we please speed up the process of payments? Can we avoid all the duplication, going back over records, and imposing unnecessary work on clinical staff? Some of the dates set out by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority feel light years away. It is not just that those affected are missing out financially; there is the psychological trauma of yet more delays, and the fact that they still cannot get closure. The infected, too, do not want to be forever simply getting the payments under their current scheme. They want the option of a lump sum—but above all, they want closure.
The affected also want proper redress and recognition of all that they have been through. Sir Brian Langstaff repeatedly made it clear that the affected should be able to make an application themselves, and should not have to wait to be invited to do so. Many of those involved have the documentation ready, and so much time, effort and cost could be saved by allowing them to make an application. Haemophilia Wales has assessed that it would be far simpler, and would save the Cabinet Office a lot of work, if those wishing to claim could put in their forms and get the necessary evidence together with the help of their lawyers, many of whom have been involved for many years. Instead, I understand that very well-meaning caseworkers who are new to the issues are having to ask for additional copies of documents, and are giving clinicians additional work. They are duplicating what has already been done, when many of those who have been waiting for compensation for many, many years have all that information ready. Will the Minister look seriously at this suggestion?
I understand that the legislation will include a supplementary route for those affected, which will give a 50% uplift. That recognises the unique and lasting impact on children and siblings affected while under the age of 18, bereaved parents whose infected child died under the age of 18, and bereaved partners. Can the Minister give us a timescale for that?
To conclude, what will the Minister do to speed up the roll-out of the payments to all those infected and affected? None of us should rest until every person infected or affected receives their entitlement.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I whole- heartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the customarily forthright and direct way in which he opened the debate. I agree with all the points he made; he would expect that of me, as his loyal deputy on the all-party parliamentary group. It is great that we have heard so many solid and significant contributions today.
Once we are a couple of hours into a debate, we start to get a feeling for how it is going, the emerging themes and the sense of direction. We all acknowledge and appreciate the huge progress that has been made. When I started out on this campaign more than 20 years ago, I would never have believed that we could get to this point, at which payments are being made to those impacted and those affected.
The Minister is starting to hear that the same issues are emerging. Constituents are experiencing the same complications and difficulties, and the same representations are being made. I will not touch on those, because so many have been raised, but I might just reinforce some of the points made. The Minister is beginning to hear a chorus of things that need to be addressed—and addressed they must be. We are on the cusp of having something of which we can be proud—of this House having addressed one of the biggest scandals that we have ever experienced in parliamentary life. We took control of it; we handled it; we got a report and an inquiry; and we got billions of pounds of compensation. We have the opportunity to pay that compensation right now, and I hope that the Government grab it.
I pay tribute to IBCA for the work that it has done. It is amazing that we have put together the infrastructure and a support scheme as quickly as we have. IBCA has done remarkable work in such a short time. It is starting to deliver, and I think we are all immensely pleased and proud that this House has collectively been able to construct it, and to make sure that it is functional and works. I have visited IBCA on a couple of occasions, and I have met the staff and discussed many of these issues with them. I recognise their sheer dedication to the work that they are pursuing, in the best interests of everybody whom they serve; and their commitment, as an arm’s length body.
It is amazing that we have got here, but it was not always like this. I remember what happened back in the early 2000s. I am looking at the chair of the APPG, my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, and he will remember this, too. We were fobbed off, disregarded and lied to when we took up the cases of our constituents. They presented to us at our various surgeries with these unexplained difficulties and complications. They would say, “How did I get HIV?”, or “I’ve got hepatitis. I do not know how on earth this happened.” We would write to successive Ministers in the Department of Health, making representations, and asking for assistance or acknowledgement, only to be told that they were not interested, and that there was nothing to see here. They would say, “Move along. We are not prepared to take this up. Believe me, we are doing everything in our power, and there’s really nothing to acknowledge.” For years, we were fobbed off and disregarded, and for years, we fought on.
Over the years, I have got to know the campaigners. They came together with a common purpose, determined to get to the heart of the issue and to support each other. We call them the community, and we could not find a better community than the campaigners who have led this, been at the forefront, and refused to accept “No”. They are people with different lives from different backgrounds, but they all carry the burden of what happened to them. All of them are still here, fighting the good fight, determined to get justice for the whole community, and that whole community is the key thing today.
I was the APPG chair for all those years, and the community has some of the finest people I have ever encountered. I have seen lots of campaigns in this House, and I have seen how people approach these issues, how they take them forward, how they engage and how they access their Members of Parliament to make sure that things are done. It is the most fantastic campaign we have ever had. Unfortunately, I could not make the ceremony at St Paul’s, as I was recovering from an illness, but I know from friends, colleagues and campaigners who were there the importance to them of that ceremony, where they were recognised as a community for their work.
There have been high points, and we should acknowledge that. Few of us would have expected Theresa May to have made the announcement back in 2017 that there was to be a full inquiry. A lot of us were surprised that she chose Sir Brian Langstaff to lead it, and lead it he did. Like many people in this debate, I listened to lots of the evidence in the inquiry sessions, and I cheered along with the community when the report was produced. I was in this House when the report was launched, and the Government took full responsibility and said that there would be a full repayment scheme and that people would get what they should. Those were great days, met with real enthusiasm and euphoria by those who have campaigned.
There have been good days, but we have to address the biggest issue. It has been mentioned on several occasions, so I will not labour the point, but people have been waiting decades. Even at this point, the majority of these people are still waiting just to start their claim. That is not to receive compensation—we might think that we would be at that stage now—but just to get into the system. Even at this stage, only a relatively small number have been paid. People have mentioned that these are real people—people who are unwell and who know that time is not on their side. I do not know which Member mentioned it, but people are dying weekly because they are not having their situation attended to and their payments made.
Families still have no clarity about when their case will move forward. That is made worse by what is being asked of them. I have been surprised—I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised this—that we see people being asked for evidence that in many cases simply does not exist. They have been asked for records from decades ago, such as proof of cohabitation between parents and children in the 1980s. Those things were probably never properly recorded in the first place, and if they had been, it may have been lost over time. That means that so many people are being delayed or sometimes shut out completely because they cannot meet requirements that are not realistic. In some cases, people run into a purely arbitrary administrative date, rather than when harm was actually suffered. Members have mentioned the bereaved families in whose cases support can stop at the point of death rather than reflecting the full impact of what has been lost.
Another theme that has developed—I think it was the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who raised this in particular—is the growing concern about those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. That has to be addressed. Of all the issues that have started to emerge, that is the one that the community in general wants us to press as strongly and as directly as we can with the Minister. I hope that we get some satisfaction.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reiterated that point, and I will do likewise. Many of my constituents who have been affected and infected by this scandal have asked me to emphasise the point that even the updated scheme does not properly recognise the long-term consequences of interferon treatment.
Pete Wishart
Interferon was introduced as almost like a chemotherapy drug back in the day, and some of its impacts and consequences have been similar to the side effects and impacts of chemotherapy. Physically and mentally, the effects are often severe and long-lasting. When the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can explain a little more about what he intends to do with this group and this community. The Government have introduced a new level 2B to recognise some of these harms, and my understanding is that it provides a temporary uplift, but it seems to apply only in certain circumstances. What it does not seem to do—I have read about it carefully—is reflect the long-term reality for many. The argument appears to be that the higher category covers just about everything else when it comes to interferon treatment for hepatitis C, and that levels 3 and 4 already take interferon into account. My colleagues in Haemophilia Scotland asked for the evidence showing how that was factored in, and none was provided, so can the Minister tell us a more about that evidence in relation to levels 3 and 4?
A similar set of concerns relate to unethical research, as we have heard. The Government have expanded eligibility and increased awards. That is welcome in principle, because it means that people are recognised without having to jump over additional evidential hurdles, but there is still a lack of clarity as to whether the level of award properly reflects what actually happened to people. The issue seems to be the arbitrary 1985 cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarity. Officials say that there is no evidence of unethical research beyond that point, but the inquiry itself referred to evidence beyond that date, and even up to the 1990s, of children being recruited without proper information or consent. Why did the Government arrive at 1985 as a cut-off date for eligibility for unethical research awards, given that there is evidence that unethical trials and research continued well into the 1990s?
There are also ongoing concerns about estate claims, because the structure of the payments could disadvantage those who died earlier, and about unpaid care over the years. That, again, has been reflected by several hon. Members.
A few people referred to some of the different schemes around the devolved nations. I am particularly proud of what we did in the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister will be aware of the bespoke schemes across the whole United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The one that particularly worked in Scotland—I want the Minister’s response regarding what has happened to it—is the special category mechanism known as the severely affected category. This was open to people who had significant problems and issues; they could apply, and were given an increased payout and support. That has since been subsumed under the general supplementary scheme; that scheme is welcome, but this is disadvantageous compared with the superior scheme in Scotland. Those who were initially on that superior scheme have been kept on it, but those who wished to apply for it have to go through bigger hoops and hurdles to get there. We need to know that scheme will still be available and that it will be easier for people to apply to it, because we were particularly pleased about the way it operated in Scotland.
Let me turn finally to accountability. Throughout the decades, the Government repeatedly dismissed those asking questions and trying to achieve justice. The final report acknowledged that the infected and the affected were fed lies and lines, and that serious concerns were dismissed outright. We have to address this. We cannot leave it. We have to look at how we get round some of the things that were encountered. I remember the letters I got from various Government Ministers: “The Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified.” I got that for years, every time I raised these issues on behalf of a constituent.
I listened carefully to the infected blood inquiry. The evidence I found most compelling was from a certain Andy Burnham, who was Health Minister at one point during that period—I believe he is in the news today for some other reason, not particularly related to this. I remember Andy Burnham candidly telling the inquiry that he now knew that the lines he had been given by senior officials in the civil service were wrong, and that he had sent lies to me and other Members who raised these issues in Parliament. That is what he said, in effect, in evidence to the inquiry. That is simply unacceptable.
The current Ministers are probably much better than their predecessors, and will look carefully at what comes across their desks, but this must not be allowed to happen again. That is why we need a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, including civil servants and senior civil servants. More than that, we need an independent compensation body to oversee all Government compensation schemes. Such a body would retain expertise and experience, would save time and money when schemes are set up, and would be capable of ramping up and down according to need. The Hillsborough law must be enacted without delay, introducing a duty of candour for everybody involved in public life. A national oversight mechanism should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the Government to account.
After all this, it is hard to believe that the first meeting I had about the issue was back in about 2004, with a lovely lady from Blairgowrie, in my old constituency. She came to see me in what could only be described as a hell of a state; she could not account for why she had HIV following a blood transfusion after a medical emergency. It was because of her that I started to get involved in all this, tried to find answers and tried to ensure that campaigners got justice. The name of that lady was Tricia Titheridge. After contracting HIV, she died in 2013, without seeing the huge progress that we have made. It is because of people like Tricia that we are all still here—still fighting to ensure that everybody is included and that there is a scheme that works for all our constituents. Looking at the Minister and knowing the qualities that he will bring to this job, I am pretty certain that he is going to be the man who delivers this for everybody, meets our concerns and looks at the difficulties we have presented today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate and speaking with such clarity, and so powerfully, in his opening address. I was contacted by my constituent Susan and her two daughters, including Louise, who I welcome to the Gallery today; they asked me to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to them for their fight and for bravely sharing their story with me. I will come to that story in a moment.
As has been said, the infected blood scandal is widely recognised as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. More than 25,000 people were infected with hepatitis C and, particularly tragically, more than 380 children were infected with HIV. I vividly remember meeting some of those impacted at an event with the phenomenal and unrelenting Hillsborough law coalition. A Hillsborough law is an important part of this debate, because this situation went from a tragedy to a scandal because of the way that patients and families were treated.
As I have said previously, all the campaigners and campaigns supporting the Hillsborough law are distinct. I got involved in the campaign for the Hillsborough law because I am a relative of Hugh Mullan, who was one of the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre, which was one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. He was shot in the abdomen and again in the back as he lay on the ground, giving the last rites to someone. I have watched my dad’s family fight for 50 years for truth and justice to be put on the record, and to be told that he was entirely innocent.
I have got to know many of the other campaigns involved: Margaret Aspinall and the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell families, those related to the Post Office Horizon campaign, and many others who are part of this coalition. Although they are distinct and come from different contexts, places and times, there are often many similarities in what happens to them. First, victims are dismissed, information is withheld from them and they are sometimes smeared. Secondly, the authorities close ranks, shutting off routes to justice—we have heard many of those stories from Members across the House. Thirdly, victims face a legal system in which the scales of justice are stacked in favour of the state. Justice for one of those campaigns requires justice for all. The Hillsborough law must be passed in full if we are to deliver that.
I echo the comments made by hon. Members across the House about learning from these injustices—we need to stop trying to recreate the wheel. We must learn from the processes around these scandals and the inquiries that take place; bringing that together with the Hillsborough law is a really important step.
I turn to my constituent Susan and her husband George. Let me tell the House what happened to George. George suffered from severe haemophilia A and type 1 diabetes, and died suddenly on 26 April 1978 at the age of just 33. It was only 41 years later, when the family were able to obtain his medical records in 2019 on hearing about the infected blood inquiry being set up, that they discovered he had been given factor VIII products for various operations at St Thomas’ hospital from 1976 onwards, including a product called Hemofil in January 1978. The records also show that he was regularly tested for hepatitis B antigens and that the test results were negative until October 1976—just six months after he was first treated with factor VIII.
George died in 1978 before hepatitis C had even been identified—no tests were available. The inquiry concluded, though, that essentially any haemophiliac given blood products in the 1970s would have been infected with hepatitis C. Susan, his wife, gave evidence to the infected blood inquiry in March 2020 with assistance and contributions from her daughters. They expressed their belief that infected blood products may have contributed to George’s death, in particular through his ability to respond to insulin for his diabetes.
Susan has just been informed by IBCA that it is ready to begin her claim. That is really positive, welcome news, especially as she is 80 and not in the best of health. Many hon. Members have mentioned that time is not on the side of victims and families and that an expedient process is really important. Susan has been told that she will be one of the first people to make a deceased infected person claim, and that her experience will help to improve the service for people who claim in the future.
However, Susan’s daughters and doubtless thousands of others affected by the scandal would like more information on when the further claims will be processed. They fully understand that those who are elderly or ill take priority and that IBCA can bring only small numbers of affected people into the scheme for now, but they would hugely value a more detailed timeline for when affected people’s claims will be addressed, even if that means distinguishing between months and years. I have also heard from other victims and victims’ families about the waiting. As Sir Brian Langstaff, the inquiry’s chair, stated in his address at the recent infected blood memorial service, people need greater transparency. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that.
Susan’s husband George was given products that the Government knew were not safe. His family were never made aware at any time that that was happening, nor that he was being tested for hepatitis. Reading about George’s experience and that of his family, and listening to the contributions made by hon. Members across the House, brings genuine anger. The state must ensure now that it does not fail victims and families again and that we make quick progress on this.
Susan had to wait over 40 years to find out the truth about her husband’s death, but she and thousands of others have still not been given closure. As the Haemophilia Society has laid out, first, psychological harm must be fairly and compassionately recognised. Secondly, the scheme must ensure that compensation to estates reflects the harm and loss suffered and removes the clear injustice of penalising those who died earlier. Thirdly, compensation must begin to be paid faster. Beyond that, as George’s daughter Louise, who is sat in the Gallery, said:
“A compensation payment is hugely significant not just for its monetary value, but as an acknowledgement that an injustice has been done, too”.
We talk about compensation, which is one component of redress. I have just spent the past year on Philomena’s law—I am proud to have brought it in—which has delivered justice for victims and survivors of Ireland’s cruel mother and baby homes, 13,000 of whom live in Britain today. I have met countless survivors, and what they say is that nothing can undo the wrongs done to them, but compensation is one important component of redress. The House will not deliver closure for those families until it is paid. A swift resolution to the compensation issue would help many like Susan to find some kind of ending to a very difficult process. The importance of acknowledgement of injustice and wrongdoing is a sentiment I hear echoed across much of the Hillsborough law coalition.
Time and again, we have seen the state engaged in David versus Goliath battles in which the state, flanked by an army of lawyers, takes on families who have scraped together enough for a single barrister. The state closes ranks and opportunities for justice are snuffed out. Even when there are admissions of guilt and wrongdoing, such as with the infected blood scandal, too often we see hesitation to implement the recommendations of public inquiries. As the Haemophilia Society also says, the Hillsborough law must be enacted in full, introducing a duty of candour for public officials to ensure that such scandals can never happen again. The Hillsborough law will also introduce a national oversight mechanism so that Governments are held to account in implementing the recommendations of public inquiries like that into infected blood.
We must deliver justice for those impacted by the infected blood scandal—we know that, for many, we do not have long to do so. We must also do all that we can to ensure that no scandal like what happened to George and his family can happen again. I have faith that the Government want to do that. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for securing the debate. While I urge the Government as a whole to go faster, I thank the Minister personally for all the tireless work he does on this issue.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
We find ourselves at a critical juncture in time as we approach the laying of the final amendments to the scheme in the fourth set of regulations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing the debate and all the work that he and the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood have done. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) who ably led the APPG previously for her years of tireless campaigning and to the Minister for the countless hours he has spent working on this issue and his willingness to engage with me and other hon. Members every time we speak to him.
The infected blood scandal has rightly been described by the chair of the infected blood inquiry Sir Brian Langstaff as the worst treatment disaster in the history of our national health service. Between the 1970s and the early 1990s, tens of thousands of people were knowingly exposed to unacceptable risks and infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. More than 30,000 patients received contaminated blood or clotting products, many of which were sourced from high-risk paid donors in the US, including prisoners and drug addicts. The result was catastrophic, claiming at least 2,900 lives. In some particularly horrifying cases, children as young as two were used as guinea pigs in clinical trials without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Doctors, the blood services and successive Governments did not put patient safety first. Many of those affected have had to live with the consequences of those failures for decades.
One such person is my constituent John, who I know will be watching the debate. Like many hepatitis C patients, John was initially unaware of his illness. Once he became symptomatic, he spent 40 years desperately trying to figure out what was causing myriad inexplicable symptoms. The impact that that search for answers has had on every aspect of his life cannot be overstated. It was only after a chance conversation several years ago when a doctor offhandedly asked if he had ever received a blood transfusion that the truth came to light.
John’s story is tragically mirrored in thousands of households across the country. The survivors and bereaved families have battled for justice for too long, but in May 2024 hope was brought to many of those homes when Sir Brian Langstaff delivered his landmark report. The previous Government committed to providing compensation to those infected and affected by this catastrophe, and this Government, on its election six weeks later, rightly set aside nearly £13 billion for compensation and rapidly launched a compensation scheme.
Yet as we stand here over two years on from that final report, that promise remains unfulfilled for the vast majority. The sense of exhaustion, anger and desperation within the community is palpable. These issues could have been mitigated if, as Sir Brian wrote,
“decisions about those who should receive compensation are not made without them.”
The minimal involvement of the people affected in the development of the compensation scheme has introduced problems and injustices.
The most urgent issue is the pace of delivery, which remains glacial. Out of 18,000 registered claims, just over 3,000 people have had compensation paid. Even more are still waiting to be invited to claim compensation. This has left tens of thousands of individuals in a state of agonising limbo, often in poor health and at the end of their lives, without any guidance about when their claim will start, praying that their case will be processed before it is too late. This is a particular concern for affected survivors who are unmarried and childless. The rule that their claim dies with them if they pass away before an offer is made is a source of total despair, and we must change it so that these claims become part of their estate. We cannot forget the stigma of HIV during this period and the impact that it would have had on victims’ personal lives. Will the Minister look at this, pressure the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to rapidly increase claims processing rates or provide additional resources for it to do so, and ensure that compensation payments are paid in line with the CPI measure of inflation?
I fear that there are a number of inequities in the composition of the scheme that must be addressed. Under a provision called the special category mechanism, people can claim additional compensation for the financial loss and care costs that they have occurred as a result of their infection. However, this additional compensation applied only from 2017—an arbitrary administrative date inherited from a previous support scheme. I strongly believe that people should be compensated from the day that their harm occurred. If the Minister could confirm whether his Department is looking into this matter, or provide the Government’s justifications for maintaining this cut-off either today or later in writing, it would be most welcome.
Furthermore, the evidential barriers placed before victims are often cruel and unnecessary. It is heartbreaking to hear of elderly mothers being asked to find 40-year-old school reports or GP letters to prove that they lived with children who died in the 1980s. These records often simply do not exist, and families are stuck in a loop of searching for the impossible while they themselves age and fall ill. We need a common-sense approach that relaxes these requirements, particularly for proven family relationships. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that the evidence requirements will be permissive and flexible to ensure that those eligible are not unduly excluded and to avoid retraumatising claimants.
In a recent report, the National Audit Office found that there is currently no dedicated team within Government that has central oversight or offers support to those setting up or administrating compensation schemes, and victims have no route for formal redress. I support the National Audit Office’s call for a central oversight body for compensation schemes, and I hope that the Government will respond to its report in due course.
The need for change is clear. Ultimately, there is only one way in which we can prevent a repeat of this sorry saga. I agree with others that we desperately need a Hillsborough law with a fully-fledged duty of candour to prevent institutional scandals and cover-ups from ruining even more people’s lives and to ensure that victims of the state get the justice they deserve at the time they need it.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his moving and powerful speech and for all the work he does with the APPG. I also want to put on the record my respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister and thank him for his and the Government’s efforts, which I think have been acknowledged across the House.
I have been contacted by a constituent of mine whose identity I am going to keep anonymous, and Members will therefore hear me using the pronoun “they” quite a lot. The crux of the issue is that after an operation in 1977, my constituent contracted hepatitis C. They are struggling to locate medical records, which is making it difficult to engage with the Skipton Fund or the English infected blood support scheme. The point about evidence has been made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). The concern here is that the records have been lost or destroyed, and there have been significant consequences for my constituent. They registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, but have not had any correspondence from the scheme.
My constituent believes that they received contaminated blood during an operation at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby in 1977 and was infected with hepatitis C. The hospital appears to have lost its notes of the operation, and both the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire have stated that any records of this operation have been destroyed. I want to put it on the record that I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the current staff of either hospital or the trust.
My constituent tried to claim from the Skipton Fund in the early 2000s, but was turned down for lack of evidence because of the need for hospital records. They then applied to the England infected blood support scheme, but this request for compensation was also declined due to lack of evidence. They have since tried to appeal this decision, but this appeal was, of course, rejected because of the requirement to present new evidence. My constituent is concerned that they may not be registered with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to receive compensation through the authority.
I have written to the Department of Health and Social Care about this case, and I would like to know the status of any intervention. I think it is worth the Department checking whether there is evidence that any other people who were treated by the Hospital of St Cross in my constituency in or around October 1977 were infected in the way that my constituent appears to have been. I am also keen to know what happened to my constituent’s records—how and why they were lost or destroyed.
Given that my constituent registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, I want to ensure that they receive the compensation they are owed. Could the Minister assure me that this case will be investigated and that my constituent will be updated on its progress, and that they will receive any compensation that they are owed? I will of course provide the Minister with details of this specific case.
Finally, I want to make a broader point that has been made by many other hon. Members across the House today. The duty of candour, which I am glad our Government are committed to bringing in through the Hillsborough law, cannot come into effect soon enough. Hopefully it will deter future examples of such egregious state failure as well as deterring such behaviour in the private sector, which the duty of candour will have some relevance to in certain circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have saved the best till last. I call Dr Peter Prinsley.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this debate, and the many hon. Members who have given marvellous speeches this afternoon. I am new to this debate in Parliament, but I am not new to this issue, for I remember the very first patients we infected with AIDS. In 1988, I was an ear, nose and throat registrar at the Royal Free hospital, right here in London. The Royal Free has a large haemophilia unit for the treatment of patients with bleeding disorders, which are caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood, as we have heard. Factor VIII was derived from pooled blood donations from donors in the United States—incidentally, people are paid to donate blood in the US, unlike here in the United Kingdom.
I wrote my very first scientific paper on the management of tonsillectomy in haemophilia patients. Who would believe that we would be brave enough to take out the tonsils of a patient with haemophilia? Well, we were able to do so. The patients we saw started dying, not of bleeding disorders but of the HIV with which we had unknowingly infected them. I met such patients over several years and then I stopped meeting them, because they had mostly died. Then we had hepatitis and deaths from cirrhosis and liver cancer, and still we have deaths and many bereaved families.
We doctors did not realise what we were doing to our patients until it was far too late. We cannot change history, however much we regret our actions, but there is surely something we can do, and do it we must. Our Government have committed billions of pounds to this scheme, and that is exactly right, but we must go faster. That is why we are having today’s debate. We are informed that thousands have yet to start a claim, and people are dying each week, so it is our duty to sort this out.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Prinsley, you have done yourself proud with that contribution. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The infected blood scandal, and the 30,000 or so people who were infected with HIV, hepatitis or both, have been discussed in this House many times, but the numbers—the sheer scale of the scandal—are still hard to comprehend. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid out the background compellingly at the start of this debate, and I congratulate him on securing it.
Other Members have spoken of perhaps the most horrifying element of the scandal: children were subjected to unsafe and unethical clinical testing in the 1970s and ’80s. This testing—this experimentation—continued for more than 15 years. It involved hundreds of people and infected most with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV. The trials involved children with blood clotting disorders, when families had often not consented to their taking part, and the majority of the children who were experimented on are now dead. It is not just about those who were infected, of course; the number of those affected by the scandal is far higher. Although we welcome the steps that the Government have taken in progressing the compensation scheme, it is clear that the job is not yet done.
The changes that the Government have brought in will mean more compensation for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal. Payments will be sent out to victims as part of the wider £11 billion-plus allocated by the Government in the 2024 Budget to compensate victims, but in the last two months to June, just 217 people have received compensation payments. At that rate, far too many victims will not receive their compensation by the 2029 deadline. The pace must increase—a point that has been well made in this debate by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), as well as others.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the improvements to the scheme that the Government set out earlier this year. These changes will hopefully deliver some of the justice that victims have been calling for, but there is clearly a strength of feeling that the scheme still does not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst laid out some of the well-founded concerns in opening the debate.
The failure to deliver the Hillsborough law has been raised by many Members from across the House, and they are right to do so. It would extend the duty of candour to all public officials, and it was a manifesto commitment from this Government. It is also a promise that has been repeated by the Prime Minister and several other Ministers since. Despite repeated talk of an “unwavering commitment”, this vital reform has still not been delivered, and we do not know when it will be. I would welcome any update that the Paymaster General could give on the progress that we might expect and when we might expect it.
With this scandal, as with too many others, the inability to deliver both timely compensation and complementary legislation extends people’s fears of a culture of cover-up. In so many instances we see the breakdown of trust between the people we represent and our politics, so delivering compensation at pace, and delivering the Hillsborough law, would be a statement of intent to change our political culture. It is one of the vital building blocks that can start to repair this House’s fractured relationship with the public—an essential step to recover trust. That is more vital today than at any other point in my lifetime.
Many Members have spoken of their constituents who have been impacted by this scandal. My constituent Catherine from Marple Bridge is one of so many who provided testimony to the compensation authority. She is a daughter handling the estate of her father, who was infected, and she is affected. Catherine’s thorough, detailed testimony was calm, thoughtful and delivered with remarkable clarity. It was testament to her strength of character. Last year’s damning report on compensation showed that not enough lessons had been learned, and survivors such as Catherine continue to be left out in the cold.
The impact of course extends to those who have lost family members to contaminated blood, such as Angus Lacey-Stewart, who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Angus’s dad and granddad both died due to health conditions caused by infected blood. Angus lost his dad prematurely, but he also told my hon. Friend how his dad’s infection at the age of 14 changed his dad’s life and robbed Angus of the relationship he might have wanted with his father, who suffered from poor mental and physical health. Angus understands that there are many claims and supports the prioritisation of infected claimants, but he cannot understand why he has been told not to expect payment until 2030. Angus told my hon. Friend that he
“feels let down and ignored by the Government”,
and he will not be alone.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in urging the Government to end the record of failure of successive Governments, and finally answer the needs of victims. We committed, along with others, in our 2019 manifesto to act on the inquiry’s recommendations,
“ensuring a just settlement for victims and their families”,
and we have voted in favour of legislation when it has been brought to this House. We encourage the Government to be as effective and visible as possible in the way they deliver the promised compensation scheme for the all-too-many victims. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must deliver on the start they have made to ensure full transparency on the progress of the scheme and open, ongoing and effective communication with all those affected.
I close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims and their families, and particularly the doughty campaigners who have worked for decades for the compensation and justice they deserve.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful, measured and often heartbreaking contributions. I would particularly mention the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing and leading this debate, and my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who spoke movingly about cases involving their constituents and the heartbreaking effects this scandal has had on them.
The infected blood scandal remains the most devastating treatment disaster in the history of our national health service. The scale of the tragedy—the lives cut short, the families shattered, the trust destroyed—is something this House and indeed the entire country must never forget. The victims of this scandal, those infected and those affected, have spent decades fighting the establishment for truth and justice. Now that the truth has been laid bare by Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry, it is the duty of the state—and that means all of us in this House—to deliver that justice without further delay.
It is entirely right that we begin by recognising the significant progress that has been made, because the establishment of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, with the commencement of actual payments, represents a monumental milestone in this decades-long journey. In doing so, I again place on record my profound gratitude for the foundational work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) when he was the Paymaster General. It was under his determined stewardship that the Government accepted the moral case for compensation and passed the legislation needed to establish the delivery body to administer this scheme. He faced an incredibly complex technical challenge, but his deep personal commitment to the infected and the affected communities ensured that the crucial groundwork, including the initial framework for multibillion-pound interim payments, was laid. I know that the Paymaster General and the dedicated civil servants at IBCA are building on that foundation and working intensely to stand up a complex compensation scheme from scratch. We welcome the fact that more than £2.1 billion has been paid out to more than 3,200 victims. For those living infected victims who are already registered with existing support schemes, these payments offer a long-overdue measure of financial security and tangible recognition of the horrific wrongs that they have endured. Getting billions of pounds out of the door to those who need it is no small administrative feat, and we support the progress that the Minister and the Government have made on that front.
However, it is exactly because we share the Government’s desire to see the scheme succeed that we must urgently raise the profound frustration being voiced by those who are still waiting. Progress for living infected victims on existing schemes has accelerated, but the reality for the thousands of affected victims and the estates of infected victims who have tragically passed away is still one of agonising delay.
Since the registration of intent opened, more than 18,500 registrations have been made, yet we know from IBCA’s own figures that the number of payments made to affected individuals—the widows, the widowers, the parents and the children of those who died—remains painfully low. The same is true for the number of payments to those claiming on behalf of deceased infected individuals. There have been thousands of registrations, but only a tiny fraction of claims from estates and affected people have been fully processed and paid. We hear from families across the country who feel that they are stuck in an unbearable limbo. They have watched the inquiry conclude; they have heard the apologies from the Dispatch Box; and they have seen the compensation scheme launched, yet they still wake up every day wondering when their claim will even be assessed.
For the families who have lost loved ones, time is a cruel companion. Of course, many of those waiting are now very elderly. Tragically, victims and affected family members are dying before they receive the compensation that they are owed. We must ask ourselves: what comfort is a compensation scheme if it arrives too late? IBCA has stated that it expects to bring in all currently registered claims from living infected people and estates by March 2027. We must push to see if that timeline can be safely accelerated, because for some, even next year is simply too far away. Of course, as more time passes, the real value of the offers reduces. Will the Minister look again at uprating payments in line with the consumer prices index, so that victims and their families are not financially disadvantaged because their claims take longer to process?
That brings me to a specific, acute concern that has been raised repeatedly by victims and their families, as well as by hon. Members today. It is one that I urge the Minister to address. It is the issue of the burden of proof, and the requirement to provide evidence that is, in many cases, practically impossible to access. Let me give the House a harrowing example. There are parents who suffered the unimaginable trauma of watching their children die as a result of infected blood products decades ago. Under the current requirements, some of those mothers and fathers are being told that for the claim to be processed, they must provide documentary evidence that they lived with their child at the time. Think about what is being asked here. We are asking grieving parents to source official paperwork from 40 or 50 years ago to prove that their own child lived under their roof. How many of us in this House could easily produce a four-decade-old document proving our living arrangements with our own families? It is not just an administrative burden; it is deeply distressing and re-traumatising. It makes victims feel as though they are not believed.
We see similar issues for estates; they are trying to track down decades-old medical records, or navigating complex probate rules relating to relatives who died in the 1980s or 1990s. We understand that the authority has a duty to protect public funds and to ensure that claims are valid. However, we cannot allow the pursuit of administrative perfection to become the enemy of compassion. When the state has been responsible for the systemic cover-up and destruction of medical records, as the inquiry so damningly revealed, it cannot turn around and demand that victims produce those same missing records.
The burden of proof must be relaxed. We must always be mindful that we are talking about huge sums of taxpayers’ money, but we need a system that operates on the balance of probabilities, applying flexibility, common sense, and, above all, humanity. We must allow caseworkers at IBCA to display the compassion that Members have spoken about this afternoon. I urge the Government to work with IBCA to review the evidence requirements immediately. We must empower caseworkers to make compassionate judgments, rather than forcing them to stick to rigid bureaucratic checklists that punish the victims of state failures.
I know that the Minister shares my desire to see this issue resolved, and the tone of our debate reflects the shared resolve of this House, but good intentions must translate into urgent operational improvements. We need to rapidly scale up the processing of claims for the affected and the estates. We need to ensure that the legal and administrative support that is provided to claimants is truly adequate to help them navigate the hurdles without adding to their distress. The Opposition stand ready to support the Government on any measures needed to expedite the process. We will vote for the necessary resources, support the necessary regulations, and work collaboratively to remove any legislative hurdles.
For more than 50 years, the victims of the infected blood scandal were ignored, gaslit and denied justice. This Parliament promised to do everything that we could to right that wrong. Significant progress has been made; we praise those who have worked hard to deliver it and, above all, the incredible work of the many victims and their families over many years, but our promise is not kept until the final payments are made, until the grieving mother is recognised, and until the families who lost everything finally see the tangible justice that they have fought their entire lives to achieve.
Let us work together, across the political divide, to tear down the remaining bureaucratic barriers. Let us push IBCA to move faster, to act with maximum compassion, and to finally close this darkest of chapters with the dignity and urgency that the victims so deeply deserve.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a solemn privilege to close this debate, which has been extraordinarily moving. I start by paying tribute to the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). Whenever I see him, he says that he is the person to ask me the awkward questions—quite rightly. He always does so with great courtesy, and he speaks with great passion on behalf of the infected blood community. As has been recognised across the House, he does remarkable work as chair of the APPG. He has an able and loyal deputy in the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who supports that work and puts a great deal of time into it.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for the tone of his remarks. I echo what he said about the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who I worked with and faced across the Dispatch Box when I was the shadow; he has continued that work since. I also thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for the constructive tone that she took.
I thank the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and for Rugby (John Slinger). They all made significant contributions and spoke powerfully on behalf of their constituents.
At the outset, I make the general point that many moving individual cases have been raised in this debate, as well as some specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington raised the case of Sean Cavens, on whose behalf he has spoken many times. To be clear, the change that I made in the third set of regulations allows someone to switch from receiving support scheme or periodic payments to a lump sum. I am concerned to hear what he has said is happening to Sean. I say to my hon. Friend and others that they should follow up this debate with details, so that I can come back to them. I would say exactly the same thing to the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. I was very moved, listening to her talk about her constituent Josie. I remember writing to the hon. Lady about that case, so I would very much like the details of what has happened in that claim process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East spoke movingly about the Smith family. Their dignity in the face of extraordinary grief after the loss of Colin has been nothing short of inspirational over the years, and my hon. Friend speaks very powerfully for them. I note that some constituents, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, would prefer not to be named, and I completely understand that, but I would be very grateful for the details of their cases.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who spoke about his constituent Susan and her two daughters, one of whom, Louise, is in the Public Gallery. He spoke powerfully in memory of George. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does for them. It is very meaningful that the family have come along to the debate; I am grateful for their time this afternoon.
More broadly, I want to mark all the progress that has been made. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, this scandal was decades in the making, and many decades passed before any form of acknowledgement or justice started to be delivered. As has been pointed out, over £2.7 billion of compensation offers have been made, and more than £2.1 billion has been paid in compensation.
Members have quite rightly sought to hold me to account today on speed of delivery, and I will come back to that in a moment, but we should acknowledge in this debate those who waited so long, especially those who are no longer with us. We owe it to them to take the time to recognise the hardships that they suffered. We must also recognise the extraordinary resolve of the infected blood community.
The topic has been debated many times in this House, and I hope that Members will have seen that I always try to make every effort to be here for the debates. I think it is important that I personally hear what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) brought forward her amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023, I supported it, while in opposition.
Driving forward this work has been a key priority for the Government. Since I became the Minister responsible for this issue, I have brought three sets of regulations before the House. Most recently, we held a public consultation that asked for feedback on proposed changes to the compensation scheme, and I updated the House in April with the changes that the Government will be putting in place. I will shortly bring before the House a fourth set of regulations to make those legislative changes, and I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for saying that his party will support those regulations.
The compensation scheme is rightly the largest that any Government have ever launched. Alongside the £1.4 billion of interim payments, over £2.1 billion has now been paid out, but I totally recognise and hear that there is still a great deal of work to be done. Let me pick up the issue of IBCA’s approach to payments. IBCA is operationally independent, and it is very important that it is, given Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. That said, IBCA uses a test-and-learn approach to delivery. That means that at the start of a process, the numbers are small, but then there will be an exponential increase. That is what happened with the number of infected people who were paid towards the end of 2025.
As the House has rightly observed, the target of paying the first affected person before the end of 2025 was met, but the affected numbers are relatively small at the moment because they will go into that exponential phase. As I have said to the House before on many occasions, yes, we have what I call the backstops, which are the bulk of infected people being paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people being paid by the end of 2029, but those are not targets. I stand ready to assist IBCA to ensure that we can drive forward with delivery as quickly as possible. The reason the numbers of affected people are small is precisely because of the test-and-learn approach, and I will hold IBCA to account on the moment at which the speed of those payments increases.
I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s office in Newcastle. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have reflected today, the claims managers and the staff are dedicated and diligent, and are certainly building a system that, I believe, is sympathetic. I will be frank with the House: I am troubled by some of the contributions that have mentioned the level of evidence being required, and I say that for two reasons. First, there is often an ask for evidence of things that happened a long time ago, and secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry that there was deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons, I have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that I expect not just a sympathetic approach to evidence but some assistance and pointers as to where evidence, if required, might be obtained. I hope that when Members write to me about individual cases, they give me specific examples of where there have been issues regarding the level of evidence. I am more than happy to take up that issue.
I have set up a new feedback mechanism for the scheme. That was one of the things that I was expected to do, and Sir Brian Langstaff was clear that he expected that to be done. I was not prepared to just create some sort of correspondence-sifting mechanism; I wanted to create a system whereby the concerns raised went to the appropriate level. In some cases that will be IBCA’s board, but in others it will be things that have to be elevated back to the Cabinet Office and to me. I expect to publish the first quarterly summary of issues raised through the mechanism in early July, but I will continue to push forward to ensure that it is working in the way it should and that victims have a voice going forward.
I will try and go through the different themes.
Clive Efford
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend to move things forward. When he receives representations from the infected and affected community, how does he intend to put those into effect and change the compensation process? That is what they approach us about and we are all raising a number of those representations, asking for changes in the regulations he is about to lay before the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It depends on the nature of the change. For example, on the issue being described as burden of proof, I have already repeatedly mentioned from the Dispatch Box the sympathetic approach that I expect. It depends on the specific issue being raised. In some cases, they will be things that I expect IBCA’s board, rather than me as a Minister, to deal with. The point is that I want the issue raised to go to the appropriate level to ensure that it has an appropriate response. We will see how the mechanism works, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the all-party parliamentary group, will start to see people having experience of it. I will be interested to hear that feedback.
Unethical research has been raised across the House today. I do not think that any amount of money could ever make up for the experimentation on children that happened as a consequence of this scandal. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who represents Treloar’s, will be aware from his constituents of how frankly heinous the situation was.
When I became the responsible Minister, I accepted a recommendation—it was one of the first things across my desk—from Sir Robert Francis, who had conducted a review of the scheme. He recommended that there should be an amount of money that does not in any sense reflect the totality of the harm done, but that is there, as an amount within a much larger amount, as a marker of what was particularly heinous in the experimentation. That is the context behind the unethical research awards; they were lower sums than those before the House today, but I accepted the recommendation because I thought it important to have that in the scheme. The amounts that we see are not the totality of the settlement.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East asked about the differences between the compensation awarded to living and deceased infected people. I recognise that financial loss awards may be lower for awards to estates— I think that was his point—but that is because the future financial losses for estate claims are paid to the infected person’s dependants rather than the estate.
A point was made about psychiatric disorders. The Government have certainly been looking at how to make the severe health condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible, with a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence—these are such difficult issues—such as suicide to qualify for the award, but in my view imposing a retraumatising requirement would place an unconscionable burden on families who have already been through decades of mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the Government have to ensure that no mechanism or award criterion inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people. Instead, the new special category mechanism of a severe health condition award allows applicants to access more compensation for mental health problems that they have experienced, in excess of the core route—without, I repeat, an unreasonable ask for evidence.
A really important point was raised about the recognition of carers. The care award is provided to a person making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person’s estate. A living infected person claiming compensation can, however, instruct IBCA to pay all or some of the award to an eligible affected person who provided them with care.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about criminal prosecutions. The House will realise that it is not for me as a Minister, or indeed for any other Minister, to make prosecutorial decisions—that is rightly independent of Government and is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service—but I thought that the House would welcome an update.
Given the nationwide scope of the independent infected blood inquiry, and in the absence of a clear lead police force, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged experienced senior investigators to conduct a review of the available evidence. They have been assessing extensive information provided by the inquiry, which has been supporting the investigation fully, and legal advice to look at next steps.
In March, I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to reaffirm my and the Government’s commitment to make any and all relevant information around the infected blood inquiry available to the prosecuting authorities, where requested, so that an informed decision could be based on the evidence. In May, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire may already be aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published a statement that its initial review, which focused on events at Treloar’s, did not provide sufficient information for a viable criminal investigation. However, terms of reference are now being developed for a further review of the remaining chapters. Decisions on that investigation and the timeframe are obviously for the NPCC, but the House should be assured that I stand ready to assist in providing evidence in any way possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli asked about the eligibility of affected estates. It is right that following the inquiry’s additional report, we have amended the scheme so that the estate of a deceased affected person is now eligible to claim compensation where an affected person passed away between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031. The recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff was a cut-off of 31 December 2029, but we have actually extended that a couple of years further.
The issue of interferon was raised by a number of Members. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to introduce a new higher level award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level 2b core compensation award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment and will be available to anyone treated with interferon who would otherwise be receiving a level 2 award. I did not recognise the point made by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield about a 12-week minimum, but when I look at the detail of the case, I can look into that.
The point being made to me was twofold. The first point about evidence and transparency was made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. A technical expert group gives advice to Government. One of the things I have said is that we need transparency on its members, its minutes and its evidence, and my attitude is that we should publish it so that it is out there and people can see it. The second point about the long-term impact was raised by a couple of Members. If someone has experienced long-term impacts following interferon treatment that have impacted on their ability to work or their need for care, they may be eligible for additional compensation through the special category mechanism severe health condition award. That ensures that those with long-term side effects receive additional financial support.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is no longer in her place, raised a point about inheritance tax and secondary transfers. That is a matter that I hope I have rectified and that was announced in the Budget last year, but I will certainly follow up with her on the specific case that she raised.
A number of Members mentioned the duty of candour. The House should be in no doubt about my commitment to the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. I believe that we are well over 90% of the way there. As the House has been told in previous updates, the outstanding issue on the Hillsborough law is how exactly we strike that balance between a duty of candour and the work of the security and intelligence services, but I am very confident that we can resolve that satisfactorily. I look forward to driving forward the work on the Hillsborough law, which will be a landmark moment in terms of the legal duty that we are talking about in this House.
When we think of so many of the scandals that have come before us, even in my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, they all have a similarity. Sir Brian Langstaff said in his inquiry that it was not really about specific people who were involved in a conspiracy—if that was the case, we could identify them and they could be prosecuted. He said it was about a culture of institutional defensiveness—that, actually, what people do when terrible things happen is to protect either their own reputation or the reputation of the institution in which they serve. We will have a landmark moment when that law goes on the statute book, but beyond that there will be a need to drive cultural change to ensure that terrible scandals such as this do not happen in the future.
This compensation scheme exists because it is absolutely the right thing to do, but it exists because of the way that campaigners over many, many years continued in the face of state denial to drive this forward because of their suffering and that of their families. We cannot in this House change the past, but we certainly can mark it and remember it. It was a solemn privilege for me to attend the service of remembrance organised by the Infected Blood Memorial Committee in St Paul’s cathedral last month. It was designed by the community, for the community, and it was a profoundly moving moment, and I was privileged to speak to the members of the committee, very ably chaired by Clive Smith. They are continuing their important work towards a national memorial, and I know they take a very open approach to seeking the community’s views at every opportunity.
For me, that service of remembrance underscored the importance of getting this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge pointed out, it is absolutely crucial to get the compensation scheme right, but it is one of a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. We owe it collectively as a House to get that right for future generations, to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. I believe that is the very least we can do.
Clive Efford
I will not detain the House for long. I just want to thank everyone who contributed to the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful consideration of all the points raised. I just have one request: could I meet with him before he lays the regulations, so that we can discuss some of the issues raised today?
I thank again everyone who contributed to the debate. I hope we have done justice to the people who are concerned about this issue, and to the infected and the affected who are watching the proceedings today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could assist the House. The Department for Transport has this afternoon published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, the HENPS, alongside supporting documents in a major consultation. Given the significance of this decision, with implications for communities across a wide area, for the Government’s own climate commitments and for connectivity across the whole of the United Kingdom, could you confirm whether the Secretary of State for Transport has given any indication to Mr Speaker that she intends to come to this House to make an oral statement? If not, do you agree that this House ought to expect the Government to come here first, rather than learning of major consultations through a written ministerial statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. The House knows that I have no power to compel a Minister to make a statement, but Mr Speaker has repeatedly stated how important it is that significant announcements are made here in this House first. Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member and I, and no doubt they will respond in due course.
The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has also informed Mr Speaker that she will not proceed today with her debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking.
Warehouse development in Pilning
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The lives of people in and around Pilning are blighted by giant warehouses being built under outdated 1950s planning consents, which lack modern safeguards. The Severnside Warehouse Action group has already presented a petition with over 2,500 signatures to South Gloucestershire council, and it now has over 3,500 signatures online. However, primary legislation is needed to resolve the problem. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the planning authorities to revoke the 1957 planning consent for warehouse developments in Pilning, or to amend it as soon as possible to include appropriate conditions and restrictions to protect local communities.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the ongoing warehouse development in Pilning is having a major and lasting detrimental impact on local communities, including through loss of countryside, increasing noise levels, light pollution, a real risk of flooding, a big increase in traffic, and the devaluation of property prices; further declares that the development is taking place without any meaningful conditions or restrictions and without consultation with residents, as developers are relying on a planning consent dating from 1957; and further declares that this is a unique situation with a planning consent that was given nearly seventy years ago no longer fit for purpose in 2026.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the planning authorities to revoke the 1957 planning consent for warehouse developments in Pilning or to amend it as soon as possible to include appropriate conditions and restrictions to protect local communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003210]
River Otter: Sewage Pollution
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of sewage pollution in the River Otter, a river that flows through many of the Devon communities that I represent.
I should say at the outset that, this morning, I declined an offer of hospitality from the new chief executive of South West Water and its parent company Pennon Group. They offered breakfast in Parliament, but I did not accept as I was here, in the Chamber, trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye to talk about the Jurassic coast UNESCO world heritage site, and it is helpful that I will get to talk a little bit about that now. My office has written back to South West Water to request a separate meeting with the chief executive to talk through some of the issues that I will raise in the debate. In fairness, the debate is also about issues that apply across the water industry, not just with Pennon Group.
I pay tribute to the more than 75 water testers, campaigners and citizen scientists of the Otter River Catchment Action group—ORCA. The ORCA group developed out of the Otter Valley Association, and it has devoted almost as many hours to understanding and protecting the cherished River Otter as there have been hours of sewage spills into that river, which is saying something. The work of ORCA has provided much of the evidence in my contribution. The dedication of the ORCA volunteers represents the very best of self-organised civic community action and public service.
In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Bruce McGlashan, who passed away suddenly in April this year, just days after ORCA hosted a public meeting at The Institute in Ottery St Mary. Bruce brought to ORCA his experience of having been a manager at the Environment Agency for 30 years. He was also secretary of the River Otter Fisheries Association. Bruce was central to ORCA, and helped us to correspond with South West Water and the Environment Agency. It is hard to believe that he, Peter Williams and I stood on the shingle outside the Otter Inn at Honiton, after a meeting with the Environment Agency, just days before Bruce died. He should have lived to see the River Otter returned to full ecological health.
The Otter should be one of England’s ecological success stories. It runs through a beautiful valley in Devon that supports agriculture, tourism and recreation, and ought to be a rich and diverse habitat. Yet today, most sections of the Otter and its key tributary, the Wolf, are classified by the Environment Agency as having poor ecological status. That places the rivers within the 20% of water bodies with the poorest ecological status in the country. This issue does not just concern the local environment: it also concerns public health and infrastructure, and it is increasingly a question of public trust in the Government’s ability to regulate companies that provide utilities properly.
The facts on the ground are damning. Data obtained from South West Water through freedom of information and environmental information regulation requests reveal an alarming picture of bacterial contamination in the River Otter. Between November 2024 and May 2025, average daily levels of E. coli measured in the river were five times higher than the acceptable level for safe swimming. After periods of rainfall, those levels spiked up to 100 times the safe limit, remaining at increased levels for days or weeks at a time. During the period analysed, E. coli levels exceeded the safe swimming limit on more than 90% of days.
Budleigh Salterton, where the river meets the sea, lost its blue flag status this year because of a deterioration in water quality. Following the loss of that blue flag status, South West Water stated publicly that the E. coli levels at Budleigh’s beach
“could be caused by birdlife in the new Otter Nature Reserve”.
However, ORCA samples from the mouth of the River Otter show E. coli surges correlate with surges upstream of the nature reserve.
We should be honest about the scale of the sewage problem. This challenge is made more difficult by the fact that regular monitoring has been limited. Until recently, nobody was routinely measuring E. coli levels along the River Otter. ORCA volunteers are collecting samples every two weeks. They do so at three locations along the river, building a much-needed evidence base to understand pollution levels, rainfall impacts and likely sources of contamination.
In 2024, South West Water released untreated sewage into the River Otter for more than 9,500 hours. In terms of duration, that is three times more untreated sewage hours spilled into the River Otter than into Exmouth bay. In 2025, more than 8,000 hours of untreated sewage were discharged into the river and its tributaries, following hundreds of monitored sewage overflow events. Untreated sewage is entering the river on a routine basis, and at a scale that cannot be dismissed as a consequence of exceptional weather.
Phosphate pollution further damages the river’s ecology. High concentrations of phosphate cause algal bloom and eutrophication and reduce oxygen levels in the water, causing significant harm to aquatic plants, fish and wildlife. The evidence gathered by ORCA is striking; its monitoring suggests that the presence of a single sewage treatment works on the river can increase harmful phosphate concentrations in the river by around 80% during the summer months. Its testing indicates that around 70% of phosphate found in the middle and lower River Otter can be attributed not to agricultural pollution, but to treated sewage effluent.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this situation is the gap between the pledges we have received from South West Water and the delivery we have seen on them. In August and October 2025, South West Water’s then CEO, Susan Davy, publicly committed to three critical objectives for the River Otter by the end of 2029, which I will quote. The first objective is that
“any storm overflow that is persistently releasing more than 20 times a year will be tackled following investigation of the cause”.
The second objective is that
“where our assets are not performing as they should, or where they are causing environmental harm, we will act”.
The third objective states:
“As part of our 2025–2030 investment programme, we’re targeting improvements across the Otter catchment—including at Ottery St Mary—to reduce storm overflow use, and lower phosphate in our treated discharges”.
At the time, those commitments were welcome, but residents are entitled to ask what progress has been made in the last year. First, at the 11 worst discharge points along the river, there was still an average of 67 untreated discharges in 2025. That is not fewer than the 20 that we were pledged. Secondly, South West Water has published only a limited programme of what it describes as “tactical improvements”. That is hardly action.
Thirdly, despite repeated engagement from local campaigners and community groups, South West Water currently has no scheme to remove phosphate from treated effluent by 2030 and no published plan to meet the commitments made by the former chief exec. There was a time when South West Water talked about a phosphate reduction scheme for Honiton sewage treatment works, which would have removed 35% of all South West Water-sourced phosphate before 2030. According to South West Water more recently, the scheme
“had been removed from the 2025-2030 plan.”
Another consequence of sewage pollution is its impact on housing developments. East Devon district council commissioned a water cycle study as part of its local plan. Honiton sewage treatment works—the largest treatment works on the river—is already operating at 40% above capacity. That is projected to rise to 73% above capacity when future building plans are taken into account.
The council’s report identified many serious failings in South West Water’s sewage infrastructure in the River Otter catchment. That includes failings at three major sewage works that are already operating in excess of their capacity. Their excess untreated sewage is being discharged regularly into the River Otter. Effectively, South West Water has been using the River Otter as a conveyor—a free, open, half-pipe sewer—resulting in significant environmental harm. The council’s report was plain that new housing approvals will require that South West Water delivers suitable additional treatment capacity.
The costs of inaction are mounting: we have environmental degradation, risks to public health, constraints on housing, additional pressure being added by new housing, and growing public frustration.
Residents ask a simple question: why must local communities accept continuing environmental damage, rising bills, and insufficient investment in the infrastructure required to clean up this mess?
According to Ofwat’s most recent water company performance report from 2024-25, South West Water had 108 pollution incidents per 10,000 km of sewer, based on self-reported data—more than double the average for the sector. In fact, South West Water failed to meet its own performance targets for pollution incidents for each of the five years of the 2020-25 period. ORCA’s trained citizen scientists have logged over 2,800 individual tests and observations, whereas the Environment Agency carried out 24 location tests on the River Otter over that period. The public should not have to rely on volunteers to provide the evidence base for environmental protection. The volunteer action we have seen is invaluable, but safeguarding rivers must be the responsibility of water companies, regulators and, ultimately, the Government.
Are we going to have to wait years for the Otter to be coaxed back to health? What specific measures to address these local issues might we see in the Government’s upcoming clean water Bill? Residents of towns and villages across this corner of Devon would love to know. Over 50,000 people have signed a petition that was initiated in February by Marc Astley. Marc lives in Ottery St Mary, and he and his family put together a petition stating that
“if environmental standards aren’t being met, executives shouldn’t be receiving bonuses. The government has introduced new powers intended to block payouts when environmental performance fails…But loopholes remain—rewards can still be restructured as retention payments or routed through parent companies. To the public, that looks like bonuses by another name…The end goal is clear: close the loopholes and link executive rewards directly to measurable environmental outcomes—cleaner rivers, healthier seas and fewer sewage discharges.”
I know that the Minister also wants to see cleaner rivers and seas, and that she is committed to her brief. Can she confirm to the more than 50,000 people who signed that petition that those loopholes will be closed by new legislation?
The River Otter is not a cost-free extension of the sewerage infrastructure network that enables bill hikes and increased shareholder returns. It is supposed to offer a living ecosystem, a valued recreational resource, and an integral part of the lives of the people who live in east Devon. The people who live along the banks of the Otter are not asking for miracles; they are asking for honest monitoring, adequate infrastructure and accountability, with pledged commitments being met. The River Otter can recover—we have seen elsewhere that targeted investment in treatment infrastructure and phosphate removal can make a real difference—but recovery will require urgency, transparency, and a willingness to move beyond promises and towards delivery. Bruce McGlashan’s legacy will live on if the polluters, the regulators and we Members listen to, and act on, the citizen science carried out by the volunteers I represent today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to respond to this afternoon’s debate on behalf of my colleague the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sadly unable to be with us because she is attending an international conference on the marine environment. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for raising this important issue.
This Government are absolutely determined to fix our broken water system. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly set out, the situation we inherited was one where pollution warnings and sewage discharges were commonplace; where regulation was stripped back; where water companies were allowed to mark their own homework; and where there were simply no penalties for failure, with incompetence and pollution rewarded. That stopped with this Labour Government. Not only have we taken action over the past two years; we have seen action this week, with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sending a letter to the regulator about the investment plans for Thames Water. That action is ongoing.
The River Otter reflects the previous failure. It is poor in the upper reaches, has moderate water quality in the middle and is poor again downstream, with excessive nutrient levels across the catchment. South West Water has not met the standards that people rightly expect. At Honiton, the sewage treatment works has exceeded its permitted flow limits and its performance has fallen short. That is not acceptable, because rivers like the Otter are not lines on maps; they are places where families walk, children explore, and where our nature and wildlife thrive. They are part of our shared national inheritance, and they deserve better.
We recognise that nutrient levels in the River Otter are too high. That leads to excessive algal growth that harms local wildlife, and the Environment Agency has, under this Government, stepped in, challenging South West Water, increasing oversight and requiring improvements. South West Water has had to fix failures in how it monitors and manages its network. Spill levels, as the hon. Member has set out, have been unacceptably high at some sites. Regulators have made it clear that that must improve. We are seeing early improvements, but there is still much more to be done, and we will hold South West Water to account until it delivers.
The Environment Agency is expanding monitoring of the river, and it welcomes the support of local groups, including the Otter Valley Association and Otter River Catchment Action, ORCA. I echo the hon. Member’s tributes to Bruce McGlashan. After 32 years working for the Environment Agency, he retired and had to carry on doing what he was doing as an Environment Agency officer. I send my condolences to his family. I pay tribute to Peter Williams, too—I thank them both for their incredible efforts. I watched the “Dirty Business” documentary about the water industry, and was absolutely furious, seeing the scale of deregulation under the previous Government. Of course, the water companies could do their data dumps, but without a PhD in mathematics, no one could reverse-engineer the maths to see what was really happening.
There are arguments about the data and the sources, which I will come to, but I first put on record my thanks to those people for their work collecting data, raising concerns and building the evidence needed to drive positive change. I pay tribute to similar groups up and down the country who are helping us to hold polluters to account. We will secure a fair deal for customers, we will rebuild public trust, and we will protect the environment to support health, nature and our economy.
The Environment Agency has identified agriculture as the largest source of pollution in the Otter, and we are taking action to tackle it. We are creating a single, clear set of rules for farmers. We are doubling farm inspections, enabling at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, while working with farmers to raise their standards. That is an increase from around 700 inspections in 2021. We are increasing funding for environmental land management schemes from £800 million in 2023-24 to £2 billion by 2028-29. That funding targets crucial issues, such as improving water quality.
We are also taking decisive action on sewage pollution, strengthening enforcement and holding water companies to account. We have £104 billion of private investment from water companies to upgrade our ageing, creaking, leaking water infrastructure. That includes more than £10 billion to improve around 2,500 storm overflows in England by 2030 and £4.5 billion to reduce nutrient pollution over the same period, including upgrades to nutrient removal at Feniton treatment works. We have set a target in our environmental improvement plan to reduce phosphorus from waste water by 55% by 2030, putting us on track for an 80% reduction by 2038. We are well on our way to delivering that, and phosphorus removal improvements were completed at Churchinford treatment works in 2024.
We are requiring water companies to ringfence investment so that it is spent on infrastructure upgrades and not diverted elsewhere, and we have, as the hon. Member notes, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards and enforce accountability. As of 1 April 2026, water companies must publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. Under the previous Government, reduction plans were voluntary. Now they are mandatory and public, so that everyone can see what the water companies have set out to do.
The Act introduced a requirement for spill monitoring at all emergency overflows, matching the pre-existing requirement to monitor discharges from storm overflows—those are two separate things. It has also given regulators powers to ban bonuses for executives at failing water companies and pursue criminal charges against bosses where needed. We have already stopped more than £4 million in bonuses for the bosses of polluting water companies. This month, we fined South West Water more than £1.8 million after the Brixham water supply incident, which involved cryptosporidium from agricultural run-off. That is a record penalty for a drinking water offence, reflecting the seriousness of the company’s failure. Where water companies fail, this Government act.
I am concerned to learn that South West Water has made statements to local communities that did not accurately reflect the full position. In relation to Honiton, the company told a local group that it had sought a tighter permit limit. That was incorrect. The Environment Agency challenged that directly. The company has since acknowledged that its statement was not a true reflection of events, apologised and committed to issuing a formal retraction. This is what accountability looks like, and we will continue to enforce it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can reassure Marc Astley and the 50,000 petitioners that we are taking action to tackle bonuses given through back-door retention payments. Companies must comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
I am also concerned to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the gorgeous beach at Budleigh Salterton has lost its blue flag status, given that it is a designated bathing water site. We have designated more sites in order to force water companies to up their game, but this is not how it is supposed to happen; beaches are not supposed to lose their blue flags. We will look into that issue.
Unlike the previous Government, we are committed to stopping pollution before it starts. If we take rainwater out of our sewers, we reduce pressure on the system and cut storm overflow spills. Capturing rainwater where it falls reduces the amount of water entering the network. It is estimated that the average household roof collects 85,000 litres of rainwater each year—equivalent to around 4 trillion litres, or 1.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, annually across the UK. Of course, that all runs off and is lost, and then we enter summer, there are heatwaves and drought ensues. Managing that water better can reduce discharges into rivers, like the Otter.
In the clean water Bill, which will be introduced in this Session, we will commit to ensuring that regulatory mechanisms and funding support the delivery of solutions. We want to maximise the opportunities offered by better managing rain where it lands. That approach will benefit communities and the environment, prevent flooding and help with urban development, ensuring that policies and services work better to deliver.
We recognise that the water sector does need reform. The clean water Bill will deliver on commitments in the White Paper, driving reforms to transform the water system for good and secure a sustainable system for future generations. It will establish an enhanced regional planning function to help identify lower cost, higher impact solutions across whole catchment areas—looking at the entire river from source to sea, instead of at individual works—and considering opportunities across sectors. That will improve water quality and supply. It will also enable a greater uptake in preventive interventions and nature-based solutions to reduce long-term costs and improve resilience. The Government are committed to improving the regulation of private sewerage to reduce pollution from those systems, which I am sure the hon. Member is aware of. We recognise that the current sewer adoption arrangements need review and will consider how to enact that change.
On the Otter, the Environment Agency’s team carried out over 900 inspections in Devon and Cornwall in 2025-26, including unannounced visits, prioritising the most environmentally sensitive sites, some of which will have been in the Otter catchment. The Environment Agency is currently investigating potential offences at Ottery St Mary’s sewage attenuation tank. It is in the process of agreeing an enforcement undertaking with South West Water and investigating event duration monitoring data from the site. I am sure that will be of interest to the hon. Member, to the campaigners and to everybody who cares about this precious river.
Our water system has not worked as it should, but the Government are taking strong, robust action to fix it. We are acting to clean up rivers and to hold the water companies to account for their pollution, their neglect and their negligence, and we are stopping them from marking their own homework. We are securing record investment to rebuild infrastructure, tackling pollution at its source and restoring trust in this damaged industry. We are delivering a cleaner, healthier River Otter for future generations to enjoy.
Question put and agreed to.
School bus service from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School
Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway
Health Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind all Members to switch their electronic devices to silent, please. I am sorry to tell you that tea and coffee are not allowed; you are limited to water. As you are able to see, I am content if Members wish to remove their jackets, so please do so if it makes you more comfortable.
Before we go any further, I believe that the Government Whip intends to move an amendment to the programme order agreed on Tuesday.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 16 June be varied, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2.00 pm”.—(Emma Foody.)
The Chair
We will now move to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called to speak first. Other Members will then be free to indicate, by bobbing, that they wish to speak in the debate. Please do that on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses—in a group to a vote, that is at the Chair’s discretion. My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
I hope that that explanation is helpful and that no Chair needs to give it again during the course of proceedings.
Clause 1
Abolition of NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England as a statutory body, which is one of the key aims of the Bill. The current structure, with its two centres, has led to layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, duplication and unclear lines of accountability, and has come with significant cost, with the centre growing significantly in size since 2013. Through the Bill, we are simplifying the organisational landscape of the NHS and removing unnecessary complexity and overlapping roles among NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. The reform will enable leaders and staff to focus on delivering care, rather than on navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Importantly, it will also restore Ministers’ central role in national oversight and setting strategy, which the public rightly expect as part of a democratic system. The creation of an arm’s length body of this size was a mistake, and we seek to rectify it.
Clause 2 is integral to the orderly abolition of NHS England. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes, which will provide a structured and transparent means of moving property, rights and liabilities from NHS England to the Department of Health and Social Care, the integrated care boards and other relevant bodies. This robust legal mechanism is required to ensure a responsible transfer of NHS England’s assets and staff. It ensures that all necessary legal powers and permissions for the transfer are in place, preventing uncertainty or loose ends for staff, patients, service users and partner organisations as NHS England is abolished. The clause allows provisions to be made similar to those under TUPE to ensure the protection of employment rights for staff who are transferred from NHS England. In addition, the clause allows for the shared ownership or use of property, ensuring that assets can be distributed and used in a way that supports service continuity for patients and the broader health system.
Clause 3, at its core, provides a power for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure through regulations that transfers from NHSE to the DHSC, ICBs and other bodies are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. In particular, it allows HM Treasury to make adjustments to how existing tax legislation applies to transfers of NHS England’s property, staff and liabilities in a scheme made under clause 2. That will ensure that no tax charges arise, and that neither NHS England nor the transferee organisations end up with a different tax position due to the organisational changes. Importantly, the scope of the power is tightly constrained: it applies only to specified existing taxes and only for the purpose of ensuring tax neutrality in relation to transfers made under clause 2. Without the power, there would be a risk that transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 3 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal costs.
Without the changes made by clauses 1 to 3 we will not be able to meet the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan. The abolition of NHS England, delivered in an orderly, proportionate and considered way that safeguards the interests of staff and taxpayers, is a necessary precondition for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the ambitions that the public expect of us. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare a number of interests. I am a consultant paediatrician working in the NHS, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Like the Minister for Secondary Care, I got into politics after working in the health service. I am sure she agrees that what you see when working in the health service stays with you when working in the House, and that it benefits the House to have people who have done all different jobs working here.
The NHS constitution says that health services should
“improve, prevent, diagnose and treat both physical and mental health problems with equal regard”,
yet in my work as a doctor—and I worked across several hospitals during my training—the gap between the vision of what should be delivered and the reality of what is being delivered has become apparent to me. The answer frequently given seems to be top-down reorganisation. As I will talk about in a minute, such top-down reorganisation has been done so many times but does not seem necessarily to have delivered in practice what it promised. Indeed, to an extent, we seem to be changing things from how they were to how they are to how they were, backwards and forwards. This Government have decided, in pursuit of better outcomes and cost savings, once again to reorganise the health service, and they seek to do so with this Bill and particularly clause 1.
Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England. The clause may have very few words, but they represent one of the biggest changes to our health service in decades. Abolishing NHS England is not just a decision about organisational structure or trimming bureaucracy, but a break with the direction of travel the health service has been on since its inception.
Prior to the creation of the NHS in 1948, health services were fragmented: some people used contributory workplace schemes, people who could afford it paid out of pocket, and everyone else relied on very limited state and voluntary provision or went without. In the aftermath of the second world war, the national health service created a state monopoly provider. The Minister of Health had a duty to provide a comprehensive health service free for all at the point of use and a bureaucracy was created to manage it.
There was a tripartite split between hospital services, local authority services and independent practitioner services. The hospitals provided secondary care for those with serious disease and those requiring emergency response. The NHS also took over many cottage hospitals in rural areas that had previously been run by GPs, and larger hospitals that used to be run by local authorities and the voluntary sector. At that time, hospital staff were managed by hospital management committees appointed by regional hospital boards. Those boards implemented Government policies and oversaw the budget. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals kept more independence, directed by their own boards of governors.
Councils, operating as local health authorities, had a duty to provide several personal health services including health centres, maternity care, home nursing, immunisation and ambulance services—some of those are now provided by NHS England. They also had substantial powers to prevent illness and to care for the disabled. Independent practitioners—GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians— delivered services to local communities under contract from the health service. Now they deliver under contract from NHS England and the ICBs.
The health service underwent significant reorganisation in 1974, not long before I was born. The main objective at that time was to create a unified, integrated system. Community health services previously operated by councils moved into NHS control. These functions were put under the control of new area health authorities, which took control of most NHS hospitals. Some larger area health authorities had their own distinct management teams, which managed services on the ground—we can look at the current process and ask how it is similar and how it is different. The majority of teaching hospitals lost independent governance, in the way that we, too, are seeing that go back and forth. Above the new area health authorities sat regional health authorities, which were responsible for planning and allocating financial resources. Their members were appointed by the Secretary of State.
In the 1980s, Ministers recognised that the system had become very bureaucratic—perhaps similarly to today—and in 1982, area health authorities and district management committees were scrapped in favour of new district health authorities, with the aim of reducing what was in effect a three-layer structure to two layers. The thinking was that the new district health authorities would be closer to local populations, but primary care was left mostly unchanged. Once again, there are parallels with what is happening now.
From its inception to the end of the 1980s, the NHS had gone through several waves of rationalisation, but the model remained that of a centrally planned public service. However, during that time, there was an intellectual change—the concept of choice. Previously, people had been happy just to get a health service, which they had not had access to before, but that changed and people wanted choice. We now see the benefits of giving patients choice, and we will hear about how the Government’s changes through the Bill will apparently improve patient choice.
Of course, individuals have different values and preferences and live their lives in different ways, which makes it impossible for there to be a single public interest for the Government to pursue. Against that backdrop, the new public management approach to Government administration emerged, advocating for the introduction of market mechanisms and performance metrics—we have heard about the targets that NHS England follows—in public institutions. In theory, if elements of the state could operate more like the private sector, perhaps Ministers could achieve both cost savings and better outcomes.
In 1991 the Government introduced market logic into the health service. They created an internal market by splitting the purchasers—mainly, at that time, the district health authorities—from the providers, which were the hospitals. The Secretary of State gained the power to create NHS trusts—hospitals with the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of assets; make bids for capital directly to the NHS management executive, in the way they might for NHS England; borrow money within limits; develop their own management structure; and employ their own staff with their own terms of employment. Within three years, almost all providers had become trusts. GP fundholding was established, enabling larger practices to receive budgets to buy secondary care on behalf of their patients, but that was short lived and was shelved in 1999.
When new Labour came to power in the late ’90s, one might have thought that things might swing back the other way, but in some respects the trajectory was similar. Initially, the Labour Government talked critically about the internal market. In 1998 the then Health Secretary told Members that the Government were
“sweeping away the internal market”—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 314.]
and the NHS plan published in 2000 claimed that
“the internal market introduced competition but failed to bring improvements.”
However, the policy choices of that Government furthered, rather than dismantled, the marketised aspects of the health service. They were saying one thing but, to some extent, doing another. There are similarities with this Bill: we have talked about decentralising power but, as we heard in evidence on Tuesday, many people feel it is more of a centralising Bill than a decentralising Bill.
It was clear that the new public management approach had been adopted across the political divide. The NHS plan promised patients more choice about how to access the NHS—a good thing. It promised a system of inspection, accountability and far greater local autonomy. It said:
“For the first time the NHS and the private sector will work more closely together not just to build new hospitals but to provide NHS patients with the operations they need.”
When GP fundholding went, the Government introduced primary care groups, which meant that GPs, nurses and other staff came together to commission for local populations. Those groups then evolved into primary care trusts, which by 2002 were responsible for spending 80% of the annual NHS budget—a budget that is now distributed by NHS England.
Karin Smyth
This is an interesting point, and it is always helpful to have one’s comments put back to one. I am happy to come back to this again. I ask my question again: do the Opposition oppose the abolition of NHS England? I do not think the Opposition oppose the abolition; they think it is the right thing to do. I appreciate that that was confirmed on Second Reading. As I have said before, the previous Government had the opportunity to do this in 2022 and chose not to. The fact that it has not been opposed suggests that it is the right thing to do.
As for what we found on coming into Government, we thought that delivering on our manifesto through the existing powers, flow of funds and priorities would be possible. We were clear that we did not seek this as an initial outcome, but having got into that position, we immediately found, even while developing the 10-year plan and bringing together one team, that it was not possible. I am afraid that the line through which ministerial intentions could be delivered was convoluted, and obstructed by various measures throughout the system. That independence—
The Chair
Yes, that was the point I was about to make. I know the Minister is trying to help and answer the point that was raised. As she knows, she has another opportunity to speak at the end of the debate. If she wants to briefly summarise the point now and then come back to it in more detail, she is more than welcome.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I will be grateful if the Minister clarifies at the end, because she seems to be suggesting that Lord Darzi’s report was wrong in some way. He was assessing the NHS at the same time that she was, with the experience of having been a Minister, and made the counter-suggestion.
It is not just about what one does; it is about how one goes about it. As we heard on Tuesday, there is in general a plan of what is going to happen, but so many decisions have not been made yet in relation to this. In particular, one of the witnesses from the union talked about how unsettling that was for staff and how difficult it is for staff to be asked to go from the current location to a destination unknown. It is very difficult to make transformation in a direction when it is not clear where one wants to be.
In March 2025, the Government announced that NHSE would be abolished. The largest healthcare union described the handling of the announcement as “shambolic”, coming only days after the announcement of a 50% cut to staffing levels at the centre. In the days and months since, Ministers have provided only some clarity about what they are trying to achieve. According to the Government, the restructure will cut red tape, save money, devolve power and improve accountability, all with a view to improving patient outcomes. Those are not new objectives; they are the same objectives that underpinned the creation of NHS England. How is it that the same objectives require dismantling the institution created to deliver them? Again, I just do not understand what has changed the Government’s mind.
Let us look at cutting red tape. As a Conservative, I welcome the ambition to make the health service more efficient. My constituents do not want to pay for staff in the Minister’s Department duplicating the work of those in NHS England, particularly when thousands every day are subjected to care that could certainly be improved. On Tuesday, we heard from the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), that
“the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 33, Q58.]
However, that bureaucracy is not confined to NHS England and any medical practitioner will explain that bureaucracy exists across the entire health system. Can the Minister explain how the changes will improve that?
Lord Darzi’s independent investigation said that, taken together, there are nearly 80 people employed in regulatory and headquarters functions for each NHS provider trust. Can the Minister say how many people will be in such roles once the abolition of NHS England is complete? Can she talk about how abolishing NHS England will review the volume of paperwork on patient safety, some of which is helpful for patient safety and some of which is not. That was identified by Dr Dash in her report.
I remind Members that abolishing NHS England is not a prerequisite of undertaking a robust cost-benefit analysis before introducing changes. We have had difficulty in getting answers on numbers. We have been told that this will save money—£1 billion a year, I believe—but no sums have been produced for us to scrutinise to explain where that will come from. Indeed, when asking questions about where it might come from, it has been quite difficult to establish that. We have heard that the redundancy package will be worth £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion. It does not seem clear exactly where that will come from or how it will benefit patients. It is also not clear how many of those staff will end up re-employed by the new organisation, having received redundancy from the first, and what effect that will have on the country’s finances.
More than a year on from the Government’s announcement that they will abolish NHS England, how much progress have Ministers made? In March 2025, Lord Scriven tabled a question about the legislation required to abolish NHS England. In her response, the Health Minister in the other place, Baroness Merron, wrote:
“Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.”
One year later, in March 2026, the Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, tabled a question asking what functions had been transferred over since the announcement was made. In response, the Minister for Secondary Care wrote:
“Work is progressing at pace to develop the design and operating model for the new integrated organisation, and to plan for the smooth transfer of people, functions, and responsibilities.”
One does not need to enlist the services of Hercule Poirot to see that, one year later, that work has not been done. The Government have no comprehensive plan for how they will abolish NHS England. They can write a line in the Bill to abolish it, but how that will happen, to which clauses 2 and 3 relate, is, as yet, really uncertain.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
We all know how important our NHS is to the people we represent. I know how frustrated patients and staff have become after years of rising waiting lists, cancelled appointments and growing bureaucracy. Since coming into office, this Labour Government have already started to turn things around by delivering more than 3 million extra appointments ahead of schedule, cutting waiting lists and agreeing a new GP contract that begins the work of restoring the family doctor.
However, the challenge remains enormous. We inherited an NHS facing the worst crisis in its history, and public finances under severe pressure. That means that every pound must work as hard as possible for patients. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish NHS England and bring its functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care. The complex structure created by the 2012 reorganisation has left us with duplication, inefficiency and too many layers of management, separating decision makers from the frontline. Far too many NHS leaders and clinicians tell us that they spend their time filling in reports and navigating bureaucracy, when they should be focused on delivering care. We owe it to taxpayers and patients to change that.
These reforms are not about criticism of the dedicated public servants working in NHS England; they are about creating a simpler, more accountable system that supports staff rather than holding them back. By reducing duplication and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, we can redirect hundreds of millions of pounds to frontline services. That will cut waiting times, improve access to care and give local NHS leaders more freedom to innovate. This is about one simple principle: fewer checkers and more doers; less bureaucracy and more patient care. It will create a stronger NHS that delivers for communities such as Bassetlaw and for people across the country.
The NHS is facing huge challenges. With the right reforms and leadership, we can build an NHS fit for the future and there for every patient when they need it most.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken.
We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11.
As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline.
There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost.
In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience.
My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure.
Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. One of the most powerful things we can do as Members of this place is bring our constituents’ stories here so that they can form part of our discussions. That is what I will do as we discuss the future of NHS England.
I openly admit that I have never knocked on a door and found that someone’s burning question was about the abolition of NHS England. I have never had that particular discussion, but I do have regular discussions about the NHS. We know how important it is to people. They value the greatest gift that the Labour party has ever given the United Kingdom. As we have those discussions, one thing that comes up time and again is that people will always want more; they will always want better healthcare, and they should be able to expect it.
Across my constituency, the biggest health need is access to primary care. Two towns each make up one third of my constituency, so a third of my constituents live in Burntwood, 4 miles up the road from Lichfield— I believe my constituency is misnamed, but that is a matter for the boundary commissioner, not for me. When I talk to people about healthcare and access to primary care in Burntwood, one thing comes up time and again: the new health centre for Burntwood that was promised but never delivered.
That centre was promised in 2009 when the old one was demolished, but its funding was cut in 2011 following the change of Government, and we are still waiting. A modular building had to be put up in the car park of the leisure centre—“modular building”, by the way, is a grand term for what are portacabins stacked on top of each other. A huge number of people have worked at that site for a long time, delivering the best care they can, but they are being failed by the facilities that they are forced to work in. When I have conversations about primary care with people in Burntwood, they are never unhappy about the care they receive, about their doctors or about others who work in the NHS; they are unhappy about the facility that they are forced to use. I am standing here in 2026 and we still do not even have planning permission for the replacement centre. It has been promised so many times that people are beginning to doubt that it will ever happen. That is so hard to hear.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I approach this with a sense of déjà vu—standing in a Committee Room in the Palace to debate a Health Bill opposite the Minister for Secondary Care, the only difference being that our sides and places have swapped over in the interim. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee opposite the now Minister.
I will focus my remarks largely on clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised a number of questions about clauses 2 and 3 and their breadth, but I consider them to be necessary and consequential on clause 1, so I will focus on the points made in that clause, which sits behind them. One thing I want to address is the Minister’s question about why, in the Health and Care Act 2022, the Conservatives did not abolish NHS England. I have to say that arguments were made on both the pros and the cons, but the simplest answer is the context of that legislation. At the time, we were just emerging from a pandemic, and I wanted that legislation to retain a clear focus on my vision for the NHS: a linking of ICBs at the local level with the upper-tier local authorities, so that we could deliver social care through a permissive model, rather than a prescriptive one, allowing that local co-operation. I was also conscious that, emerging from the pandemic, there was only so much that the system could realistically bear while it was still grappling with its immediate aftermath, hence the approach we took.
In reality, it cannot be disputed that, inevitably, this is a top-down, centralising reorganisation, and it was not in the manifesto. As Sarah Woolnough said in her evidence on Tuesday:
“These arguments were very well rehearsed by the previous Secretary of State. He undertook personally that he would not follow this course of action, exactly because these things take longer and cost more, and because the benefit realisation case is not always clear.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q23.]
On that point about centralisation, Jon Restell in his evidence said:
“Obviously, some functions of NHS England moving into the Department, with powers going to the Secretary of State, feels like a centralising measure… On the whole, it is probably more of a centralising measure.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 79, Q122.]
We have to recognise that this is a centralising measure, rather than any sort of devolution that provides local areas with greater autonomy.
For me, there is a worrying lack of clarity at this stage in the process—around 15 months later—on the actual plan and approach. The hon. Member for Lichfield gave a very good speech that not only highlighted the local issues but drew a national read-through from those local examples, and he rightly highlighted that he did not want a protracted reorganisation. However, 15 months on—with the hare having been set running by the Prime Minister’s announcement back in March 2025— we still have protracted uncertainty on what will happen. That is having a very real impact on not only staff but the opportunity cost, through its impact on how services are actually being delivered and what the NHS is focused on.
On that lack of clarity, when asked how this measure will work and whether it can save money, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund said:
“I think, on the basis of the question, we do not know. Our worry has been about the opportunity cost. The Government, when in opposition, said that they would not launch wholescale reorganisation, because they understood the potential opportunity cost on time and other resources. As this has played out, taking longer than anticipated, we have had multiple examples of teams left in limbo about where they will end up in the target operating model.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q12.]
Jon Restell also highlighted the impact on staff when he said,
“this is becoming psychologically very difficult. You have a change programme that started in March last year with the announcement by the Prime Minister of the abolition of NHS England and the halving of the staff of NHS England and ICBs. For 18 months, that process has dragged on, with lots of design decisions still to be taken about how the organisation will look, what functions it will have, what will be going to the Department and what might be going elsewhere”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 80, Q125.]
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I too think the hon. Member for Lichfield gave an excellent speech on the need for clarity, but there is another factor to consider. Not only is NHS England being abolished, and ICBs are having their budgets halved, but in Hampshire and other areas we also have local government reorganisation. We are going from having district councils and county councils to unitary authorities, and a mayor will be coming in next year. This is another level of reorganisation in the delivery of healthcare and social care, so there is a huge amount of change. However, there seems to be no clarity, at any level, on how this will affect services on the ground, because there are so many moving parts coming in at once.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly and he is absolutely right. Not only is there a lack of clarity in the legislation and in the plans for how the NHS will look, but, as was alluded to during evidence, the missing bit from the Bill, which is highly relevant, is social care. It will be deeply concerning if, when the implications of local government reorganisation emerge from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in a few weeks’ time, the two are not properly meshed together, because we will risk, yet again, a widening disconnect between the two vital parts of our health and social care system, both of which have to work well in tandem for the whole system to function. The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. He also highlights ICB budgets. I suspect hon. and right hon. Members around the country are already seeing the genuine impact of those changes to the budgets, which are actually pulling through into the frontline services that our constituents receive.
I know that the Minister cares deeply about our health and social care services, and has a wealth of experience from in this place and outside it. Given the comments from our witnesses and the impact assessment, which has page after page listing the risks associated with this approach, I ask her how she will mitigate that loss of focus and that distraction, which is an inevitable human reaction when there is uncertainty. When she comes forward with the plan to merge NHS England into the Department, how will she ensure that she retains the best, most experienced staff? In any organisation where there is a change, it is often the most able and experienced who find it easiest to go to another role, by virtue of their skillset. How will she ensure that there is not a loss or drain of that expertise and knowledge?
I turn to a deeply concerning element that links to the lack of clarity. The impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England is pretty much silent on the monetised costs and benefits and specific figures. The first two pages with the boxes and the summary just say “N/A” in pretty much every box on assessing the costs. If I flick through to the section headed “Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of each option”, I see page after page. There are lots of words but virtually no figures, and where there are figures, there is no breakdown of how they were reached, and no explanation of the degree or range of confidence in the few figures that are there.
I ask the Minister whether a detailed spreadsheet of all the statistics, costs and benefits, risks, confidence levels associated with the numbers, and the phasing over years of savings and costs will be published during the Commons passage of the Bill so that Members of the House can consider it. If not in Committee, could it be published at least before Report so that we can have an informed debate? More broadly, once the Bill in whatever form is passed—I expect, given the Government’s majority, that it will be—what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that when a target operating model and all the other details are available, Parliament will have an opportunity to not only debate them, but have a meaningful say, potentially with a vote, be it through delegated legislation or in the House?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
I echo and endorse all the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who was comprehensive in setting out our position. I therefore speak from a broad consensus surrounding the Committee that the final days of NHS England as a body are here, and so be it, because there are advantages to be gained from its abolition. The Minister set out some of the leading reasons why she and the Government are abolishing NHS England. She referred to the growing bureaucracy, the unnecessary complexity, and the overlap of roles and responsibilities between the organisation and DHSC. She also spoke about being able to better focus on delivering care rather than navigating bureaucratic hurdles.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend talked about how the ICBs have merged. There are lots of different types of reorganisation going on at once: the abolition of NHS England, the changes to local authorities, the introduction of mayors in some areas, and the changes and cuts to ICBs. What effect is that having in his part of the country?
Joe Robertson
The shadow Minister points to a much wider issue entirely relevant to the Government’s plans here: the more reorganisation we do, the more we shrink the bandwidth to deal with smaller and more operational problems because so much of the resource has been pulled in. In my area, although it is probably true everywhere, reorganisation of Department or Government responsibilities causes endless frustration that while Governments and politicians—I take some responsibility for my own side’s actions at times in the past in very limited ways—talk about reorganisation when so much can be done on what might be termed low-hanging fruit.
I worry that the Government are missing out on opportunities here to make a much more meaningful difference day to day and much more quickly than this huge reorganisation will achieve. Everything is about priorities. Plainly, no Government can do everything they want to do all at one time. It slightly surprises me that reorganisation of the NHS and doing away with NHS England has become such a major priority, considering it did not feature in the Labour party manifesto just two years ago. I do not seek to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but the gist of her evidence to this Committee was that within eight months of this Labour Government coming into power, they realised that NHS England had to go. Eight months is eight months, but it seems a short timeframe in which to decide to do away with a fundamental way that health is organised and delivered in this country.
Going back to priorities, I recall that before the election, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—then the shadow Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Ilford North, talked about introducing a national care service. That was the Labour party’s big priority. Although Conservative Members and, frankly, the majority of the public were slightly sceptical of his intentions, we all agree that social care needs reform and that ultimately, the success of the NHS will be delivered only if we deal with the long-standing crisis in social care, which extends back three decades or more, as it is entirely dependent on that.
Before the election, the priority was the national care service, but since the not-so-random date of 5 July 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State, he ceased to refer to reform of social care, and it seems once again to have been put on the back burner. I wonder whether the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England has gotten in the way of equally large, and perhaps even more substantial, reforms, which might ultimately have made a much more meaningful difference to the delivery of not only healthcare but health and social care, as well as to the overall wellbeing, including financial wellbeing, of so many people in this country. Social care refers to people living with frailty or dementia, and the family carers, and families more widely, on whom that has an impact. Every decision made is a decision not made, given the resource and bandwidth of those whom any Government ask to implement change, such as the civil service, advisers and the hundreds or thousands of people who are relied on to deliver in their day-to-day job.
I and, it seems, all the other Committee members do not disagree with the fundamentals of what Government are trying to do; their reasons for doing this are broadly sensible, so who could disagree? However, because of the manner in which it is being done, I urge caution and a check on being too optimistic—just doing it and expecting all the good things to flow. It will take an awful lot more than simply passing the Bill to make the NHS the success that, to take the Minister at her word, she intends, wants and will do her best to achieve.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
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
Human Rights: Supply Chains
(1 day, 7 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
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, particularly as you had such short notice. Globalisation and technological advances over the last few years have given us the ability to better connect across the world and improved our ability to trade globally. With increased connectivity comes increased awareness of issues and events around the world, and one issue that that increased awareness has brought into sharp focus is human rights in our country’s supply chains. From the Boohoo scandal, involving the exploitation of workers paid £3.50 an hour in a factory in Leicester, to the Bangladesh sweatshops making our clothes, to state-imposed forced labour for the Uyghur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad.
Supply chains run our daily lives, but the uncertainty over where many of our daily products originate and whether they have been produced through forced labour and in inhumane conditions has wide-ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform, the fibres of which were produced with Uyghur forced labour. For breakfast, she eats a banana grown by workers facing union-busting in Costa Rica. She checks her smartphone, built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She makes her journey to work in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospital, she puts on gloves made in a union-busting factory in Sri Lanka, under lights powered by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China, and uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, Mr Dowd, I commend you for taking the Chair and saving the debate. It is said that you never go home, so perhaps that is why you were able to get here.
I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this incredibly important debate. He has outlined a number of countries where the problems are acute, but does he agree that China is the worst of all? Its abuses—of human rights in particular—are on an industrial scale. Some 70 million Christians are abused in terms of their human rights, including their right to believe, as are millions of Uyghur Muslims and between 7 million and 20 million Falun Gong. China must be taken to task. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in summing up the debate, the Minister needs to outline a number of methods to take China on? It has done some 13.75 million forced-labour transactions, and it is time for those to stop.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I am sure many colleagues in the Chamber will focus on the Uyghurs in their contributions, but he is right to highlight the abuse in China and the need to address it.
That is the reality in UK supply chains: these products, which we use every day, are integrated into our lives. We need legislation to fix that, to prevent the abuse of human rights and the degradation of the environment.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. As a long-time trade unionist, I am proud of the work this Government have done to secure employment rights in our country, but last year the International Trade Union Confederation global rights index found that more than 80% of countries restricted the right to collective bargaining, and 75% denied the right to establish or join a trade union. Does my hon. Friend agree that our duty is to promote human and labour rights wherever we can and to regulate our global supply chains so that workers across the world can enjoy the protections we have?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of trade union rights globally is seriously worrying. I am a proud trade unionist, and we need to ensure that trade union rights are respected in our UK supply chains. I will come on to that shortly in my speech.
Our country is the birthplace of the trade union movement. We pride ourselves on championing workers’ rights, human rights and our democratic values. Our Labour Government recently passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, the biggest reform of workers’ rights in a generation, bringing more security to millions of workers and making work pay. Our freedoms of association and collective bargaining—some of the most important rights we have—allow workers to have representation in the face of unfair treatment and to advocate for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions.
The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right to freedom of association. In many countries, it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, we have countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened, or even killed, when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations. With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally—a number that is growing every year—and labour rights under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle this issue head on.
Without those freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights and supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently published a report called “Forced Labour in the UK’s Supply Chains”. One of our recommendations was that the Government need to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and specifically the reporting duty, in a way that reflects the size and capacity of the business in question. Does my hon. Friend agree with that recommendation? Would he like to see more done to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in just a moment. I strongly support the strengthening of section 54 and its application.
With the UK importing £20 billion-worth of high-risk goods every year, our current framework is not effective enough in preventing goods made with forced labour from entering the UK market, despite the Government’s stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act was considered world-leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Act, is wholly inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of more than £36 million, and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks.
The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report on transparency in their supply chains can leave our country’s most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, which affect not only the welfare of workers globally, but the stability and growth of our economy. In addition, the transparency reporting duty can be met by an organisation simply declaring that it has taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains; that is simply not good enough. Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses present in their supply chains.
At present, businesses are able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies. Clear and enforceable rules are needed in order to provide the right guidance for businesses and level the playing field for all. We can address that by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses, across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments, requiring their suppliers to fulfil certain conditions or carrying out unannounced audits.
Internationally, we are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have introduced or plan to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour. The EU is doing both. With the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU, we must catch up.
Businesses themselves have also spoken up. In the last few years, more than 150 businesses and investors, representing more than £4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trades Union Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, which collectively represent more than 350 high street brands with £800 billion in turnover, have called on the Government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws.
Public support shows that people value companies that responsibly source and produce products we use every day, with four in five adults supporting new laws. By failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, and delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws, we are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses that want to do the right thing and ultimately risking the complicity of the UK economy, as well as our national security.
The Government have already made it clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK’s economic security. In June last year, the trade strategy committed to a new supply chain centre within the Department for Business and Trade, which will play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains. The strategy also launched the responsible business conduct review—the UK’s implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for the review to be published and scrutinised, although I very much welcome yesterday’s publication of the action plan for the supply chain centre.
The trade strategy rightly recognised that strengthening responsible business conduct
“is not only a moral imperative”,
but
“a positive part of the Government’s mission to grow the economy.”
Supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded in our growth mission. With modern slavery costing the UK economy £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we do not lose out on more growth, and we can do that by simply introducing new legislation.
The resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the middle east and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown more clearly than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy.
However, the security of home-grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour from the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour-produced solar panels. We must ensure that, with new legislation on Great British Energy, home-grown energy is produced through ethical means, so that in producing energy to heat our homes, we do not contribute to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world.
In addressing those challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and protecting the environment in supply chains; when there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil—also known as forest risk commodities—have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK’s deforestation footprint linked to those imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years and is likely to be higher. The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, which have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth. When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination, when indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or when environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega-projects that destroy our environment, it becomes a human rights issue.
New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. The legislation needed to address those issues would protect the workers, communities and vital environments involved in producing our everyday goods. Consumers in the UK could be sure that they were shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses could have the clarity they need in order to do the right thing.
I have a few asks of the Government. Parliament continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. Can the Minister confirm when the responsible business conduct review and the national baseline assessment will be published, the key outcomes that should be expected from those reviews, and a timeline for moving from review to action on the recommendations of each report? Given the interconnectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can she confirm that the Government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic, rather than narrow, approach to responsible business conduct?
Do the Government agree that we need cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses that act responsibly while enabling irresponsible businesses to undercut them? Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy. Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically; it is our ethical and moral duty to ensure that the protections that we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we have about five or six minutes, give or take, per person. Just bear that in mind. I also remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it.
It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns.
This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government release of announcements. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January asking when the responsible business conduct review would be published. The Minister for Trade responded with one word: “Soon.” It is now five months later, so perhaps today’s Minister could assure us in her wind-up that soon really will mean soon. We would very much appreciate seeing that review.
Although we have some parts of an existing legal framework—for example, the Modern Slavery Act and the Environment Act 2021—they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single-issue measures such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful but not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms. In particular, if they require companies only to report, rather than to take action, they do not have the force that we need.
The UK risks falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a frontrunner on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. That does not make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights, if we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation.
It is not just campaigners who are calling for that; business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met with people from a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly that point. A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for it.
As has already been reflected, major businesses including the British Retail Consortium, John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and the environment. As we have also heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investment are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. That failure to prevent model is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010. We already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt in the same way. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; it is simply about applying the wheel more consistently. Three parliamentary Committees have already recommended this. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010.
We have business calling for that legislation. We have parliamentary Committees and parliamentarians calling for it. The Good Business Matters pledge has secured cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from eight different political parties. We also have public support: 145,000 citizens have signed a petition calling for such legislation, and a YouGov survey indicates that three quarters of the British population support stronger legislation in this area.
In summary, introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment and human rights around the world and to be consistent; it is good for our economy. We miss out on opportunities by not adopting such legislation. It is called for urgently by major businesses that want the Government to support them in showing leadership in this area. It is strongly called for by British citizens, who care—people in this country really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see that in the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the west bank; in the outcry over the import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uyghurs in China; and in the outcry over the import of goods and services that result in deforestation, environmental devastation and climate damage. It is time for the Government to act, and I very much hope that the Minister will assure us that they will do so soon.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach.
A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library.
The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that
“the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.”
Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK.
I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about
“human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption”
and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as
“the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”.
There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England.
The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation.
That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in.
Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored.
We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on.
As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon.
I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I am pleased that the right hon. Member referred to my generosity, which extends even to Liverpool supporters.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is always a blessing to have you chairing a meeting, Mr Dowd. It is particularly a blessing today, as we would not have this debate were you not here, so thank you.
I have been active on this subject for some time. I have been sanctioned by China because of the issues that we raised over modern-day slavery. I remind Members that it was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up, that first published the paper “It Happens Here”. We were then able to get the Government to initiate the Modern Slavery Act—the first legislation of its kind in the world. We were all very proud of that Act, but sadly it really has no enforcement. Government and suppliers have no obligation to check. They are supposed to make a declaration, but we know that many of those declarations are in fact deliberately false—they know they will not be checked, and therefore they do not have to worry about it—so while the Act is great, it is rather toothless.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate and making such a good opening speech. I will not repeat all he said, although I agree with so much of it. In the limited time I have, I want to focus on certain issues.
First, the reality is that slave labour is not only a massive punishment and a human rights abuse on a scale, like genocide, wider than anything else; it is also commercial. Countries such as China use slave labour as a way to undercut markets, compete unfairly and drive businesses out of business—particularly here in the UK, as we have experienced. One of the big issues is the net zero determination and what we wish to do to clean up the environment because the biggest providers of solar arrays, wind farms and the technology are, in fact, based in China.
The big problem is that the Government have two conflicting requirements. Quite rightly, they want to get on with cleaning up the environment; but they also know that if they cannot buy from China without a clear set of supply chains that are without slave labour, that will cost more money. That impacts the pace and the way in which they can provide a cleaner atmosphere.
We have to say that one thing is more important than the other, and that is the human rights of those people being abused in places such as China. At the end of the day, we cannot go to bed at night with any grace if we say that we put up more solar arrays and wind farms but those were supplied by factories where people may have died, been abused, or had their lives and families destroyed.
We know that China, in the case of Xinjiang, is committing a well-established genocide on such a scale that children are now in forced education camps. Millions of adult males are in forced labour, many producing the polysilicon that goes into arrays made in and around Xinjiang. The women, unbelievably, are being forcibly sterilised. The birth rate in Xinjiang has gone off the edge of a cliff. China is going to eradicate an ethnic group; it is very much the policy of the Chinese Communist party to have Han Chinese in charge of China, and nobody else. It also makes money from the fact that people in slave labour, as I said earlier, are producing goods much more cheaply than anyone else can.
Look at what we are not doing: we are not checking supply chains. On this issue, I have been in opposition to whatever Government have been in power—neither the last Government nor this one have made a big effort to check those company declarations. I have had responses from this and the previous Government saying that they were doing their best and trying hard. It is not good enough to do one’s best or try hard; the question is: what is the best?
Look at what is happening in other places. I point to the USA’s Act, which basically outlawed all use of slave labour anywhere in supply chains and put the means in place to check that. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States creates a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang, and other places using slave labour, are made with forced labour unless importers can prove otherwise.
That is how it is done—we tell importers, “You must now prove to us that you have avoided any slave labour in your products. Failure to do that has you banned and fined.” It is immediate. They do not simply sit there saying, “Well, other bits of Government are helping us”, because to be honest, the Government do not have the ability to check themselves. They do not have what it takes, but there are companies out there that do this regularly.
I have met the representatives of one such company. Forensic companies such as Oritain, based in New Zealand, specialise in using forensic science to check where goods were made. From that, it knows the footprint and the likelihood of slave labour. It will immediately investigate a company’s declaration and can challenge it. If it challenges it, the US Government will ban and fine the company. That has led to a whole rerouting of supply chains across China for the US market. Sadly, it has also meant efforts have been redoubled to put slave labour products into markets such as the UK, because it is known that the UK is a soft option.
When we look around the countryside of the east of England and elsewhere, we see a load of arrays. I would bet that the vast majority were made with slave labour because no checks were carried out. The reality is that we have to do more. The Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I greatly supported, has now become toothless. Section 54 needs to be upgraded. There needs to be a punishment. Government need the ability to prosecute immediately, and supply-chain checks must take place.
I end with this. The reality is that the legislation is a mess. With colleagues on both sides of the House, I successfully tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Act 2025, to ban the use of products made with slave labour. It was a classic rebellion, and we got it done. Yet when I checked, I saw that next to nothing had resulted from it. There is that offence in the legislation, but the Government have done nothing to call out any of the companies still selling those products. We put a similar obligation into the Health and Care Act 2022, but next to nothing has been done on that—no declarations and no speeches to Parliament about what the Government have done.
We cannot go on addressing this issue in a piecemeal way: it has to be done across the board. That is why I support the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green in his call for the Modern Slavery Act to have teeth and for section 54 to be implemented. Any business that, having been checked properly, is found to have misdeclared itself and its supply chain should be punished—it should be banished from importing to the UK and face financial and even criminal penalties. That way, we will stop this practice.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate, which has implications for human rights everywhere—whether here at home or in Malaysia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo or elsewhere.
I will focus my remarks first on Bangladesh. In May, the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, which I chair, held a meeting on workers’ rights and labour conditions in Bangladesh following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse; we were joined by the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights and human rights lawyers. On 24 April 2013, 1,134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the time described as a “mass industrial homicide”.
The incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack. I want to be clear: those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers’ rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers’ safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organise unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed.
A global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been welcome advances in workers’ rights in Bangladesh since then, but the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, and unevenly distributed across industries. That is in part due to a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labour rights. Instead, we have seen the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. Brands in the global north that want to avoid reputational risk are the ones that implement safeguards themselves.
Many garment industry workers supplying the likes of Zara or Walmart do benefit from some of the measures introduced on labour rights, but that is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage, it is a different story. For example, in Chittagong’s deadly shipbreaking industry, workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation on death. Shipping being what it is, that affects nearly every supply chain in the world.
We cannot pretend that Bangladesh’s garment or exporting factories are now all safe. As Labour Behind the Label has pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn, in which 17 people were killed, have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those that have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has seen another 7,160 deaths in the workplace—a figure that is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient.
As we explored in the APPG on Bangladesh, in response to the Rana Plaza collapse France introduced its duty of vigilance law, requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to prevent severe abuses of human rights in their supply chains. We have also seen the EU move to bring in a due diligence directive; Members have already pointed out how that has been watered down. None the less, I think its existence has created a legal pathway, absent in the UK, to provide victims of corporate abuse with a path to actually seek justice.
As I have mentioned, in the UK we still rely mostly on voluntary measures that offer little protection to billions of workers globally who work for unscrupulous employers or sectors. In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits or even kills workers. As civil society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations.
In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the Government to offer new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements. That settlement trade serves to entrench the settlements’ unlawful presence, while the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion.
I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinian people’s livelihoods and demolishes their homes. UK trade policy enables those rights abuses. I note the words of ActionAid, which states that the business guidance
“is effectively outsourcing the UK’s compliance with international law to private actors.”
All this shows how all-encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt that if the UK Government are serious about protecting people’s human rights, including labour rights, in supply chains, strong legislation must be brought in. I note that at present a model is being advanced in the other place. I hope that all Members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the Corporate Justice Coalition to bring forward a new business, human rights and environmental Bill.
To be meaningful, protections for human rights, including workers’ rights, must be enshrined in law. We can say that we take human rights seriously only when we take seriously accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. That is important because every worker deserves dignity and equality, and upholding those rights is a collective responsibility. We fail in those duties if the rights that we enjoy are denied to those in other parts of the world.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd; thank you for stepping in to chair the debate. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate. He has a long-standing commitment to human rights. He is right to emphasise the international nature of trade and the risks of human rights abuses, for example, from China, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) has said, south-east Asia, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are areas where we do a lot of trade but we often do not know enough about what is going on.
I want to add some brief remarks about the UK fashion and textiles industry and human rights here in the UK. I know that the Minister has a background in understanding the potential for human rights abuses. She also understands manufacturing and the scope within the UK to augment that particular sector and produce more jobs for local people. There is the potential for international trade, best practice and home-grown industries to sit side by side. I note that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was reflecting on defence spending a couple of weeks ago, he said there should be more defence money spent locally, certainly when it comes to uniforms.
When I led a previous debate in Westminster Hall, I detailed the potential that exists to enhance supply chain understanding here in the UK. In parts of the UK like Leicester, much more could be done to support the many women who want high-quality jobs in that area. Local authorities and universities are ready to work on that, and it seems a pity not to be enhancing that by being more organised when it comes to how our supply chains work.
Very briefly, I welcome the supply chain centre’s announcement of the 14-point action plan yesterday. I have not yet had time to digest it, but I am sure the Minister will refer to it in her remarks. We know that onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is not throwing away the whole system of international trade; it is just saying that, with some political will, we could be making more with jobs here in the UK. We know that the 2025 Budget included new measures to stop overseas online firms undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duties apply to parcels of any value. I would be interested in the preparation for introducing those measures, which I believe are coming into force in 2028-29. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that in her remarks?
There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits? It could mean more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency, as customers will know exactly where their clothes are made. “Made in the UK” is a point of pride, so why not have, “Made in the UK, under fair conditions”?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and thank you again for joining us to allow this important debate to take place. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on introducing this debate so emphatically and wonderfully—I could not have done it better myself.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and as we have already heard, last year the Committee published its report, “Forced Labour in the UK’s Supply Chains”. Our inquiry found that, despite Ministers’ repeated assurances that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain, that simply is not happening in practice. Goods made, or at least partly made, with forced labour are still reaching our shelves here in the UK. In fact, we report billions of pounds of goods a year from sectors where forced labour is rife, yet companies are still not required to map their supply chains or prove that their goods are clean.
Nowhere was the gap between rhetoric and reality more clearly seen than in the Government’s China audit. That was a genuine opportunity to set out, transparently in public, exactly how Britain intends to tackle state-imposed forced labour against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and other minority groups across China. Instead, the Foreign Secretary offered us “shining a spotlight” and described the audit as an “ongoing exercise”. When our Committee pressed for concrete measures behind that language, the answers amounted to export controls and sanctions that already existed. This is not a strategy; it is a missed opportunity.
Over 95% of the world’s solar panels rely on polysilicon, and over half the world’s polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, so it was unsurprising that the Government’s own evidence to our Committee accepted that there is credible evidence that companies in solar supply chains may be linked to forced labour against people in China. Thanks to the great work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament in holding the Government to account, GB Energy’s sourcing rules were strengthened. However, well over a year later, we still will not see panels guaranteed to be free of forced labour, and the issue will only be tackled “as far as possible”. Our Committee found that the industry’s own solar stewardship initiative offers thin reassurance. Certification applies to individual sites, not whole companies, so a firm with mostly uncertified factories can still wear the badge of membership. If we do not get a proper grip on this, it will be the new Achilles heel of the green transition.
This is not only about solar; our inquiry also heard evidence about North Korean workers on Chinese fishing vessels. Last year, I visited the Falkland Islands as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When we met Members of the Legislative Assembly there, we heard about how the Chinese fishing fleet in the south Atlantic was causing problems, and some of the horrific instances where the regime of the Chinese Communist party was selling and buying labour from North Korea.
We have also heard today about tomatoes being processed in China that now sit on British supermarket shelves, which have been documented by the BBC as recently as last year, as well as critical minerals like cobalt from the DRC. We know that the International Labour Organisation estimates that 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour globally, two thirds of which is linked to commercial supply chains. This is a systemic, cross-sector and growing issue.
What have the Government done with the JCHR report recommendations? In October, Ministers published their response and launched a responsible business conduct review. To be fair, that is a start, but they have deferred almost everything to the review. Will the UK introduce mandatory human rights due diligence? “We are waiting on the review.” Will the UK introduce an import ban on goods linked to forced labour? “We are waiting on the review.” Will there be a stronger use of the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which Border Force and the National Crime Agency are deploying far too rarely? Well, the Government told us that they
“cannot direct how the POCA powers are used”.
Although that may technically be correct, Governments can resource enforcement, set priorities and fund agencies to act. Choosing not to do so is a policy choice.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. It requires large companies to publish supply chain transparency statements, yet we know that a significant number of companies are not complying, and those that do can satisfy their legal obligations simply by reporting that they have taken no action whatever. That is not an obligation to ensure transparency in any meaningful sense of the word. Our Committee recommended strengthening section 54, and the Government’s response is under consideration as part of the review.
Next week, I will be holding the inaugural general meeting of the APPG for coffee, tea and spices, if anyone is interested—I hope to see Members there. The APPG will look at how supply chains impact women and girls working in those sectors. We heard earlier in the debate from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about the actions that other countries have taken on slavery in supply chains. He pointed particularly to the United States and its Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which established a rebuttable presumption that anything from Xinjiang was made with forced labour, unless a company can prove otherwise. We also heard about the European Union and its forced labour regulations; we simply have a review.
Our Committee recommended that the Government introduce new legislation within one year of the publication of our report. That deadline is in July 2026, just next month. Will the Government meet that deadline? I ask the Minister to take three other things from that report. First, I ask that the Government introduce mandatory human rights due diligence for UK companies. Voluntary reporting is not creating a level playing field, and businesses told our Committee as much. Secondly, will the Minister follow the United States and the European Union and introduce a proper import ban on goods linked to forced labour, rather than relying on the occasional under-used application of Proceeds of Crime Act powers? Thirdly, will the Government use the China audit for what it should have been—a public account of exactly what the UK will do to keep state-imposed forced labour out of our supply chains, starting with solar power?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I join other Members in thanking you for chairing this debate. Also, if your Wikipedia page is correct, may I be the first to wish you a very happy birthday for Saturday?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate and to Members from across the House for the thoughtful and serious way they have approached it. The hon. Gentleman really brought to life the way that globally sourced products are infiltrating every part of our daily lives, and I thank him for that. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for sharing the benefit of his many years working on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West); they all brought different perspectives, for which I am grateful.
There have been differences in opinion this afternoon about the causes of the problem, the strength of the enforcement required and the precise tools the Government should use, but there should be no disagreement on one central point: goods produced through forced labour, modern slavery or serious human rights abuses have no place in UK supply chains. The question is whether the Government are prepared to deliver serious enforcement, potentially with the support of new technologies and businesses such as Oritain; or whether they will simply pile fresh cost and complexity on to responsible British businesses while the worst offenders continue to evade accountability.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights was right to highlight the fact that goods produced wholly or partly through forced labour are being sold in this country. It is also correct that the current framework has not been enforced strongly or consistently enough to stop that happening.
The overwhelming majority of firms—responsible retailers, manufacturers, importers and investors—want to do the right thing. They invest time, money and effort into understanding their supply chains and meeting their responsibilities. They should not find themselves being undercut and placed at a competitive disadvantage by organisations willing to look the other way, nor should they be buried under layers of poorly designed and duplicative new obligations, which create cost and complexity without improving outcomes or catching the individuals who break the law.
The Modern Slavery Act, which was introduced by Baroness May of Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary, was a landmark piece of legislation and placed the issue of modern slavery firmly on the national agenda. It was also Conservative Governments that imposed sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of Uyghurs, strengthened export controls, and introduced tougher penalties for businesses that fail to meet their obligations.
Those achievements should not be diminished, but equally we should not pretend that enforcement cannot be strengthened. We support enforcing the laws that we already have. The first test for the Minister is whether she is prepared to make the existing framework bite on the bad actors. The task for the Government is to strike the right balance between being strong where enforcement is needed, being clear where expectations must be met, being proportionate where businesses are already acting responsibly, and being practical enough to work in the real world.
Public procurement—I include in that Great British Energy, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—has an important role to play in this effort. Government must lead the way. Taxpayers rightly expect that public money is not rewarding forced labour, serious exploitation or suppliers whose conduct falls far below the legally prescribed standards. The challenge is making that principle work in practice, with rules that are clear, usable and targeted at those who break them.
The risks exist across apparel, food and manufacturing, and they exist in sectors that are becoming increasingly important to our future economic and national security. Global supply chains were once viewed mainly through the lens of cost and efficiency; the assumption was that they would deliver cheaper goods and greater prosperity. We now understand that they can also create strategic vulnerabilities when too much control is concentrated in too few hands.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been particularly persistent in drawing attention to concerns around Xinjiang, polysilicon and critical minerals. He is right to do so. Growth and trade must never come at the price of our values, and pursuit of warmer relations with Beijing must not mean going soft on human rights or turning a blind eye to slave-made goods entering our market.
If our standards apply only when the politics are convenient for them to apply, then they are not really standards at all. The framework must address risk wherever it appears, it must apply consistently, it must be based on evidence, and it must be enforced fairly.
The Minister has heard the points raised in this debate and no doubt she will address them directly. After the Government’s jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act and a surge of new regulation, businesses are entitled to ask whether labour supply chain plans will be properly thought through and will address their actual needs.
I have some straightforward questions for the Minister. When will the Government’s review of responsible business conduct conclude? What steps does she intend to take to strengthen enforcement? How will she improve traceability in high-risk and newly emerging sectors? How will she protect legitimate businesses from unnecessary burdens while ensuring that bad actors and the worst offenders face meaningful consequences? What lessons has she drawn from allies, including the United States, the European Union and others, about what works in practice? How will she ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leader, rather than a follower, in confronting modern slavery and forced labour?
Warm words, statements and reviews on their own will not solve this problem. The Modern Slavery Act was a significant Conservative achievement, and we are rightly proud of it. The challenge now is to ensure it is enforced as seriously, practically and effectively as possible. That is the standard that Parliament should expect, and it is the standard against which we will judge the Government’s response.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you reminding me that I am almost a year older.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I join hon. Members in thanking you for chairing today’s debate at short notice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing a debate on this deeply important subject. He made some excellent points, particularly about how fundamental supply chain resilience is to our economic security, and the importance of the public sector procurement regime to ensuring that public bodies do not inadvertently support international labour and humanitarian abuses. He and the other Members here today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their important contributions.
Human rights are just that: they are fundamental, and they exist to protect us all. Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in a supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices. Never has this issue been more important now that more than 70% of global trade runs through complex global supply chains. Although globalisation has driven productivity, innovation and technological advances that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on, it has also made supply chains more complex and opaque and has reduced the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and the Government need to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation.
Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour. In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, and being exploited for profit. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British empire, it is right that I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling this vile practice, which continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year, in all its forms, including non-payment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harm in our global supply chains, as we lose the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest every minute, and threaten nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction.
As we have heard, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advances to support human and workers’ rights. We put this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) spoke about. That legislation was world leading and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. For the first time, businesses were made to report how they tackled the modern slavery that might be present in their supply chains. However, as Members have rightly said, although the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review if we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally.
Although many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, unethical international violations undercut the vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains. That will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted. That is why we must take a more strategic approach by working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and by using the developing countries trading scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the ground of serious violation of labour rights.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green noted, I travelled last week to the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, where I met trade union delegations and labour and employment Ministers from across the world, alongside some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. This issue is close to my heart, and I worked closely on it before I was elected to this place. Last week, we talked a lot about the work we are proudly doing in Government on the Employment Rights Act and the domestic agenda, and I thank Members for raising that today. We are clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way to drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures, such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws.
In the trade strategy, the Government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and we launched a review of our approach to responsible business, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK. It is an evidence-based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence measures and forced labour bans. It naturally also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a co-ordinated approach that minimises costs, consistent with the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament.
So far, we have engaged with more than 200 organisations through the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions. We have learnt from international partners and met communities affected by supply chain harms. I heard many hon. Members stress the need for urgency today, and I reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank Members for raising that pressing issue, and we will of course work closely with all those at the debate today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Could we get a commitment today that the Government will look carefully at what countries that are well in advance of us, such as the United States and some European countries, are doing, to make sure that we urgently get on to resolving this issue, rather than delaying with another review and more debates? We know what needs to be done, and surely we can get on with it pretty quickly.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for that and his contributions today. I reassure him that we are working closely with the US on the review, updating the Americans on all the work we are doing and understanding their practices too. I will turn soon to the other important points he raised throughout the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted our work with the Treasury as part of this review, and I thank him for that. We are doing the review economy-wide, and as well as working with the Treasury, we have engaged with investors. We will of course keep him updated, as I know he is interested in—indeed, passionate about—this subject.
We took another key step in the trade strategy by launching the Office for Responsible Business Conduct to provide UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice by providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism. Alongside the broader RBC review, we are considering how to strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of Members mentioned today—I thank them for it—including mandatory reporting requirements that extend to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for his contribution today, his work in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and his engagement in and focus on this vital issue. I mentioned our work and relationship with the US. I hope that he is reassured by those comments and by our continued and regular engagement with the US Administration as part of our negotiations.
As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker Government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, clearances and human rights abuses wherever they rear their ugly head. The Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. Lots of Members raised that, and I thank them for it. I hope they know that we raise these concerns with China at the highest levels. That was done recently by the Prime Minister himself and the former Foreign Secretary. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account—for example, by joining a UN statement in October 2024 and co-signing a joint statement with the US and others in November 2025.
I respect the work done by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and thank him for his consistency in raising this issue today and outside the House. He also spoke about GB Energy, as did the shadow Minister. As a publicly owned energy company, GB Energy is of course expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with the UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GBE’s approach to ethical supply chains in its investments and operations; its chair is Baroness O’Grady. Representatives of my Department will serve on that group, and it meets for the first time next week, which I am sure the right hon. Member will welcome.
We must continue working with our international counterparts, and key stakeholders across the international trade union movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit. As Members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated, root-and-branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust that the T-shirt they are wearing, the bag they are carrying and the food they are eating did not arrive in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away. Delivering that confidence for British people is good for business and good for growth, and re-cements our position as a world leader on these matters.
I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We look forward to working closely with them on the review and more widely to ensure that we continue to focus on this issue, which is a priority for our Government. I will end, Mr Dowd, by wishing you a very happy birthday for Saturday and thanking you again for chairing the debate.
Bambos Charalambous
We have had a great debate. There has been lots of agreement in the room, and I am sure the Minister heard the strength of feeling about what needs to be done. We would very much welcome the responsible business conduct review happening as quickly as possible. I know that it is not in the Minister’s direct brief and I know that she is a champion of international labour rights, but we need it to happen as quickly as possible. We also need to ensure that section 54 is strengthened. That has cross-party support and I am sure that we will get there eventually, but it needs to happen quickly. I look forward to having a more detailed response from the Department in due course.
Mr Dowd, thank you again for stepping into the breach at the last minute and allowing this debate to proceed. We could not have done it without you. I hope you have a very happy birthday as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains.
Stoma: Public Toilet Provision
(1 day, 7 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public toilet provision for people with stoma.
Thank you for standing in, Mr Dowd. It is much appreciated by us all. It is always good to have you in the Chair, no matter what, but today is a special occasion. This is not what I would call a particularly fashionable debate, but it is one that affects many people and it needs to be aired in Westminster Hall so we have the opportunity to put forward a case.
Throughout my life, I have had occasion to engage with people who have stomas. I never quite understood what they were, other than that there was something wrong with their bowel system and a stoma as a method to give them a normal life, if that is the right way to put it. In some cases, the stoma was there for only a short time because the person recuperated. Sometimes their body needed a bit of rest, and perhaps that was one way of doing it.
I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come along to participate. I also place on the record my thanks to Colostomy UK for its support in preparing for the debate and, more importantly, for the work it does every day to support people living with stomas across the United Kingdom. I recently had the opportunity to meet representatives from Colostomy UK to learn more about the challenges it faces, and the challenges faced by patients living with stomas. The discussions highlighted an issue that many of us rarely think about, but it affects thousands of people every single day. This debate is not just about public toilets for those with stomas. At its heart, it is about dignity, independence and inclusion. Those are the three themes that I wish to put on the record.
I apologise for not saying at the beginning that it is lovely to see the Minister in her place. I understand that this is her first debate, and I wish her well in her new role. We will not be hard on her—that is not in my nature—but we will collectively put forward a case, and she will respond in a positive way to encourage us on what we are asking for. I have four asks for her to look at.
For most of us, access to a toilet is something we take completely for granted. We leave home to go to work, visit friends, attend events, go shopping and go travelling without giving it so much as a second thought, because there will always be a toilet. That reminds me of a story. When I was in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, John Spellar, who used to be a Member, told me that he had two pieces of advice when we went on a course—he always gave good advice. He said, “If you see a toilet, go, and if you see food, eat.” Those were the two things he told me to do whenever I went anywhere, and I have always remembered his words of wisdom. The fact of the matter is that I did not have a stoma, so I could go to the toilet anywhere, but it becomes a great problem for those who have a stoma.
We assume that if we need a toilet, one will be available, but the many people living with a stoma do not have that certainty. That is the key theme of this debate. For the benefit of those following, a stoma is a surgically created opening in the abdomen that allows waste to leave the body into an external pouch. People may require a stoma following bowel cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, trauma or other serious health conditions. I have had a couple of friends over the years with Crohn’s disease and one with colitis. For a short period of their life they had a stoma, which helped them to heal and eventually they were able to do without it.
For many people, a stoma is lifesaving surgery that allows them to have a comparatively normal life. It enables them to regain their health, maintain their independence and continue living active and fulfilling lives. Having a stoma should not mean they cannot do that; it just means they have to deal with the toilet issue.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate and raising awareness of this issue. Anyone who was at Prime Minister’s questions last week will have seen me talk about living with ulcerative colitis. I am grateful that the Prime Minister has arranged for the Minister to meet me to talk about the issues that people with inflammatory bowel disease face. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else is interested in trying to join that meeting, should the Minister allow it, I would be more than happy to include them in that conversation.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will take advantage of that opportunity if it comes.
More than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom live with a stoma. For some, it may be a short-term issue, their body may heal and they will recover—that is to be welcomed. However, there is a lot of anxiety for those who have to live with a stoma even for a short time. Many find that something as simple as leaving home can require careful planning and considerable anxiety. One of the strongest messages I took away from my discussions with Colostomy UK is that many people living with a stoma plan their life around toilet access. It is a fact of life, and if they are going to a restaurant or a shopping centre, or if they are going on a journey, they have to make sure there is toilet provision.
Tom Gordon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He listed restaurants, businesses and other places where one might find a toilet. In recent years, we have seen the hollowing out of local government and the loss of publicly accessible toilets provided by town councils, unitary authorities or whatever it might be. Does he agree that when local authorities look either to close or to charge for those facilities, they need to consider the impact on people with stomas and other IBD conditions?
Jim Shannon
The very poor provision of toilets is an issue I will address shortly. Fortunately, we have been proactive in my constituency, which may be something that others wish to follow.
The availability of a suitable toilet can determine whether a person feels confident enough to attend a family gathering. When all the family is there and the kids are running about, they wonder, “Is the toilet handy?” or “Are there two toilets, if somebody is in one, because I need to make sure I get there fairly quickly?” It determines whether they can enjoy a day out, travel for work, visit a town centre or simply spend time with friends. It is not a situation any of us would wish to see.
Evidence gathered by Colostomy UK highlights the significant scale of the issue. Its Stoma Aware survey found that 62% of people living with a stoma avoid activities that many of us take for granted because suitable toilet facilities are not available. One in four had been challenged for using an accessible toilet, despite having a genuine need to do so. Most concerningly, 4% said they left home only for emergencies. Those figures are striking. It seems that they are almost a captive in their own house.
The figures tell us that this is not an issue of convenience, but of social participation, confidence and, for many people, isolation—isolation is the key issue. In this House, we spend a great deal of time discussing loneliness and social isolation, to which the Government rightly respond positively by trying to make the situation better. We talk about encouraging people to remain active in their communities and ensuring that those living with long-term health conditions are not left behind, yet, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said, inadequate toilet provision can be a significant barrier to those ambitions, affecting the way a person plans their day, their journey or their outing.
If someone cannot be confident that they will find a suitable toilet when they need to, they may begin to avoid situations that others take for granted. They may stop attending social events, going to family occasions, travelling or visiting friends and family, or they may avoid shopping centres, cultural events or community activities. “If I go there and am caught short, where do I go? Is there provision? How far can I travel?” It is not that they lack the desire to participate, but that they are concerned about the predicament they might find themselves in because they lack confidence that the facilities they need will be available.
People living with stomas can also experience complications that require immediate access to a toilet, such as leakage, pancaking or ballooning. Those can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. I remember when one of my friends was caught short unexpectedly and went to the toilet. The problem was that his stoma had overflowed. Apart from the embarrassment, the people around him did not quite understand what was going on. For my friend, especially, it was incredibly worrying. Such situations can happen without warning and often require urgent attention, so when they occur, having access to a suitable toilet is not a luxury but essential—“We must get there right now.”
I have heard some of the comments made by people who responded to the Colostomy UK survey. One respondent said:
“I plan every journey around toilets. Sometimes I cancel plans because I can’t face the stress”.
That is the stress of not knowing whether a location has a toilet, whether they will have access to it or whether there will be a problem.
Another respondent said:
“I once had a woman yell at me for using the accessible toilet because I looked fine”,
and she could not understand what was going on. The respondent did not go out again for weeks because of the fear of having to deal with somebody else who might shout at her, maybe saying worse things.
Those comments are a reminder that many conditions are invisible. People should not have to justify their need to use an accessible toilet, nor should they be challenged at any time when doing so. The impact extends far beyond physical inconvenience; it affects confidence, wellbeing and quality of life.
It strikes me that the solutions to this issue are neither complicated nor expensive, so I have some thoughts to put to the Minister on how to move forward. We are not talking about major infrastructure projects or significant new financial burdens. In many cases, we are talking about practical measures that can make a substantial difference to people’s lives. The challenge is not a lack of solutions, but ensuring that those solutions are consistently available and embedded in policy and practice.
That brings me to the two key issues I wish to raise with the Minister. The first concerns public toilet provision. Across the United Kingdom, public toilets have disappeared from town centres and public spaces. Communities that once had facilities on which people could rely have seen those facilities close, often without any indication that they will be replaced. That issue is well known. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to it in his intervention, and it will be commented on by others.
Tom Gordon
I commend the hon. Gentleman on being one of the most generous Members I have encountered. On the provision of public toilets, the issue is not only the toilet closures, but the lack of maintenance and spending to make them a toilet that someone wants to use. Does he agree that we need to make sure that, where we have those facilities, they are up to the standard that anyone, let alone someone with one of these conditions, should expect?
Jim Shannon
That is, again, an incredibly powerful intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who is very focused on the issue. The toilet should be of the right level of cleanliness, and with the relevant attendance, so that it can be used by everyone.
The wider decline has been highlighted by the Royal Society for Public Health, which has warned of the emergence of public toilet deserts in the UK. Recent research found that there is now one public toilet for every 15,500 people in England and that public toilet provision has fallen by 14% since 2016. That is incredibly worrying, and highlights the importance of this debate. It is also why my requests to the Minister will be fairly specific.
For many people, the lack of provision may simply be frustrating; for somebody living with a stoma, it can be life-limiting. It can influence where they go, how long they stay and whether they feel able to leave home at all. Public toilets are not simply a convenience for many people: they are essential infrastructure and an essential part of everyday life. The Royal Society for Public Health has warned that, for some people, access to a public toilet can be the difference between whether they leave the house or not. That is the reality that Colostomy UK hears from people living with stomas.
I do not set aside the financial pressures facing local authorities, and I appreciate that there are difficult decisions to be made, but I hope the Minister agrees that nobody should be excluded from public life because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one. I therefore hope the Government will consider how local authorities can be supported to ensure that people living with stomas and other long-term health conditions are not disadvantaged by a lack of public toilet provision. I also hope the Minister will consider whether the current discretionary approach to public toilet provision is sufficient for those who rely on these facilities to participate in everyday life.
The second issue I wish to raise is separate but equally important. The first issue is whether people can find a toilet at all; the second is whether, when they do find one, it is suitable for their needs. That is key. Even where accessible toilets exist, they do not always meet the needs of people living with stomas. A toilet may be accessible from a mobility perspective, but may still lack the practical features needed by somebody managing a stoma, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough outlined in his three key interventions.
As I mentioned earlier, I am fortunate to be the hon. Member for Strangford, but I also represent the largest part of the Ards and North Down borough council area. What the council has done, which I have supported over the years, is so important and is perhaps a blueprint for other councils to follow. It has worked with Colostomy UK on a strategy and a process to upgrade all accessible toilets in council-owned facilities and make them become stoma-friendly. In doing so, it became the first council in Northern Ireland to make all accessible toilets within its facilities stoma-friendly, demonstrating real leadership on this issue. Ards and North Down borough council—the council I served on for some 26 years—has led the way, and I hope others will take forward its policy.
The improvements include practical additions such as shelves, mirrors, hooks and appropriate disposal facilities. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to in his intervention, that is one way forward. Those may sound like small changes, but they make a significant difference to people managing a stoma. I commend the council for recognising the needs of people living with stomas and for taking practical action to improve accessibility across its estate.
The fact that the first council in Northern Ireland has already implemented changes demonstrates that they are achievable and can be delivered within existing public sector budgets. The council delivered those special features in the toilet facilities it has in my constituency. That is particularly encouraging, because it demonstrates that the solutions being proposed are practical and achievable and can be delivered. The council recognised the need, worked with people who understand the issue and implemented changes to make public facilities more accessible. The question we should ask ourselves is this: if we recognise that these features are necessary, why should their provision depend on the goodwill of individual councils, businesses and organisations? Should they not become the standard that people can expect?
As things stand, provision is inconsistent. Some facilities include those features, while others do not. As a result, people living with stomas cannot be certain that an accessible toilet will meet their needs. That is why Colostomy UK is calling for stoma-friendly features to be incorporated in part M of the building regulations and in future accessibility standards. These are constructive policies, put forward so that people with stoma bags are able to have a better quality of life.
The success of Changing Places toilets shows what can be achieved when the Government identify a genuine accessibility need and respond positively. The features required to make a toilet stoma-friendly are modest, yet they can have a profound impact on people’s daily lives. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for examining whether stoma-friendly features should become a standard requirement for accessible toilets in any new developments.
The Minister has already seen them, but before I conclude I have four specific questions for her. First, will she agree to meet Colostomy UK to hear directly from people living with stomas and discuss their issues further? I understand and appreciate that she has only just taken over, but if she could make the time, we would appreciate the opportunity to act on this issue.
Secondly, on public toilet provision, will the Minister engage with her ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore how local authorities can be supported to maintain adequate public toilet provision for people with stomas and other long-term health conditions? There are many pertinent long-term conditions, which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to in one of his interventions.
Thirdly, on building standards, will the Minister ask officials to examine whether part M of the building regulations could and should be updated so that stoma-friendly features become standard for accessible toilets in new developments? Fourthly, will she work with Colostomy UK and other stakeholders to ensure that people living with stomas are able to participate fully in work, education, travel, culture, community life and, indeed, normal life?
Let us be quite clear: this is not a party political issue. In the debates that I bring forward, I try to never make it about that, because it is not; it is about the people. It is a practical issue, an accessibility issue and, above all, a human issue. No one should feel excluded from society because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one.
I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for his interventions. I look forward to the contributions of the shadow spokespeople, the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), and I really do wish the Minister well in her role. Today we have the opportunity to work collectively to do better for our people.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, especially on what I think is your birthday—thank you for choosing to spend your special day talking about public toilets with us. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for calling this important debate. Not only is he the most industrious contributor to debates and question times across this House, but he champions matters that really cut to the heart of why we are here and that really matter to people in their everyday lives.
Anyone who has supported a loved one, family member or friend who has gone through the process of requiring a stoma will realise that you often do two things together: laugh and cry. If you do not do the laughing, you will just spend all your time crying. As hon. Members can probably already tell, this is quite a personal subject for me. A little irreverence and humour is a good way of dealing with the issue of stoma care and inflammatory bowel disease. In fact, I would say it is essential. It also helps to break down the barriers and the embarrassment of talking about the subject in the first place.
We have had a good explanation of what a stoma is, namely a surgical opening to allow waste to leave the body. It usually comes at the cost of having significant amounts of intestine, or in many cases the entire colon, removed, which is as painful, damaging and difficult to recover from as you would imagine. However, the conditions that often lead to someone requiring a stoma involve—let us be honest—talking about poo, and the British public are not particularly comfortable talking about. So although the hon. Member for Strangford has outlined what a stoma is, most people are embarrassed about them. As I said, one way people get around that is by having a sense of humour. I have met many people with stomas; a very close loved one has a stoma, and I have met many of the friends she has made over the years during her many hospital stays.
Among the things I have picked up on is what you call a stoma once you have one. The names are quite creative, and the naming process is, first, quite humorous and, secondly, about a degree of taking ownership of it. I will run hon. Members through some of the names that people come up with for stomas, so that we get beyond just a “surgical opening”. Some are ones that I have seen in research, and some are from people I know who have a stoma. Most of the names are a play on words, such as a rhyme with stoma, or references to poo or pumping—apologies to Members in advance, but hopefully there will find something in this for one of you.
As an opening gambit, there is Paloma Faith, which is a good name for a stoma. Winnie the Poo is another one. Another favourite of mine is Vladimir Poopin, just because it takes the mick out of a dictator. To take something straightforward and simple, there is Windbag, which is pretty much what we are talking about. Captain Craptastic is another good one. Others include Donald Trumps and Bilbo Baggins. Finally, my favourite is Louis Shitton, which I think is excellent—I am delighted to have got that into Hansard. I hope that that gives a bit of insight. People who have had to have a stoma because of their suffering have been through difficult times, but they are remarkably resilient people, many of them with a great sense of humour.
Every Member in this House will have a constituent who has inflammatory bowel disease, colonic cancer or another of the conditions that leads to a stoma, and we will all have constituents with stomas—that is beyond doubt. Many conditions can lead to people requiring a stoma, although that will depend on how controllable a condition is in any individual person—whether they get Crohn’s or colitis flare-ups or whether the cancer is caught and treated early enough. Given all those things with a similarity of issues, Members will have hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who have a stoma or who know someone directly affected.
The conditions themselves are embarrassing. It is not just about having a stoma, when you have got to that point; by the time you get to having one, you have usually been through years of having to deal with a condition and having to suffer it in silence, because you do not want to talk about it. There is also a lot of misunderstanding; a lot of people think that Crohn’s and colitis, for example, are some form of irritable bowel syndrome. Even well-meaning people suggest eating less spicy food or not eating brown bread, because they do not realise that the condition generates internal ulcers in the most painful place they could possibly be, and that those bleed internally, creating internal blood clots that need to pass through your system urgently, in an incredibly painful way—whether you had a Madras on Friday night makes absolutely no difference to that condition.
Toilet provision is so important for people with stomas as well as those with the conditions mentioned. That is important to remember, because we can look at the number of people with stomas—Colostomy UK has provided a helpful briefing ahead of this debate—but that would give you a very distorted view about the total number who require access to toilets due to health conditions.
As other hon. Members pointed out, when someone who has a stoma goes to the toilet, they are either going to empty it or change it. Changing it is not a quick thing and if there is a leak, which is something anybody with a stoma lives in absolute fear of, that needs to be urgently dealt with. Visualise where that would be on your body. Even if just emptying it, the proximity to the toilet means also getting very close to the floor and the toilet itself. People suddenly become experts in the cleanliness of toilets and which companies keep clean toilets and which do not. It goes back to remembering the human in all of this, and not just taking it from a purely clinical and public health perspective.
Imagine going through years of dealing with a health condition that leads to needing major surgery that is life changing and life threatening in its own right and results in a stoma. Regardless of your age, but especially for younger people in this hyper body conscious world, that is not something that you want—it is not something that you are proud of—and it is something that you are often embarrassed about and will try and conceal and hide. Imagine having been through all of that and having recovered and just about psychologically coming to terms with having a stoma—and you want to go out. You want to pick up the courage to go out. You find some clothes that for the first time you think cover it so you do not feel self-conscious about it. You go out, you feel sexy, you feel confident. It is a big boost. Then you either need to empty the bag or have the dreaded leak, and there is nowhere to do anything about it.
As one of my friends—I apologise in advance, Chair, but I am quoting—said:
“Imagine getting dressed up for date night and then having to go and crawl around on a piss covered floor simply to change your bag.”
Would that do anything other than knock your confidence, dignity and self-respect? It is not fair.
There seems to be a general consensus among forums and things I have read that we men need to have a little more care and attention in toilets than women do and that the standard in male toilets is often significantly lower. However, it is a point none the less. That is what I want to get across in this debate; I do not want to talk about the stats, figures and percentages. Every one of those numbers has a human being behind it who is trying to get on and rebuild their life under immense physical, psychological and emotional damage. That is what makes this so important.
There are also other issues including access to private toilets. All of this cannot fall to local councils. I have been working and campaigning on this since I was elected as a county councillor in 2017. I moved a motion in full council—those were the days—around access and the card that people can carry that says they need access to the private toilets in a commercial facility.
We have our own experiences of that in our family. These are pre-stoma but they highlight the conditions as well. When shopping you suddenly feel the urge to go, and, as we have already established, you are not having a poo or a pump but are passing blood clots in an incredibly painful way and your body is trying to get them out of your system and you cannot contain it, and poo will come out with them. You are shopping and have decided to go out—even though, as hon. Members have already highlighted, a lot of people plan their journeys around that—you show your card to a member of staff and they point-blank refuse to let you use the private toilets. You soil yourself in the middle of the shop, and then you do not go out for a long time afterwards because of the embarrassment.
I do not want to name or shame any individual companies that may have been involved in that example, but if I say that their slogan is “You can do it if you…it”, Members can draw their own conclusions. That chain was horrific. From my lobbying, I believe it has got an awful lot better of late. It is about raising understanding in organisations of what the cards are and why people carry them. That goes back to stigma and the “Not every disability is visible” campaign, which I pushed to be rolled out across Lancashire all those years ago. These conditions are not visible. Someone may look physically well but experience that urgency. We must make sure that people with stomas, advanced Crohn’s, colitis and so on know that they can get a RADAR key.
People need to know where the toilets are. Lots of different people have tried this in lots of different ways. We already accept that councils cannot be responsible for providing a toilet in all places at all times. If someone is going to go out and they are dependent on toilets being nearby, they need to know that there is a network of companies and commercial organisations that will let them use their toilets, even if there are not a lot. It is just about pubs and hotels knowing that sometimes, someone may need to come in. I know it is really annoying when non-paying customers come in and use the toilets, but having those apps is important so that people can plan their days out and their journeys with confidence.
There are knock-on benefits to the NHS and public health of helping people to have and maintain normal lives post traumatic bowel surgery and helping them with the psychological recovery. If they had to quit work, that could help them to get back into work. Stomas can be noisy. They rumble and pump. They are bowels, just on the outside of the body, or moving to the outside of the body. Dealing with that is hard enough. Therefore, people may not wish to empty or change a bag at work. They may wish to go somewhere near work to do it. They may work on the tools, in an outdoors job where they do not have routine access to toilets.
There are knock-on benefits to the Government and to the Treasury of helping people back into work, stopping people becoming ill with mental health issues from lack of confidence and emotional damage, and helping people to manage their condition better so that they are not continuously spiralling and going back into the NHS. It is not just about doing the right thing and the moral obligation to those people.
The hon. Member for Strangford has already outlined Colostomy UK’s requests for things that could be advanced through building regulations to make toilets more stoma-friendly and the general need for more public toilet provision. I am sure it will continue to lobby effectively on that. A lot of the time, this is about the role the Government can play in creating awareness among public bodies and organisations about why this is important—the human element that I have tried to outline. This is about people’s lives and the quality of life of some of people who deserve our support the most. It is about simple things, such as making sure that councils have nice, clean toilets, that toilets are open and that people can access information about where public and IBD-friendly toilets are.
I am about to start repeating myself, so I shall end my speech, which is probably a personal best for inappropriate Hansard contributions—I look forward to reading them back. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. This really is an important topic, and I know the debate will mean a lot to people. As I said, a lot of people with these conditions do not want to talk about it. They want to hide it. They suffer in silence. Their voice will not be heard. They will not contact their MP to ask if they can have better public toilets as they have a stoma or IBD, because they do not want people to know. It is therefore really important that we, as their elected representatives, are their voice. I hope that we can be their voice today, and I look forward to what the Minister and shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), have to say.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate.
It is great to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who did better than I did in my maiden speech, when I managed to mention Shitterton and Happy Bottom—and I have now done so in Hansard for a second time. By the way, they are both places in my constituency. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, the closure of public toilets was one of the key issues raised with me by local people. In fact, we pretty much had a whole hustings on it at Canford school.
Since arriving in this place I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or legislation. I am therefore delighted to speak today in a debate focused on people living with stomas, although many of the issues we are discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or, indeed, other sections of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, clean and has the facilities they need is lifechanging. It is the difference between participating in public life or staying at home.
This issue is close to home for me, as one of my close family members needed a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament and it will even stop them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the west end in a few weeks’ time. I know they desperately want to enjoy those experiences, along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities they know they can rely on.
Following the hon. Member for Fylde, I will have to ask my family member what they call their stoma. Given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I am sure they will come up with something. I may need to catch the hon. Member in the Tea Room and let you know what they come up with. Simple changes, such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, hooks and space to manage the stoma with dignity, can cost such a small amount but make such an enormous difference.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to support further research into the adjustments that could promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with stomas. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the hon. Member for Strangford. Too often, these small facilities are absent or even removed for fear that they might be misused for other purposes.
It is shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible. Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life-changing condition who might already be worried about getting to a toilet on time, to face the judgment of strangers.
For people with stomas, older people, those managing disabilities or continence conditions, pregnant women and parents caring for young children, access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience; it is essential. With the new EHRC guidance, those who are transgender, non-binary or do not conform to gender stereotypes—for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice, and nor should it be—now find that the disabled toilets may be the only way to protect their dignity and stay safe. Public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people.
There is also a widespread assumption that men’s toilets do not need sanitary bins, but they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the prostate cancer “Boys Need Bins” campaign. For people with continence issues, the absence of bins can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, dignity and independence. This includes people with stomas or bladder, bowel or digestive conditions.
Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the Government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance to reflect the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as Colostomy UK, as well as retailers such as Morrisons and B&Q, both of which made their toilets stoma-friendly, possibly after the experience the hon. Member for Fylde shared earlier. We want the Government to work with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma-friendly. As some businesses have shown that it can be done, the challenge should be to make good practice the norm.
On access to toilets more widely, the British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Its estimates suggest that only 4,000 public toilets remain in England—one public loo for every 14,000 people. We call them public conveniences, but they are in fact a public necessity. Their decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need the confidence that facilities are available when they go out. If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets.
The needs of other groups, including homeless people, refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews, are also forgotten. I know that from personal experience, because about 10 years ago, I worked a full eight-hour shift alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5 am. When I climbed into the cab with my bottle of water and my can of Coke, they said, “You can’t drink; you can’t eat. There’s nowhere we can go.” I thought it was ridiculous that those people, who worked for us, had absolutely nowhere on their route where they could go. There was no way that we could go into a supermarket or a petrol station; we absolutely stank. It would not have been reasonable for us to go into a private business and expect to use its toilets. Thankfully, the local council addressed the issue with changes to its workplace facilities, but that sort of thing should concern us all.
The Government rightly speak about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet all those things become harder to achieve if people are not confident about finding a toilet. If the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse? Part of the answer lies in the law. Currently, councils have a power to provide public toilets, but not a duty to do so. When budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear. I do not blame councils; I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that few options are available when budgets are getting smaller and smaller.
I propose a change in approach, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will give it serious consideration. Councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That does not mean that every council must directly own or operate those facilities—community toilet schemes and partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play an important role—but there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision, and ensure that facilities are available when people need them and reflect a local population’s health profile. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the Pride in Place scheme, which is great for the areas that have it, but thousands of communities around the country will not have access to that capital. There needs to be a way for those areas to ensure that their residents are also protected.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that Governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are being continually asked to do more with less. Alongside the duty should come expectations for accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock, or is filthy or unusable, is not really a toilet. Where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including by being stoma-friendly. We should also think carefully about signage. Not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself drive the perception that someone is “not disabled enough.” The adjustments required are small, simple things: shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage.
This is a public health issue because people who choose not to go out will become more isolated, and that will affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions. Those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors, or change their disabled child behind a bush, will not only face distress but risk serious infection.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member touches on a point that I started but never finished in my walkthrough of life with a stoma, and it relates to children. I have a four-year-old. I have read the stories of parents trying to deal with children who are months old, not years old, and require stomas. As parents, we know what it is like managing a day out, but imagine trying to manage it for a child with a stoma. Imagine trying to give that child as normal an upbringing as possible. Unfortunately, the reality for that child is that they could face bullying and self-confidence issues from everything that goes with having a stoma. Those parents should be able to plan normal days out and provide normal lives for their children, so ensuring that schools and councils manage public toilets in a way that is friendly to people with stomas is important. I cannot feel anything other than real heartache for families who have to deal with that as they try to do their best by their child.
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in Dorset. The number of times that we could not ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities was really frightening. I spoke at the Backbench Business Committee earlier this week, where the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), put in a pitch for a debate on a new strategy for Changing Places toilets. That is hugely important, and I would absolutely support it.
Jim Shannon
Let me read out an example. I do not know this young lady, but you know her incredibly well, Mr Dowd. She is a young constituent called Jessica, who has had a stoma since she was four years old and has campaigned for 16 years. She fundraises to provide special teddy bears with their own stoma bags to children preparing for surgery. They are called Buttony bears. She works with Colostomy UK’s “Step Up for Stomas” campaign to promote an active and positive lifestyle. You are right to say that she is a heroine, Mr Dowd; she is a very brave young girl. She has her own Facebook page to raise awareness. We now know her story because you have shared it. We think of her, too.
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention on behalf of the Chair, and I pay tribute to Jessica—what a fantastic young lady! Her story, having gone through her childhood and teenage years with this condition, is incredibly heartwarming.
Wales already has the statutory requirement for a local toilet strategy. Surely England can do the same—it is not a flashy proposal. As we said earlier, it is about very basic needs. It does not require a new quango or a major reorganisation; it is simply about recognising that public toilets are part of the essential infrastructure of a modern and civilised society.
Whether someone is living with a stoma, raising a young family, managing a disability, working outdoors all day or simply getting older, access to a toilet should not determine whether they can take part in public life. The British Toilet Association’s “Legalise Loos” campaign talks about the “loo leash”, and states that
“14 million people have incontinence issues; 15 million people menstruate, and 16 million people have a disability.”
We are failing all those people if we do not have decent toilets.
My message is simple: support research into stoma-friendly facilities, work with retailers to make accessible toilets fit for purpose, ensure sanitary bins are available wherever they are needed, support councils to reverse the decades of decline in public toilet provision and make it a statutory responsibility to have a strategy. Alongside those measures, move from powers to duties by requiring councils to assess need, ensure sufficient provision and provide clean, accessible and dignified facilities. Public toilets are not an optional extra or a convenience; they are part of essential infrastructure. Until we recognise that fact, too many people will remain excluded from public life simply because they cannot be sure where they will go when nature calls.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd—I wish you a happy birthday. I welcome the Minister to her place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate on the provision of public toilets for people living with stomas, which is too often overlooked and too rarely spoken about. He began by saying that although this is not a fashionable debate, the issue needs to be aired, and he was absolutely right about that. He was also right to say that this issue is about dignity and independence, as Members from across the House have said.
This debate is important for many people throughout the UK—that is evident from the personal stories that have been shared by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) described the importance of humour to deal emotionally with this difficult and embarrassing condition, including by naming stomas, which is new to me—I did not know that was a thing; every day is a school day. I have to say that my favourite from his catalogue was also Vladimir Poopin, but maybe that reflects our politics more than anything else.
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, particularly in highlighting the human reality of living with a stoma. Around 200,000 people in the UK live with a stoma following surgery for bowel cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis and many other conditions. I do hope that I have pronounced those correctly—there is a reason I am not a medic. On average, in a constituency such as Mid Bedfordshire, around 200 to 250 people are likely to be living with a stoma. With an ageing population and increasing diagnoses of bowel conditions, this need will grow, not diminish, over time.
For those people, a toilet is not a convenience but a necessity, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), said. A stoma bag must be emptied or changed at the moment it is needed. There is quite literally no waiting when it is required. Yet the facilities that most people with a stoma rely on—standard accessible toilets—are frequently not fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde eloquently described. Too often, there is no shelf on which to lay out medical supplies, no hook for clothing or a bag, no mirror to help someone change safely, no basin within reach and nowhere hygienic to dispose of used products. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for highlighting the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which is an absolutely fantastic campaign that we should all get behind.
At present, provision depends on good will rather than on standards, which leaves a postcode lottery for something as basic as using a toilet. The result is people changing stoma bags balanced on their knees or on dirty floors. Someone with a stoma often must plan their entire day around whether a usable toilet exists. I come from a rural constituency and acknowledge what a challenge that must be on days out in the countryside.
There is a second barrier, which is one of attitude. A stoma is, in the main, an invisible disability, as hon. Members have said. Many people with a stoma or inflammatory bowel disease report being challenged or even abused for using an accessible toilet, or accused of being “not disabled enough” because they do not use a wheelchair. Simple signage and staff awareness can prevent the confrontations that many people with invisible conditions face. Those attitudes are a stain on us, and it is precisely why Crohn’s & Colitis UK’s “Not every disability is visible” campaign and Colostomy UK’s Stoma Aware work matter so much.
I am proud that the last Conservative Government understood that dignity in this area is a duty of the state, not an optional extra. When he was Local Government Minister, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), led the drive to expand Changing Places toilets, with larger facilities with benches, hoists and space for carers, which the most severely disabled people need. He set in motion the change to building regulations that, from 2021, made Changing Places mandatory in large new public buildings in England, including shopping centres, stadiums and arts venues. That was backed by a £2 million fund to install them in more than 100 NHS hospitals, further investment in motorway service stations and funding for a national online map so that families could find them more easily. The public sector could lead by example across councils, hospitals and transport networks.
The number of Changing Places has risen from 140 in 2007 to around 1,200. That is a record of practical, compassionate action and I pay tribute to the programme, but—I say this candidly—Changing Places, vital as they are, are designed for the most profoundly disabled. Most people with a stoma are fully mobile. The solutions that they need are cheaper: the simple stoma-friendly standard of a shelf, a hook, a mirror and a bin in ordinary accessible toilets. Some retailers—B&Q was mentioned, but I am sure there are others—have shown that it can be done across an entire estate at a modest cost. The additions required often cost less than a few hundred pounds per facility. This is not major capital infrastructure work; it is a small retrofit that has a huge impact on people’s dignity. The building blocks exist; what is missing is national leadership to join them up.
When people cannot rely on basic facilities, they withdraw —from work, from shopping and from social life. That is not just a personal loss; there are wider economic impacts, too. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire have told me that living with these life-changing conditions can be exhausting, isolating and unpredictable. The hidden nature of their symptoms means that they are often invisible to other people, but they deeply impact the daily lives of the people who have them. It is an honour to represent those people at the Opposition Dispatch Box in such a good debate, in which there is cross-party consensus.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what are the Government considering doing to make places more stoma-friendly? Secondly, what meetings have Ministers had with Colostomy UK and Crohn’s & Colitis UK to discuss options? Thirdly, what consideration are the Government giving to local government facilities, recognising the interesting proposal from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, for a statutory duty?
This is not a party political issue; it is about whether someone can leave their home with confidence. The previous Government opened the door with Changing Places. I urge this Government to walk through it, finish the job and support people with stomas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I begin by paying tribute to Members from across the House for the incredibly thoughtful and personal stories that they have shared. I am very conscious that Members speak on behalf of their constituents, and that some Members speak from personal experience. Although I do not have that personal experience, I have a very close family member who does, and I have heard Members speak in the Chamber before about their own experiences and have reflected very carefully on the power of those remarks for those beyond the House who hear them. I thank Members very much for their contributions.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this very important debate, and for his continued interest in this issue. I know that he is a committed advocate for public toilet provision, including for those with non-visible disabilities such as stoma use.
I recognise the importance of the provision of good-quality, accessible public toilets more broadly. For far too many people, access to clean and safe public toilets can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street, a park or any local attraction. As others put it so eloquently, such facilities support the dignity and independence of people with disability and accessibility needs. Of course, accessibility to a decent facility encourages everybody to spend more time in their local areas, and to use the shops, services and attractions in them. I do not need to detail the benefits of that in itself.
It is true that for many people, it is just too difficult to access the facilities that the rest of us can access so easily every day. Members have correctly pointed out that that is a challenge not only for those with a stoma, but for many other people, including those with ulcerative colitis or irritable bowel disease. The list is much longer than that; the point is that many people are impacted by the lack of accessibility facilities.
However, this debate is focused on stomas, and I want to place on the record the Government’s recognition that this is absolutely a real challenge. Approximately one in 335 people of all ages in the UK is estimated to be living with a stoma, and each year more than 13,000 people in the UK undergo stoma surgery. For people living with a stoma, access to suitable toilet provision is not simply a matter of convenience; it is fundamental to their dignity, safety and independence. Many people living with a stoma feel anxious about leaving home, particularly in the period after surgery.
The Government recognise that being able to live well, to work, to enjoy days out, to shop and to socialise requires access to appropriate public toilet facilities. However, as Members across the Chamber have said, standard public toilets may not always provide that facility for everybody in a safe and dignified way. It is important that we recognise the specific experience of people with invisible disabilities, who are often uneasy about using a disabled facility for fear that it may be a challenge to do so—assuming that the disabled facility would even meet their needs.
In recognition of the importance of this subject, at the last spending review, in 2025, the Government committed more than £5 billion over the next three years for essential local services, including public toilets, and we continue to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for stand-alone public toilets, which is helping reduce ongoing costs for local authorities, but I absolutely accept that the facility needs to exist in the first place. I recognise that, for stoma users, practical features such as clean shelf spaces and discreet disposal bins can make a significant difference. I thank Members for raising the issue of facilities in male toilets, which are so frequently overlooked.
It is worth highlighting that all building work must meet the functional requirements of the Building Regulations 2010, which address accessibility and provide guidance on meeting those requirements, including the installation of shelves, sanitary disposal units and accessibility toilets. However, I accept that the very fact we are having this debate means that the reality on the ground is very different.
The Building Safety Regulator has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to keep the standard of buildings under review, and I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), drew attention to the £30 million Changing Places programme, which supported the targeted installation of almost 500 new disabled toilet facilities. I learned much about that programme when I served as a council leader—if I learned anything from my days in local government, it is that bins and toilets are two topics that people get very passionate about.
The role of local authorities is central to this conversation. It is the Government’s view that local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities, and to make decisions about the provision that is right for their areas. I take careful note of the important arguments made about statutory requirements and regulations, but I say gently that local authorities might not think that is the best approach. I am yet to come across a local authority that does not want to do the best for its area, and I think there is a conversation to be had about how we can better support them to do that.
Mr Snowden
Having been a councillor and served on the front bench of a council, I know about delivering these facilities, and I feel for councils when it comes to doing so. As has been said, the reality is that even if councils want to do their best, and they know what is best for their local areas, funding is tight. We all know that ever-increasing adult social care bills and so on are creating bigger burdens on local government finances, and statutory requirements will always take priority over other things. I do not want to create a system that ends up costing more than opening the toilets themselves through its complexity and bureaucracy, but it is really important to place some greater requirement on councils to understand the provision and fill the gaps. If the Minister is looking for a commissioner for the crappers in the future, it may be a role for me!
Nesil Caliskan
I absolutely take the point. There is a conversation to be had with the sector, local authorities and the Local Government Association about how we can best support local authorities to do that. I think there is a real willingness among local authorities. I accept the point about statutory services, but there are great examples of local authorities providing services that are not statutory because they recognise the importance of public provision.
Vikki Slade
I take the Minister’s point. As a former council leader, I know that the last thing that councils need is a whole load of additional things that they have to do, but the point is that there is fear and inconsistency. If there is a postcode lottery when it comes to whether a council is sufficiently interested in ensuring provision or making information available to people, people will end up staying at home because they do not know what the rules are in the place they are travelling to. I gently urge the Minister to think carefully about placing a duty on local authorities to make provision in their area. If we want everybody to have the opportunity to engage in public life, that is the bare minimum.
Nesil Caliskan
I absolutely take the point, but there is scope for us to consider how to do that without putting additional statutory burdens on local authorities. Ultimately, we want the same outcome: we do not want a postcode lottery. A person who needs accessible toilets should know that they can leave the house and access them. I am open-minded about whether we do that through regulation or by having schemes that support the roll-out of better facilities. There are good examples of services being delivered across the country, so we should look at how the sector can learn from them and how the Government can best support local authorities.
Bins and toilets are areas of interest for local authorities, councillors and council leaders. I note the experience of Members in the Chamber who have a local government background. I recall rolling out a community toilet scheme when I was council leader. That required very small things, such as small grants to businesses—I think they were £1,000—to encourage them to make their facilities available to the public. That meant that the local authority did not have to think about additional toilet spaces. In many ways, the provision of a toilet in a local business or on a high street meant that our residents had more access than they would if they had to go to a park.
Vikki Slade
I cannot resist the opportunity to plug the fact that, prior to being the council leader, I had a business on Broadstone high street, and we were part of the community loo scheme. There are currently five or six businesses in my ward that have open access to their toilets. Previously, there was one public toilet, which was often closed, vandalised or subject to crime. I want to take the opportunity to tell the public that “use your loo” schemes are there for people; they do not need to buy anything. It is really important that we remind our residents of that, because people are often reluctant to go into a café if they are not going to spend money.
Nesil Caliskan
That is exactly the point that I am making. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that very good example of what local leadership can deliver in the community. It is important that we empower local authorities and leaders to think outside the box, champion this issue and speak up on tricky topics. That gives me the opportunity once again to pay tribute to hon. Members for taking part in this debate. By talking about and giving attention to a difficult subject, we are able to shift views and encourage our public sector to provide facilities that meet the needs of our communities.
Jim Shannon
The role of councils is incredibly important. The Government’s 10-year health plan sets out a shift from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. For stoma care, moving from analogue to digital could mean remote monitoring for high-risk people living with a stoma, app-based ordering of stoma appliances, reducing prescription errors and delays, and digital self-management for diet, hydration and troubleshooting. Those are all critical issues for the health service to consider when moving from analogue to digital. I ask the Minister, whether or not it is in the notes I gave her, to look at that point as well. I also ask that she meets Colostomy UK with all Members present. That organisation has much more knowledge than me, and we look forward to that opportunity.
Nesil Caliskan
Absolutely. I am very happy to meet any campaigning organisation to discuss this important issue. I note that other hon. Members have also made that request. If charities would like to contact me, I will happily meet them to talk about how we can better support the needs of all our communities.
On the important point the hon. Gentleman makes about the NHS plan and healthcare support, he is absolutely right. It is all the more reason why we need a joined-up approach to what local authorities and NHS local boards are doing. I take the opportunity to highlight health and wellbeing boards across the country, which will play a really important role in making sure that, as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making the most of what it is doing so that it meets the objectives of a different part. In the case we are talking about, health is a really obvious example.
To return to my general point about local authorities thinking outside the box and doing things differently, one area we should encourage them to consider is how they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets in parks and open spaces have fallen into disrepair. Some local authorities are addressing that through procurement processes by stipulating, for example, that the owner of a new café must look after the toilets in that space. Those are good ideas that should be encouraged and will ultimately make it easier for our communities to access facilities.
Mr Snowden
The Minister is being incredibly generous with her time. She probably entered this room and, having seen only one Back-Bench Member, thought this debate would not get close to 4.30 pm—but here we are.
I have two points. First, is there a greater role for section 106 moneys, potentially through planning processes, in supporting public toilets? The Minister gave a really good example of creative thinking around ownership of toilets in parks and cafés. My sister will kill me for saying this, but when she was growing up she had a phobia of metal toilets. I think it was actually just a phobia of unclean spaces. A lot of people would rather use a well-kept toilet in a private business, where they will not be judged for using it—provided it is not at the far end and they do not have to walk past all the tables with everyone looking at them—than use a public toilet that, by its nature and because it is not in a manned location, cannot always be guaranteed to be as clean. I think that is a great example. Will the Minister work with colleagues in local government to see whether that can be rolled out more, and consider how section 106 moneys might help to create more of an incentive for commercial operators who might not otherwise be able to afford it, or for whom it might not be viable?
Nesil Caliskan
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Section 106 moneys are often thought about in terms of big infrastructure money, but for a very small amount of money we can make a big public impact; the grant funding of £1,000 to a business is a good example of that. I am very happy to take that back. There are lots of examples across the country of where this is being done well, and we should, as a Government—I will take this back—find a better way to communicate some of that best practice.
I also want to comment on the very important point the hon. Gentleman makes about lived experience. Too often, Governments and councils design and deliver schemes with good intentions, but they do not necessarily meet the real needs of communities. That is why lived experience must be at the heart of policymaking. He referenced his sister’s experience, and I will join him: my sister’s experience is not dissimilar. As he said, many people who live with such conditions develop great resilience over their lifetime. My sister, too, is incredibly resilient, because of her experience of living with her colitis, which was diagnosed as a teenager, as it is for many people. It is a very particular experience to be diagnosed with a lifelong condition as a teenager.
People who experience that are some of the most resilient individuals in our community, and their lived experience is central to making sure that our councils and the Government design provision and services that meet their needs. In that spirit, I welcome continued dialogue with Members. I know that there are others who are not in this Chamber who also feel very strongly about this topic. Local government, MHCLG and partners can work together to deliver more accessible, well-maintained public toilets. We should look at existing schemes and new schemes that can encourage such provision.
I thank hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this important debate and for his warm words in welcoming me to my place; it was very generous of him. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people’s dignity and independence. I welcome further representation from hon. Members, the brilliant charities that do fantastic campaigning on this issue, local authorities across the country and other partners who want to see the provision of public toilets improve.
Jim Shannon
I thank everyone for their participation, and those in the Gallery who gave us information to use in the debate. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brought a focus to this issue in a way that I would have been too hesitant to do. I am too much of a traditionalist, too much of a conservative and maybe a wee bit careful, but I thank him for that. We need a bit of humour sometimes; he gave us that, and I thank him for it. I was fearful of what the next name he would come up with was going to be. I was sitting here thinking, “Don’t say that!” but that is by the by.
Toilet provision must be clean. The psychological adjustment is something that we need to focus on as well. I just know how I feel and think, and if I had such a condition, I know how much worse it would be to try to deal with it. We must also focus on the knock-on effect on the NHS. The Minister has grasped that issue. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) always makes very perceptive interventions. He is no longer present, but in his absence, I thank him for his interventions on toilet provision and living with a stoma bag.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) has great knowledge of this matter. She has been active on this subject for some time, especially since she was elected but even before that when she was on the council. It would cost a small amount to address this issue, but it would have a big return. It is a bit like a credit union; if we invest a wee bit, we will get a lot more out of it. Toilet access has a big impact, as it protects people’s dignity. Some 40% of toilets in the UK have disappeared. They are a public necessity, and surely England could do better. Public toilets must be a part of modern society.
The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), also brought knowledge to this debate. He referred to the 200 to 250 people in his constituency who have had a stoma in the last year. He also referred to the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which others have referred to, and which those in the Gallery have made us very much aware of.
The disability is invisible—we need to remember that. I know about stomas only because of friends and constituents. Under the previous Government’s Changing Places policy, the number of toilets has risen, which is good news, but there is a lot more to do. I think the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to that as well. He also asked for a meeting with Colostomy UK—I think we can help each other on that.
I congratulate the Minister on her debut in Westminster Hall. I wish her well in the role that she has chosen—or that someone else has chosen for her. [Laughter.] It does not matter; it is a role that she is capable of. On behalf of our constituents, I was very pleased with her response to us as individuals and collectively as well. She referred to the 13,000 each year who have the stoma operation. Independence for people with such a disability is important for them to live a normal life and not be conscious of all the things that can happen. The standard of public toilets needs to be up to a certain level. The hon. Member for Fylde explained things about going to the toilet that I had not thought of or even conceived of, but he explained it very well. Only then do we realise how important it is to have a certain standard of toilet.
Local authorities were also referred to. The Minister gave us some assurance, which I am very pleased about, in relation to the 10-year plan and how the scheme will change from analogue to digital. It is important that we look at ways of doing things better.
Again, I thank you, Mr Dowd. We do not often say this, but we should thank our Hansard staff who come along and decipher our words, or my accent or my Ulster-Scots-isms or whatever it may be. I thank them and the civil servants who come along and dutifully listen to all the things we have to say, take notes and never show emotion. That is the standard of a good civil servant.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered public toilet provision for people with stoma.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Culture, Media and Sport
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
… I acknowledge the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She is not alone; the Charity Commission itself and several commentators, many of whom she mentioned, have long expressed the view that there is a strong conflict of interest in the majority of the hall’s trustees being seat holders, because they are sometimes acting in their own financial interests instead of the charity’s best interests, which is against the rules and regulations of the Charity Commission.
[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 646.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray):
Ian Murray
… I acknowledge the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She is not alone; the Charity Commission itself and several commentators, many of whom she mentioned, have long expressed the view that there is a strong conflict of interest in the majority of the hall’s trustees being seat holders, because they could act in their own financial interests instead of the charity’s best interests, which would be against the rules and regulations of the Charity Commission.
Written Statements
British Steel
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at the 2025 spring statement. To date, we have provided approximately £555 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for both 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Next steps
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill has completed its passage in the House of Commons and has entered the House of Lords. Given the information currently available to us, the Government are strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.
[HCWS122]
Turing Scheme
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Following the decision to leave the EU and the related end of our association with the Erasmus+ scheme, the last Government introduced the Turing scheme. The scheme has been the UK Government’s global programme for students to study and work abroad, funding students studying across the UK and British overseas territories, in higher education, further education and schools.
The scheme is about to start its sixth year and applicant education providers will shortly be informed of the outcome of their application. I can confirm a budget of up to £78 million for the Turing scheme for the 2026-27 academic year.
The Government decision to associate with Erasmus+ in 2027 will build on the Turing scheme’s success in opening up world-class opportunities for learners, educators, young people and communities, while further strengthening our partnership with the European Union. Our renewed participation in Erasmus+ will increase the opportunities available to young people across the UK. We will therefore transition to this broad, expanded Erasmus+ in the 2027-28 academic year, ending the Turing scheme as Erasmus+ placements begin.
The Turing scheme has delivered strong outcomes in widening access to international opportunities, with the proportion of students funded who are from a disadvantaged background increasing from 39% in 2021-22 to 56% in 2024-25, with an estimated 61% planned in 2025-26. It has also provided additional funding for students with special educational needs and disabilities, additional support needs or additional learning needs.
We will build on the success of the Turing scheme through maximising the opportunities that our association to Erasmus+ brings, including supporting the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with additional needs. Erasmus+ offers a broader scope of activity than the Turing scheme, providing opportunities not only for students but also for staff, and extends to the adult education, youth and sport sectors. The programme also supports a wide range of institutional partnerships and policy development. These activities help drive quality, encourage research links and enhance international reputation.
Like the Turing scheme, Erasmus+ offers additional funding to help participants with fewer opportunities, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, take part in mobility opportunities.
We expect that over 100,000 people in the UK could benefit from mobility and partnership opportunities through Erasmus+ participation in 2027.
Erasmus+ participants can travel to any European Union member state, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. As part of Erasmus+, grant holders in some sectors can also allocate up to 20% of project funding to support international mobilities to some countries that are not associated with the programme. Erasmus+ also supports global collaboration through partnership projects, with opportunities to involve non-partner countries under certain actions.
[HCWS123]
Non-domestic Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am pleased to provide an update on the Government’s approach to strengthening minimum energy efficiency standards in the non domestic private rented sector, following our previous consultations and extensive recent engagement with industry, investors, local authorities and other stakeholders.
The Government consulted in 2019 and 2021 on proposals to raise non-domestic PRS MEES to EPC B, reflecting the role of energy efficiency in cutting bills, strengthening energy security and supporting the transition to net zero. Since then, we have continued to engage closely with stakeholders on how these proposals would work in practice across a diverse commercial building stock.
Listening carefully to that feedback, the Government have now confirmed their intention to implement a revised and proportionate approach that maintains ambition where it delivers the greatest benefits, while providing greater flexibility for smaller businesses and landlords.
In practice, this means that from 2031 it is proposed that private rented non-domestic buildings over 1,000 square metres in England and Wales will be required to meet a higher energy efficiency standard of EPC B, where cost-effective. This offers a more targeted approach compared with the original proposal, which would have applied across the entire non-domestic building stock. Initial modelling suggests that raising the standard for the largest premises could save those tenants £360 million per year on their energy costs by 2031.
The intention is for buildings below 1,000 square metres to continue to be subject to the current EPC E minimum standard.
The previously consulted interim EPC C milestone for 2027 will not be taken forward, giving landlords and tenants more time to plan investment and retrofit works in a way that suits their buildings and lease structures.
Existing flexibility mechanisms, including the seven-year payback test and exemptions, will remain in place, ensuring that only improvements that are practical, affordable and cost-effective will be required.
The changes to raise MEES to EPC B for larger buildings will take effect following the successful passage of secondary legislation through Parliament.
This targeted approach focuses action where it delivers the greatest benefits, helping tenants in the largest buildings to save energy and reduce bills, protecting them from future energy shocks. While continuing to improve the poorest performing buildings through the existing EPC E standard, we are giving additional flexibility to our SMEs and high streets to upgrade their buildings over time, with no set deadline for going beyond this level. With a fair and proportionate timetable, the policy supports business investment, reduces exposure to volatile energy prices and strengthens UK energy security.
We will publish the Government’s consultation response in due course, setting out further detail on the policy and implementation of the threshold, and aim to introduce legislation and supporting guidance at the earliest opportunity.
We will continue to work closely with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that the pathway to EPC B is fair, clear and deliverable.
We look forward to continuing the dialogue with industry as we move into the next phase of delivery.
[HCWS126]
Online Safety Act 2023: Codes of Practice
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
The harms of viral harmful content do not end online. They can spill into our streets and destabilise communities. Recent incidents—including the disorder following the Southport attack in summer 2024, unrest in Leicester in 2022, and events following the tragic murder of Henry Nowak—demonstrate how online activity can intensify real-world harm at moments of vulnerability.
As set out in “Protecting What Matters”, the Government will go further where needed to protect communities, including by ensuring the Online Safety Act’s crisis response provisions are fit for purpose.
Today I am laying before Parliament draft amendments to Ofcom’s codes of practice on illegal content and the protection of children. These strengthen expectations on platforms to respond effectively where their services contribute to risks to public safety during crises.
The Online Safety Act places clear duties on user-to-user services to protect users, including through systems and processes to tackle illegal content and that which is harmful to children. Ofcom, as the independent regulator, sets out in its codes the steps providers should take to meet these duties.
Following parliamentary scrutiny, Ofcom’s initial codes came into force in March and July 2025. They established a proactive, systems-based approach to tackling illegal harms and protecting children.
These amendments go further. They set an expectation on relevant services to have effective crisis response arrangements, mitigate risks associated with content on their platforms, and work closely with law enforcement where public safety is at risk. This strengthens how platforms address harms such as violence, abuse, hate, extremism and foreign interference.
Ofcom has submitted the draft amendments, which I am laying before Parliament for scrutiny. Subject to the usual 40-day period, the updated measures will come into force 21 days after the codes are issued.
These amendments build on existing collaboration between Ofcom and platforms on crisis response. Following recent unrest in Belfast, Ofcom has written to online service providers to remind them of their duties under the Online Safety Act to assess and mitigate the risks of illegal content, including material that stirs up hatred or incites violence. As Ofcom said in its letter, platforms do not need to wait before they start implementing stronger measures.
These changes mark a further step in implementing the Online Safety Act and strengthening protections for communities. Ofcom will continue to keep the codes under review to address emerging harms. This Government are fully committed to using all available levers to protect the public from harms that originate and spread online.
[HCWS124]
Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am today updating the House on the Government’s review of the airports national policy statement and the next stage in that process.
In October 2025 I announced that the Government would review the ANPS to support the delivery of additional airport capacity at Heathrow airport. In November 2025 I confirmed the Government’s decision to use the north-west runway scheme promoted by Heathrow Airport Ltd to inform that review.
I can today confirm that the Government have completed our review and are launching a public consultation on a draft revised national policy statement—now renamed the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure.
This delivers on the commitment I made to consult on an amended policy statement by summer 2026 and marks another important milestone in the Government’s ambition for a decision on development consent application within this Parliament.
Heathrow is the United Kingdom’s only hub airport. It connects businesses to global markets, supports trade and tourism, and plays a vital role in the movement of passengers and freight. Heathrow has operated at or near capacity for many years and demand for aviation is expected to continue growing in the decades ahead. Expansion therefore has the potential to improve connectivity, strengthen resilience and support economic growth across the United Kingdom, with better connections and a third runway capable of boosting the UK economy and supporting more than 60,000 jobs.
The draft HENPS provides the planning policy framework against which any future application for expansion at Heathrow airport would be considered. It sets out the Government’s assessment of the need for additional airport capacity at Heathrow, explains why the north-west runway scheme has informed the review, and establishes the requirements that any future proposal would need to satisfy.
This document does not grant development consent, and nor does it approve any specific expansion scheme. Any application would remain subject to the statutory development consent order process, including independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate.
However, it is an important milestone and step forward. The review has considered developments since the ANPS was designated in 2018, including updated aviation forecasts, changes in legislation and wider Government policy. It has also considered how the Government’s four tests for Heathrow expansion should be applied.
On Economic Growth: Expansion must deliver a credible and meaningful contribution to UK-wide economic growth, supported by a clear plan for how benefits—for example, jobs, productivity and connectivity—will be realised.
On Carbon: The scheme must be compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate targets, including carbon budgets and net zero.
On Air Quality: Expansion must not cause new breaches of legal air quality limits, taking account of appropriate mitigation.
On Noise: Impacts must be limited so that noise is no worse than current levels—2024 baseline—with reductions where possible, supported by effective mitigation.
As set out in the draft HENPS, the Government consider that the development covered by the Heathrow expansion NPS is critical to national growth and therefore plan to designate expansion at Heathrow as critical national growth infrastructure. This is a signal of the importance the Government place on the need for expansion and will be an important additional factor in the planning balance.
On surface access—how passengers and staff travel to and from the airport—the draft HENPS requires promoters to demonstrate how increased passenger demand would be accommodated on the transport network and how any necessary road and rail improvements would be delivered. We are publishing a surface access vision document alongside this to set our expectations.
Alongside the draft HENPS, the Government are also today publishing an updated appraisal of sustainability, habitats regulations assessment and other supporting documents.
Draft HENPS consultation
The Government are committed to ensuring that decisions are informed by robust evidence and meaningful public engagement. The consultation on the draft HENPS will run for over 10 weeks, closing on 1 September 2026. Alongside the consultation, a nominated parliamentary Select Committee will undertake parliamentary scrutiny on the draft HENPS.
This consultation provides an important opportunity for local communities, businesses, local authorities, environmental organisations and other interested parties to provide their views before any final decision is taken.
Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses and the parliamentary Select Committee’s report before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. Any amended HENPS will be published and laid in Parliament and will be subject to a vote in this House prior to having legal effect.
Broader programme progress
The consultation on the draft HENPS forms part of a wider programme of work to support a modern, resilient and sustainable aviation sector.
The Civil Aviation Authority continues to develop the regulatory framework that would apply to any future expansion proposal, with a focus on affordability, financeability, cost-efficiency and consumer protection. The Government will continue to work closely with the regulator as it develops its approach, while respecting the regulator’s independence. The CAA anticipates publishing its final decision on recovery of early costs and direction of travel on preferred regulatory model this summer.
The Government are also progressing our airspace modernisation programme and will shortly publish updated air navigation directions and guidance to support a more efficient, cleaner and quieter aviation system. Airspace modernisation is needed irrespective of the planned runway expansion. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner—not to provide a shortcut to airport expansion.
Alongside this consultation, the Government are announcing a review of the jet zero strategy, with an updated strategy to be published in early 2027. This review will consider the latest evidence on aviation decarbonisation and assess progress in delivering existing commitments.
The Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which is separate from the Heathrow expansion programme, will support growth, strengthen consumer protections and modernise the regulatory framework for the aviation sector more widely.
Next steps
I will update the House on the outcome of the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process in due course.
[HCWS125]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction, including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It seeks to ensure that the exercise of the direction-making power is subject to scrutiny and community engagement.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the second day in Committee on this Bill. I open this group on airspace modernisation, consultation and charging and move Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, as she is unfortunately unable to be here today.
The amendment is straightforward and seeks simply to insert a new subsection requiring that, before the Secretary of State makes any directions under Clause 4, three things must happen: a consultation with persons and communities likely to be affected; an environmental impact assessment; and a noise impact assessment. On these Benches, we feel that these additions are a basic requirement of legitimate decision-making where the power may have serious local consequences. The Clause 4 directions on airspace redesign are not merely a technical tidying-up exercise and can be used to alter flight concentrations, runway throughput, and the intensity and timing of overflight experienced on the ground. A ministerial direction made under this clause is capable, in substance, of facilitating additional capacity without ever being labelled as such.
As was said at Second Reading, the Bill is a blueprint; it is not the final product. It provides a framework that leaves the substance to future regulation. In that sense, as we have described, it is paving legislation. The Committee is entitled to ask what safeguards are built into that paving before being asked to drive on it. The Minister has given us reassurances that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for airport expansion; we note and welcome those, and we accept them in the good faith in which they have been given. However, personal reassurances, however well-meaning, are not a legal safeguard. Ministers change, Prime Ministers change, Governments change, and interpretations can also change. The whole point of us seeking to put this duty into the Bill is to ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and one that, in effect, delivers additional capacity through the back door of airspace decision-making. Without mandatory consultation and impact assessment, the distinction cannot be realistically made. Even if it could be made, it would happen only after the fact.
Airport change proposals are already assessed through environmental methodologies, noise matrices and statutory directions. This should therefore be aligned with that pre-existing reality. For our communities, these matters are really important. Many, as we know, are already impacted by the noise and environmental impacts of existing airports, and future communities could be impacted by proposals under this legislation. These are real impacts on our communities, from noise late at night to environmental pollution. They should not have to rely on good will, however well-meaningly it is given. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill should state clearly what the procedural safeguards must be before it is used. That is exactly the point of Amendment 60. We are simply seeking to put a safeguard and some handrails in place around these powers. This is a crucial issue for us in our scrutiny of this Bill.
I turn briefly—I am sorry for speaking to these before others have managed to—to the other amendments in this group. In general, they all seek to do fairly similar things to Amendment 60. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would require a minimum 28-day targeted consultation with local communities, local authorities and airport operators before any direction on airspace redesign is issued. We have considerable sympathy for this amendment, for exactly the same reasons that I outlined on our Amendment 60. The 28-day objective is not onerous; it is fundamentally achievable. We hope that the Minister sees fit to put our Amendment 60, this Amendment 61 or some combination of them into the Bill.
Amendment 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would add the British Airline Pilots Association to the consultation list. We are broadly supportive of this amendment and recognise the central role that our pilots play, particularly in matters of safety. Their judgment and professionalism are essential in any plans to modernise our airspace and capacity. However, our concern is that the amendment, by its nature, names one organisation and does not, for example, name air traffic controllers. We would prefer it if the amendment was reworded to talk about consultation with representatives of the industry, as opposed to naming only one organisation.
Amendment 63, from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the CAA to establish a blockchain-based audit trail for every airspace change program. We recognise that the underlying objective and purpose of this is to create a tamper-proof, long-term record of what has been decided, by whom and when. That is an entirely legitimate concern. In the past, too many of these decisions have been opaque; it has been extremely difficult for anybody to know what has been happening and what has been done by whom.
The requirements in this amendment, particularly those in proposed new subsection (3) for cryptographic security, 15-year retention and tamper-proof records, are all laudable aims, but we wonder whether naming one specific technology would make this a hostage to fortune in the future. We suggest alternative wording that asks for a secure, auditable and publicly accessible record, without prescribing the exact technology to be used. We feel that that would be a better way forward. It might be that the technology that the noble Lord suggests is the one that is chosen, but alternative wording would at least leave more scope for examination in the round.
Amendment 64, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probes with characteristic precision the rationale for allowing changes to be imposed under Clause 6 on persons who neither use nor benefit from the air traffic services in question. This is a serious point: the Bill should have open scrutiny of who bears the costs for these matters. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on those points.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 65, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the growth and sustainability of general aviation when setting charges and to ensure that charges on general aviation users are proportionate to the use that they make of air traffic services. General aviation is too often forgotten, and this seems a proportional requirement and a modest and reasonable ask. We look forward to the Minister’s response to it.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his comments on my Amendment 61. I will speak to it only briefly, because it is pretty self-explanatory.
The legislation rightly gives some power to the Government to intervene and, in effect, act as arbiter when it comes to airspace redesign. Airspace redesign has taken much too long. It started when I was Secretary of State and now, nearly eight years later, we are still not close to bringing it to fruition, yet it is fundamental to the future of the aviation sector in this country. It will unlock extra capacity and use next-generation technology to enable us to provide more respite to communities that are affected by aircraft noise, even though the level of aircraft noise, in the world in which we live, has dropped enormously over the past generation.
The Government rightly believe that they need some degree of arbiter powers in this, but I do not think that they should have those powers just to say, “Right, that’s the decision”. There is an obligation there—nothing at great length, because we know that government consultations can last for ever, take months to be responded to and all the rest, but with a simple process saying, “Look, that’s what we’re going to do. Is there anything we haven’t thought of? Is there something we’re not quite getting right here?” I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the wording of the amendment is what it is, but I would expect pilots’ organisations, air traffic organisations and all the rest to be able to input a view on this point.
I would see this as being not an isolated consultation but a standard government consultation—a short, snappy one—simply so that the organisations and communities that have a vested interest can come forward and say, “There’s something you haven’t thought of. This is going to have an adverse effect that you haven’t thought about. You really shouldn’t be taking this decision”. It would be improper for that process not to exist where the Government have what is, in effect, a pretty absolute power of direction under the legislation as it is at the moment. I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board and perhaps look to include something of this kind on Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 60 to 62; I express a specific concern in my Amendment 62. I thought that I knew about the technology in this debate until I decided to brush up on it yesterday; I have spent most of my working hours since then getting up to date, to some extent.
The essence of the technology, which would allow a much more holistic review of airspace use, is that it is dependent not on aids on the ground but on global positioning systems. That gives great benefits, in terms of what it does for aviation, but I put it to the Committee that it also gives great benefits to those who are concerned about the environmental impact. If your route does not fit with that bit of society and there is a route that can fit with that bit of society, then, with the overarching technology, it can be changed. Up to this point, changing where aeroplanes go close to the ground has been totally dominated by the ground-based aids that they use to land.
The essence of my amendment—as an ex-BALPA shop steward, I thought that I had better represent my old team—is to get pilots involved in this consultation. They are going to face dramatic differences. One of the first things that I would say relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made the other day, which is that the planes can fly themselves. Normally, you have to drag the plane into the air then tell it to fly itself, and, when you get to the end, you actually have to make a few decisions. It is a very good theory; hopefully, when you press “flight nav” or something like that, that will happen.
The problem facing the modern pilot is that one of their most important tasks is to cope when there are system failures. There will be system failures. There are no big computer systems in the world that do not have system failures, as we all know to our cost. The problem is that the level of knowledge needed by the operative to cope with a system failure is very large but it is not often practised. It will, I am sure, follow the pilot’s standard of continuous checking. I have never flown an airplane with its engine on fire, but, when I was an airline pilot, I flew a plane with its engine on fire many times in a simulator. It was dramatic and great fun, but the whole essence here is that the systems delivering this will intrinsically and inevitably have failure modes early on. The crew are there to look after that, among all the other safety issues that they have to care about.
All the literature on the impact on pilots of a very different system says that it will require if not an almost completely new licence then certainly a substantial licence endorsement to equip pilots to look after these systems. How can their views and their wisdom be taken into account? They are the only people who can envisage the situation, together with a very dramatic change in standards.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 63. I thank the noble Earl for the excellent way in which he introduced the group and covered the amendments with such eloquence. This is a very straightforward amendment whose purpose is clear: to have an immutable cryptographic record of such important decisions. I agree entirely with the noble Earl. The blockchain reference is merely illustrative but it also shows the unfortunate speed that I was flying at when I was drafting. I would like to have set out criteria that any technology would need to meet to achieve the objectives in the amendment. That was the approach that we took in the Electronic Trade Documents Act, for example, when we specified no particular technology but set out a series of criteria that any technology would have to meet to be able to perform the task. If we can import that into our considerations of this amendment, that would get us pretty much to where I am at.
The point is that blockchain would more than suffice for the task. There is obviously a difference between blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, which we do not need to go into at this stage, but there are technologies that have not even come to fruition, never mind to a level of usability at this stage, which almost certainly will have a part to play in such illustrations as this. It is critical, though I failed in this amendment, to have technology neutrality, because through that technology neutrality you give yourself the best opportunity of having technology future-proofing. If the Minister could respond with those thoughts in mind, which are in the text but I wrote them in white ink on a white page, I would be obliged.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
In proposing Amendment 65, I must declare again my interests as set out at Second Reading. I have held a private pilot’s licence for about 40 years now. I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation, and I am the author of its inquiry into our lower airspace that was conducted a year or two ago. I am honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association and a former airport director. In a way, I am looking at this subject from rather more than one perspective.
At Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on Clause 6, and, in particular, on the change it makes to who must pay for air traffic and air navigation services from
“operators or owners of aircraft”
to simply “persons”. I asked what lay behind this decision and whether it was prompted by newer developments such as drone delivery, and at that point I referred to the Minister nodding his head. I am afraid that perhaps I was taking too much on in assuming that the nod related to my remarks—I make no aspersions otherwise. I said then that the burden on general aviation ought to remain broadly where it sits today.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority in exercising their functions over these charges to have regard to two matters: the growth and sustainability of general aviation, and the desirability of ensuring that those carrying out general aviation activities do not pay charges disproportionate to the use they make of the services. Many of my colleagues here who have spoken earlier in these debates have indicated their interest in general aviation, so there are quite a lot of us around, but it is important that I explain to the Committee that general aviation means civil aviation other than commercial air transport. It includes gliders, light aeroplanes, microlights, and the private and training flights of which I spoke earlier. It is not airlines and it is not, as I shall come to say, drones. On the Government’s figures in their general aviation strategy, the sector contributes, they accept, something in the order of £3 billion in gross value added and supports some 38,000 jobs. It is around 1/14th of the size of the commercial airline industry.
The figure I ask the Committee to hold in mind is that a great majority of those who sit at the front of the airliners that this Bill is chiefly concerned with—by some estimates three-quarters or more—began in general aviation, very often paying for their own training at the small flying schools the regulator knows as declared and approved training organisations. Those same schools and that same flying give us our future air traffic controllers and aircraft engineers, as well as those who pilot light aircraft. With Boeing and Airbus alike forecasting a need for several hundred thousand new pilots around the world in the years ahead, this is exactly the wrong moment to make it more expensive to learn to fly. From my involvement with the British Airline Pilots Association, I can tell the Committee that the profession, as was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, watches the health of general aviation closely, for it is from there that the profession is renewed.
I will mention drones, for I suspect they lie close to the heart of the change. The Government have been candid that the Bill is needed in part because of new users of the air—the drones and the air taxis that will follow. I do not quarrel with that. Those users will make real demands on a future digital airspace and it is fair that they should pay their share, but the drone is not general aviation. They are governed by a separate code altogether in the air navigation orders and the unmanned aircraft regulations, in their own open, specific and certified category. My concern is that, when one widens the net from the owner and operator of an aircraft to any person, one catches the drone operator one is aiming at but one may also catch the local gliding club.
The danger is of a single standard designed for the commercial airliner being pressed on everyone, bringing cost and complication to those who fly small and simple aircraft—not always terribly simple, I might add. A glider under tow or a training aeroplane in the circuit draws on a fraction of the air traffic services that an airliner consumes or, for that matter, a fleet of delivery drones one day will. The charge each meets should reflect that and no more. There is a related point that it can hardly be right to levy a charge on a person who does not use and cannot use the very service being charged for. That is the principle behind this amendment: that those who make little use of the system should bear little of its cost.
I want to be clear about what I am not asking. I am not asking that general aviation be exempted from all charges. It pays its way today and it should continue to do so. Nor am I seeking to frustrate the much-needed programme of modernisation that, rightly, this Bill provides for. I supported its general objectives at Second Reading and continue to support them now. I ask only that, as these powers are set out in greater detail, the interests of general aviation are kept in view and the principle of proportionality is clearly set out, rather than left to assurances by the Secretary of State.
If the Minister can tell me that the Government have no intention of drawing general aviation into a charging regime built for the airlines or for commercial drone activity, and that he will consider how that intention might be given proper statutory form, that would be enormously welcome.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, of a targeted consultation with local communities.
It will surely be the case that, as part of the civil aviation Bill, there will be changes to the use of airspace overhead and the potential not only for increased numbers of flights but the redesign of flight paths and expanding airports. It must surely follow, then, that, as part of the planning and preparation for these changes, residents who may experience new aircraft overflights, increased noise and other meaningful impacts, such as increased traffic on roads leading to local airports, should be given a meaningful role in considering these changes.
It is already the case that government and CAA policy recognises that airspace changes can have significant impacts on people on the ground and therefore includes consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements, but that sometimes feels a little like a box-ticking exercise. I feel strongly that it must be more than that. Communities that may find themselves under new or intensified flight paths deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions that seriously affect their quality of life.
I recognise that the updating of our aviation policies is an essential process from time to time, but surely the best outcomes are achieved through reasonable discussion. A stronger consultation framework may well deliver reforms more smoothly and avoid delay in being implemented, which can arise where opposition intensifies. Whereas existing consultation processes are often seen as insufficient as they take place too late in the process after key decisions have already, in effect, been made, proper engagement with those affected at an earlier stage and a clear demonstration of how their views are being considered is more likely to appear proportionate and pragmatic.
I am not suggesting that communities could or should have a complete veto over necessary airspace changes, but it would help ensure that residents who may experience substantial increases in overhead flights are fully consulted earlier and can see how their concerns are being taken into account. The key may be to introduce formal reviews of new routes after a year or so, independently conducted, and a commitment to revisit the design if impacts prove worse than forecast. The most defensible demand is surely a requirement that decision-makers must demonstrate how community representations have been considered and explain publicly why particular concerns were accepted or rejected.
Yes, residents already have consultation rights in relation to airport expansion and airspace changes, but they are limited and there is no guarantee at the moment that community concerns will materially affect the outcome. The issue is not whether consultation occurs but whether it is meaningful. Communities facing substantial increases in aircraft noise should have a guaranteed opportunity to influence decisions and receive a clear explanation of how their views have been taken into account.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I start by repeating my interest, which I declared on Tuesday, as a current pilot, aircraft owner and operator. On Tuesday, we had a good debate around general aviation, when my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and others took pains to explain the benefits not only to the economy, through the contribution that GA makes, but the broader aviation ecosystem, as it were, particularly in pilot training. Anything that is done to reduce opportunities for pilot training in the UK will have an easy to define effect, which will be the export of pilot training to Europe, where some countries have a different regime and much better weather, the United States and elsewhere. We have to regulate and legislate carefully; the law of unintended consequences is very active in this field.
Access to airspace is critical to the operation of general aviation. I refer to and support my noble friend Lord Kirkhope’s Amendment 65 in both of the thrusts that it seeks to take forward. First, it would protect the importance of GA when it comes to decisions being made around airspace design. It would be easy for the interests of general aviation to be minimised or not taken fully into account, and once decisions are taken it is very difficult for them to be reversed. Yes, much of the country is open, class G airspace, but there are real pinch points and that situation is likely to become exacerbated, rather than made any easier. One example would be around the area of Farnborough, which is close to the London airspace around Heathrow and so forth. I therefore plead for the interests of GA to be considered properly in the design, or redesign, of airspace.
Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, I recognise the technological advantages of change that is coming so rapidly. It is difficult for us now to be able to consider what life is going to be like in five years’ time. We support all the advantages that can come from that, including the safety advantages. When I was training as a pilot, one of the biggest concerns was getting lost. It took up quite a lot of my time thinking where one was, particularly in less than perfect weather. Nowadays, with GPS systems, you know precisely where you are at all times. That has taken away one of the excuses, but the safety benefits are extraordinary, and they will continue to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said. I flew an aircraft with a big orange button on the front. If you pushed the button, the aircraft could land itself should the pilot become incapacitated. It was way beyond my knowledge and expertise, and I would not be allowed anywhere near such a machine now. The point is that that technology exists today.
The reasonable points that my noble friend made around charges were not special pleading in any sense. He is saying that the charging regime has to be proportionate; it really is as simple as that. There have been issues in the past. I took pains in my remarks on Tuesday to pay tribute to the CAA, but sometimes the cost, for example, in giving approval to small general aviation airfields that are regulated as full airfields can be disproportionate. It is a system that would suit a much bigger airfield and the result is that the airfield in question is no longer regulated, because it is much easier to move to a deregulated situation. However, that has implications for training and what can be done in such a field. What we are saying is this: be cautious and careful, and take into account the advice and interests of what really is the grass roots of aviation, which has been a major part of our success as a nation in the broader aviation industry.
Amendment 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is on the importance of hearing the professional pilot’s voice. I would be very surprised if any consultation did not take into account the views of those who know what they are talking about on large-scale commercial aviation. Exactly how that should be done and the mechanism for it I will leave to others to decide and opine on, but the noble Lord gave a powerful voice to BALPA, as we heard on Tuesday.
In recollecting the discussions around BALPA, I remember our late and much missed colleague Lord Clinton-Davis, who was a powerful advocate for BALPA. I spent many happy hours at the Dispatch Box with him as opposition spokesman in this field, and indeed he was earlier a Minister.
This has been a balanced debate and we very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest that I made on Tuesday as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation.
I will say a word or two about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and strongly support what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, said. I wanted to ask the Minister to flesh out a bit the answer to the question that I asked at Second Reading. There are already consultation processes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, mentioned. There is no specific one for the exercise of the direction power. I am keen that, if there are extra processes, they fit well together; we do not want one set of consultations at one stage and then, if the Minister decides to do some direction, another set. When the Minister responds and, I suspect, urges the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, not to press his amendment, I would welcome a clear exposition of how the current position works, how it would dovetail with any use of the power of direction that Ministers are taking in Clause 4, how they would expect to use it and how that would fit with the existing consultation mechanism. I am keen that we do not invent another consultation mechanism.
If that power of direction is taken and is used—although the Explanatory Notes say that they do not expect the Government to use it very much, as it is a backstop power—it is almost certainly going to be used in difficult or controversial circumstances, because it would not be needed otherwise. That is the position set out in the Explanatory Notes. It would be helpful to understand how that end-to-end process works. It may be that the Minister should come forward with an amendment on Report that sets out how the power would be used and consulted on, or at least how it will dovetail with existing consultation mechanisms. I am not clear about how that would currently work.
Finally, I back up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about the charging mechanism. I want to set out some of the views from the International Air Transport Association. IATA strongly supports, as I do, and welcomes the Government’s intention to do airspace modernisation but has concerns about the charging regime. It thinks that the drafting is too broad and ambiguous, and risks undermining the international charging principles that exist.
IATA is also concerned—a concern shared by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Moylan—about replacing the words
“operators or owners of aircraft”
with the undefined “persons”. It thinks that that significantly expands the pool of liable entities and breaks the link with service provision. It understands the need for flexibility for future entrants but think there should be a narrower definition that encompasses those but is not as broad as the one that exists.
IATA is also concerned about revised Section 75(7), which allows charges to be levied on the basis that services are merely
“available for use or benefit”,
irrespective of the actual use. That represents a fundamental shift away from usage-based charging, which is the agreed international regime.
IATA has a number of concerns, not about the principle of what the Government are doing. It recognises that there will be new users and technologies, and the need to change how charging is done, but there are some accepted principles about the user paying for these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, that should be done proportionately, but it is not sufficiently backed up by the broad wording in the Bill as currently set out.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say what the thinking was behind the drafting; whether the Government agree with IATA’s views about whether the Bill is in accordance with existing principles; and whether the Bill would be improved by a tighter definition that absolutely encompassed new technologies such as drones and other potential things in the future but was not so broad, and explicitly reintroduced the link between the usage of airspace and the charging, rather than simply the theoretical benefit. The Bill would be improved if those changes were made, and I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s thinking about how its wording was arrived at.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there are some positive amendments in this group. Amendments 60 and 61 are trying to get to the same place. If there are new arrangements for the management of airspace, that is code for motorways in the sky. But it also means that if there are new routes or a material intensification of a route, it is only right and proper that local people are consulted about it, because it can have a significant material impact on their lives.
Where perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has the essence of the matter is that he specified a time. We could argue about whether 28 days is right, but the fundamental principle that he is pointing out is that consultations can be endless and open-ended and never reach a decision. Something needs to be put in to tie it down, provided consultees have adequate notice and there is an understanding. It is a bit like neighbourhood notification and planning applications. There are specific groups of people who need to be approached about this: the people over whom these aircraft will be flying, and those affected by other intensification activities, whether traffic or whatever. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, gets to the essence of this. Whether we settle on a specific number of days is another matter, but the principle has to be established.
I agree with the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but I also accept that it would be inappropriate to specify a particular trade union, because they may change. There are pilots represented by other unions and some represented by none. That could change over time. If you specify the union in your legislation, that would be awkward. As the noble Lord said, we can find a form of words but the principle is the same. However technology may change, having air traffic controllers in the frame for that is common sense. These are the people who, day to day, have to do it. Also, as has been made clear, computer systems break down. We had a long debate on Tuesday over NATS and the breakdown there. The noble Lord is right. Pilots earn their money when the systems do not work, which is a regular occurrence.
By and large, there are some positive amendments in this group. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that I would not specify a particular trade union. Other than that, I support these amendments. There are some positive ones.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and this has been a useful debate. It goes to the heart of what the Bill could enable and the safeguards clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace use. As my noble friend Lord Russell outlined, Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would put those guardrails in place. It would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, alongside making environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction. This is critical. As we know, altering flight paths and redesigning airspace will have a significant impact on a surprisingly large area, as those communities impacted by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for example, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision. It is an important part of the decision-making process.
I understand that the Minister has given assurances that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, but that is not a legal safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Russell outlined. Putting a duty in the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and a change that, in effect, facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision. Without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door. This amendment matters to residents under the flight path, including communities such as those in Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. They already live with the consequences of aircraft noise and emissions. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill must clearly specify procedural safeguards.
As we have heard from noble Lords, the other amendments in this group test the same principle of whether airspace modernisation is being carried out in a transparent, accountable and proportionate way. We are sympathetic to their aims as detailed by my noble friend Lord Russell. I am rather nervous about the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, getting lost in the sky, as he said earlier. I am very grateful that we have modern navigation systems these days. If we are to redesign our skies, we should not do so in a way that leaves people on the ground with less say, less information and fewer protections than we had before. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.
The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.
I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.
Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.
I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.
The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.
My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.
I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:
“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.
There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they
“are available for their use or benefit”.
The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.
Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.
It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group of amendments. Although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today.
I will respond to the points that have been made and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms while maintaining the appropriate safeguards. I will start with Amendment 60, which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It will be convenient for me to address Amendments 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Tunnicliffe, respectively, and to note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln.
I assure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain, a fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset that nothing in these powers removes or weakens the existing requirements for thorough consultation and robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts. The Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. For the avoidance of doubt, that means an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved.
The powers introduced by the Bill do not circumvent the existing requirements built into the airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. This requires the sponsor of an airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of the potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsors must hold meaningful consultations on the proposals with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and, where appropriate, with pilots and those who represent them. These assessments must be rigorously scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority before any proposal can be approved. Where a change is taken forward by the UK Airspace Design Service, it will work closely with airports, in line with the bespoke partnership agreements.
Lord Grayling (Con)
May I just ask a specific question? If we countenance the situation where, for example, a plan coming from Heathrow to amend the routes into that airport clash with the routes into Farnborough and it has been through extensive process and, effectively, there is a logjam where one says one thing and the other says another, my understanding is that the Government, using their direction power, can say, “Right, we vote for Farnborough, not Heathrow”, or vice versa. In that situation, where the Government say they are voting for Farnborough, is there still a duty to consult on that decision before it is implemented?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will take some advice and respond further. But I note in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that both proposals will have been consulted on and agreed, so it is not the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. I will write to him with the precise answer to his very reasonable question and copy it to other noble Lords.
Amendment 63 is from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent. I take the noble Lord’s point about the choice of technology. The Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process is designed to ensure transparency throughout. There is already a legal requirement for directions related to airspace change to be published, as well as any steps the CAA takes to enforce them. In addition, both the sponsor of an airspace change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CAA’s airspace change portal—a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth. When an approved design is implemented, it is published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law.
This is not an area where there is a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CAA operates within a well-established statutory framework with clear oversight and requirements for publication and traceability. Introducing a requirement to store this information in a prescriptive or novel format risks adding complexity without corresponding benefit, given that the core objectives of transparency, accessibility, and auditability are already being met. It would also apply irrespective of any identified gap, creating additional cost and rigidity on how information is managed, so I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, relates to a technical change arising from the proposed expansion of who can pay charges for air traffic services, which will ensure that the “user pays” principle can continue to be fairly applied in future. Air traffic services are provided for all users within a block of airspace. Even when an airspace user does not use a service directly, they may still benefit from it. For example, if two aircraft avoid a collision because one is directed away from the other, both benefit even though one did not directly receive the service.
It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The Bill does not say that charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from them. We reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards and that the Bill maintains them. The Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality and follows an established process, including extensive engagement, statutory consultation and rights of appeal.
A requirement to prove the precise level of use or benefit for every airspace user would be disproportionate and unworkable, particularly as an increasing number of emerging uses, especially drones and other unmanned aircraft systems, are integrated into shared airspace and require air traffic services in future. That issue is what the existing provision is designed to avoid and what the changes in the Bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister says that the Bill does not say that you can be charged if you cannot use the service, but that is precisely what it says. It says that
“it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.
I do not think it is logically coherent, because they have to be available to them to qualify on the first limb of the clause.
It may well be that the noble Lord has the intention he expressed at the Dispatch Box. However, I ask him whether he considers this clause to be drafted to articulate that intention. As it stands, it seems internally self-contradictory. But if it is not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it is not, I would still object to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.
Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.
Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.
As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.
The CAA already has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting and informative group. I know that we have spent a bit of time of it, but it has been time well spent in understanding the Bill. Four key points have come up. There is the whole issue of the need for modernisation, and the fact that it can provide environmental as well as safety benefits, but also the sheer complexity of doing that. Obviously, the powers given to the Minister under Clause 4 and the need for guardrails have come up as well and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, there is consensus in Committee on the concern around those issues. There is the need for consultation, where I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, put it really well; that needs to be meaningful. Finally, there is the issue of general inclusion and the Bill’s impacts on general aviation.
I am forever thankful to the Minister for his care and attention to these matters. We welcome his response on Amendments 60, 61 and 62. It is fair to say that we will reflect on his exact words and have a look at Hansard. These matters are complex and I welcome the words he has given. I am not certain, as I speak here, whether they will be enough or whether we will need to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I am sure that we can have further conversations prior to Report on those issues.
I also note the Minister’s comments in relation to Amendment 63 and welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about having the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle. Again, we need to reflect on some of the Minister’s response around the risks. I note the reassurance that he gave about the CAA as a single source of truth and the systems already in play. With that, I beg to withdraw my amendment and thank noble Lords for the debate we have had.
Lord Berkeley
“Air ambulance operations: regulations(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of supporting the operation of air ambulance services in civil aviation.(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision about—(a) access to airport and aerodrome facilities;(b) access to airspace and air navigation services;(c) the treatment of air ambulance operations in aviation planning and operational decisions.(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the CAA, air ambulance operators, airport operators and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations supporting the operation of air ambulance services in civil aviation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to these amendments today. Before speaking to the individual amendments, I would like to reflect on how great it has been to hear so many comments about general aviation, which tends to get left out on occasions. All my amendments in this group apply primarily to general aviation.
Amendment 65B is designed to give encouragement and support to the air ambulance team, which does an enormous amount of good work not only in places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly but all over the country—and not just over the sea.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 102A, also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who is unfortunately not able to be with us today. He was here for day one in Committee, and he wanted me to place on record his support for this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has set out, the airfield advisory team is something that existed and has recently been disbanded. It would be helpful for the Minister to confirm that that is indeed the case, give the reasons for disbanding it, and say whether, in the light of the amendment, he would reconsider that decision. My understanding is that it was a useful forum for the CAA and the Department for Transport to engage with airfield operators to discuss relevant issues, and for them to communicate with those operators, but, perhaps more importantly, for airfield operators to feed back their concerns and ask questions of the regulator and the department.
Unless there was a very good reason for getting rid of it, having those forums for users of the services provided seems a very good thing. My understanding is that the airfield operators would very much welcome that advisory team being re-established. I would be pleased to hear what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in this group of amendments.
We are fortunate to have air ambulance services operating in the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that these are typically not government-provided services; they are supported by charitable organisations and others. When one needs the service, one needs it very much indeed—that is probably the best way of putting it. The speed of response, particularly in rural Devon where I live—the air ambulance is based in a field that I am very familiar with—means that it is a tremendous service. It is able to get around the county swiftly and provide much needed services for people who have been involved in serious road or agricultural accidents, have been carried out to sea, or whatever.
I was concerned to hear, as the noble Lord stated, that the industry had concerns about the rules and regulations and procedures under which they operate, and felt they could be enhanced. From my own anecdotal experience of hearing from the air ambulance service, I know it is always given priority, formally and informally, by other users and by ATCs. I am concerned and surprised that there are such problems, and I look forward to the Minister responding. On whether those requirements should be written into the Bill, I am not going to fall into the trap, much criticised earlier in our proceedings, of doing the Minister’s job for him. We will let him do some heavy lifting on that.
Similarly, on Amendment 102A, I am not familiar with the precise detail but it is clearly important that the CAA takes fully into account all the voices and interests of those with a great deal of expertise in small airport operation. Again, whether that needs to be written into the Bill or not is something that we can consider later. If the noble Lord succeeds in achieving his objective of easier access to the Scilly Isles, no doubt he will be carried shoulder-high by his fellow islanders.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are worthy of support and raise some important points. I am grateful to him for bringing these important matters before the Committee and for his persistence on these issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the Committee some interesting and valuable amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.
On EGNOS, I never quite understand why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with that is that, every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price, simply because they are still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and for taking advantage of Brexit.
It is worth asking the Minister if he has discussed whether this service might be available, with a bit of expenditure, from Mr Elon Musk. As I understand it, Elon Musk is now in command of around two-thirds of the satellites going around the earth. I am sure that a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could easily develop a navigation system that depended on these satellites. Would that not be a sensible alternative? It might keep the Europeans on their toes, should we want to use their system, if they thought of taking advantage of us. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. There is a bigger world out there—it is not just Europe—and we should all take advantage of it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. I begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 65B. I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this subject. The Government support the life-saving work of air ambulances and the department, alongside the Civil Aviation Authority, regularly engages with air ambulance charities to understand their unique needs. Air ambulances already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures that they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life-saving work. If my noble friend or the operators have any concerns about how this is working, the Minister for Aviation in the other place would be more than happy to hear them and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment is not needed.
On my noble friend’s Amendment 65B, the Government recognise the importance of satellite navigation services to support operations in all weather conditions. As my noble friend notes from his observation of the Answer to a Written Question in the other place, the Government are actively reviewing the viability of these services, including our access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS, and the output from that is expected later this year, as he said. I will not pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject, but I am sure that the Government are considering the full range of possibilities to do what EGNOS delivered in the past. I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment relating to an airfield advisory team. The CAA carries out extensive engagement with aerodrome operators and values the insights and feedback that they provide, which play an important part in informing policy development in this area. At present, there is no clearly established rationale for creating a statutory panel for this group of stakeholders, particularly when similar arrangements are not in place for other stakeholder groups. Introducing such a panel could risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others. But, having noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
I should add clarity to my comments in Committee on Tuesday, to which my noble friend referred. I said this in my speech:
“Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC 114.]
I then gave some different reasons, which my noble friend quoted, for why training might not be possible at some airports. It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would be unacceptable. I hope that that makes things clear.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his answers, which I shall read carefully. I still think that it would be useful if we could have a quick meeting with him before the next stage, particularly to be told a bit more about what is happening on EGNOS and whether Mr Musk’s alternative is a sensible one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grayling
“(a) allocating additional capacity created at an existing airport or a new airport where the affected air carriers have failed to reach a voluntary commercial agreement within a reasonable timeframe;(b) as to the circumstances in which, the terms on which and the procedure by which, slots may be transferred, exchanged or withdrawn where there is no agreement between the commercial parties about the slots;(c) determining the temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during a period of international crisis;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strictly limits the Secretary of State’s power to intervene in airport slot allocation to distinct scenarios: managing unused slots during international crises, handling entirely new airports, or distributing newly created capacity where commercial airlines fail to reach an agreement, thereby preventing broader state intervention in functioning commercial slot markets.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, we now move on to the slots regime. My two amendments in this group, Amendments 66 and 68, are designed to press the Government to understand what they are trying to achieve and where the limits to that are.
I had always expected that, when we left the European Union, we would be able to have a less regulated slots regime, particularly once we and the European Union had taken the view that we would not stay part of the EASA. Fundamentally, we are talking about a private sector market, with privately owned airports or airports owned by third-party bodies—such as the local authorities in Manchester—and independent airlines. So the question is this: what do the Government actually need to do? What is the role of the Government in this space? Should the Government be determining how many airlines fly to an airport, how many slots are available to it and the circumstances in which slots can transfer between one organisation and another?
It seems to me that there are three things that the Government should be doing. I see the role of the Government in this as referee rather than regulator. I am concerned that the content of the clauses that relate to the slots regime give the Government extraordinarily sweeping powers. If I have a slight regret, it is that I did not provide for the removal of new subsection (4), which says:
“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.
What on earth does that mean? The Government are taking on to their own shoulders blanket powers to manage the whole of the slots regime between a commercially run airport, a commercially owned airport and a commercially owned airline. To me, that feels like many steps too far.
What I have sought to do with these two amendments is, first, on the principal amendment, focus on the things that the Government need. The first is all about acting as arbiter and referee, where there is genuinely a problem. We are talking about our key airports here. Where there is genuinely a problem—a dispute that cannot be resolved—I understand that the Government may, for strategic reasons for the benefit of the United Kingdom, need to have put in place some form of arbitration mechanism. Proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) are designed to achieve that. It is topical because of the Iran war, as we have seen. We had the debate last week over the change to the slot regime resulting from that conflict and the need to take away from airlines the requirement to use a slot at a particular time. There may be circumstances in which, in a period of international crisis, the Government need to have a role in the slot regime.
I should also say that, on reflection—I look at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I agree that there is an element, although we might not agree about the scale of it, of a need to make sure there is connectivity within the United Kingdom. In part, the market delivers that anyway. If you are a major international airline flying from Heathrow to another part of the world, you need the feeder flights to fill your planes. If you do not have flights from Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, you are losing a whole chunk of your market—probably losing a whole chunk of it to Schiphol. It is not, therefore, necessary for the Government to take an absolute view about this. But in much the same way that the Government provide and subsidise key strategic routes within the United Kingdom that may not be economically viable but are socially necessary, I understand that there may be a case, in some circumstances, for making sure that a particular route and slot is available to the airline. Therefore, I am not sure I agree with the full detail of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve.
What we do not need to do—this is my fear about elements of the Bill—is try to micromanage the market that is the independent aviation sector. This part of the Bill feels like it is treading into that territory. I am looking for the Minister to provide some clear justifications for the steps being taken here. Particularly, Clause 68 is designed to address, effectively, a criminal provision within the slots regime. I do not quite understand that. Why on earth does there need to be a criminal context to the management of the slots regime? I understand that there can, on occasions, be a need for regulatory enforcement or enforcement in the civil courts—but the criminal courts? My amendment would take out that provision. Frankly, I would take some persuading by the Minister before we come to Report that we need a criminal provision in the management of slots at our key airports. That feels like a bridge that goes much too far.
I need to hear from the Minister an explanation for why all this is necessary: why the slots regime needs to be as all-encompassing as it is, and why the Bill comes up with extraordinary provisions of interference. I refer again to proposed new subsection (4). The Bill does much more than is necessary to provide a sensible framework simply for protecting the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. It amounts to interference, not strategy, and should take a step back from where it is.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I instinctively agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has said but there are situations in extremis that could arise regarding access to hub airports, which is a critical—not only socially but economically—necessity. It has nothing to do with subsidy. There are some modest PSOs in operation. We had them when we were in the European Union. Cornwall was involved at one stage and had a subsidised air route. But that is not what I am getting at here. It is nothing to do with subsidy because all the main regional airports going to hub airports, primarily Heathrow, are perfectly economically viable. It is not a question of subsidy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will primarily speak to my Amendment 73, which was suggested by IATA. I tabled it because I read it and thought it raised some important issues on which I want to test the Government’s thinking.
When I was Secretary of State, this process worked very smoothly and, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, this is largely a commercial exercise. Slots have economic value. They are allocated independent of government and that usually works very well. There are circumstances, as the Minister set out at Second Reading, where there are challenges to how the system works because of outside circumstances. The Government then step in and make some changes which work in the interests of consumers and the industry.
It is also the case that the slot co-ordinator, Airport Coordination Limited, a private company, exercises a considerable amount of power and influence. At airports with a constrained supply of slots, that gives it significant economic power. At the moment, it does not have any regulatory oversight. It is effectively exercising what could be argued to be a quasi-regulatory function, but there is no formal oversight.
The amendment I have tabled is quite narrow but would bring the co-ordinator under the oversight of the CAA, which would give it the ability to scrutinise decisions and its governance. It would, importantly, preserve the independence of the UK slot co-ordinator, which is important and required by our international agreements. It would also introduce a proportionate independent mechanism to challenge decisions. At the moment, if anybody wants to challenge a decision, they have to go through a judicial review process, which is very costly, time-consuming and almost never happens. If you had CAA oversight, it would mean that either the airlines or the department could refer decisions to the CAA and have them looked at independently. It is important that the Government do not have the power to do that, but we should have some sort of process in place.
What I seek from the Minister is the Government’s view on whether the system works well at the moment. Do the Government believe the slot co-ordinator, effectively, has powers which should be better regulated or are they perfectly content with the system as currently set up? Do the Government think it need any changes? I thought the amendment was a useful way of testing the Government’s view. I was therefore very happy to table it and to make the case for it. I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s position when he responds to this group.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Harper. I intend to speak to Amendments 74 and 75 in my name. It would be only slightly reductive to say it is all about the slots. In many ways, this part of the Bill is the very heart of the industry.
To that end, it would seem to make sense, under Amendment 74, to have greater clarity and transparency for all those who should be involved, should be concerned and should have a role in this. They would have that clarity through such a system as set out in Amendment 74. Again, I accept the specificities around blockchain and DLT and would insert mid speech a criteria-based approach so that other technologies which could achieve this aim are equally beneficial to the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment 75 moves that on somewhat to test how much the Government would wish not to overly interfere with slot allocation but, where all things remained equal, they would want other provisions to be brought in. In Amendment 75, I cite the example of environmental concerns, but the principle would work equally well for regional connectivity being higher up the agenda or other issues the Government may wish to push through. As has been rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Grayling, this is largely a commercial matter and there is a market but, like all good markets, that does not mean there is no role for government in it.
It is clear that the Government need to get the right level for that role and not overstep, but it is critical because in many ways the essence of that element of the industry is all about the slots. I am interested to hear where the Minister believes that line should be drawn and whether there is potential to bring other factors to bear, which would fit very well with some of the Government’s other key objectives, such as environmental issues, growth, the nations and regions, and connectivity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I should like to make a couple of observations on the amendments tabled by colleagues. First, it is clear that slots are a very complex and sophisticated trading system, the value of which, as my noble friend Lord Empey mentioned, will certainly be like the value of a company. I go back to the comment about European Union regulation. I was involved in the initial European Union regulation more than 20 years ago, and the revision about 10 years later. I can say with great certainty that even the European Commission did not have any involvement in the designation of slot use. That was completely a no-no, and that was absolutely right.
This brings me then to the possible role of the Secretary of State. Slot allocation is a neutral, independent activity, handled by the slot co-ordinator without due influence of government, airlines and airports, and long may that remain—if it ain’t broke, we do not need to fix it. My view is that Secretary of State should not be at liberty to decide on slot allocation outcomes, whether temporary, during periods of crisis, or during normal times. There is no evidence that our slot co-ordinators, certainly in the United Kingdom, have ever been unduly influenced and made the wrong decisions, so I think we should continue to have that confidence in their role. It is recognised both Europe-wide and more internationally, because Heathrow as a hub is an extremely important airport.
I would like to touch on a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. His amendment talks about the environment and a possible link to an environmental allocation. I do not believe that is the right way forward at all. It is the wrong tool to ensure the sector’s sustainability targets can be met. In any event, the actual co-ordinators can already choose an air carrier due to their environmental credentials. However, this is not and should not be their primary decision.
I finally reflect on what we complied with in the United Kingdom, and still do, even though we are not members of the European Union. Regulation 598/2014 introduced noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports, which broadened that out to environment as well. It was called the balanced approach and repealed a directive from some years before.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group and I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. It is a clear theme in many of the amendments before us. I thought the referee versus regulator point from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was powerful in summing up a lot of this.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will remind the Committee of a thread that ran through Second Reading: the question of airport expansion and, in particular, whether the slots regime and the significant new powers that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or, in effect, predetermine expansion decisions. As your Lordships have heard, slots are capacity. Control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. The Government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate, and I suspect that those questions will return on Report.
The regional connectivity concern raised in this group is one that many noble Lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience. It is a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.
Finally, on parliamentary procedure, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister would not want to resist that principle here. I look forward to his response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.
I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.
The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.
My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.
To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each one in turn but first note two common points that apply across this group.
The UK slots regime depends on independent, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation by the slot co-ordinator. It also operates within international frameworks, such as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level 3 and capacity-constrained level 2 airports. The regime already recognises commercial expectations that require clarity, consistency and timely decision-making. Where I refer to independence, proportionality, flexibility or international alignment, these are the common justifications I have in mind. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the processes in this Bill do not in themselves allow airport expansion; they are about the efficient allocation of capacity created by expansion, which is a different issue.
I begin with Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I understand the concern that the Government should not interfere in a liberalised and well-functioning sector, and our policy intent is not to interfere in this. These provisions, however, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. All the Government are doing is replicating the powers we think we appropriately need to continue. I refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
Neither the Government nor airlines have a role in the day-to-day allocation of slots. As noble Lords have noted, that is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator who must allocate slots openly, fairly, transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intended effect and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed by Clause 7. In our view, Amendment 66 is therefore unnecessary and duplicative.
I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would require sufficient slots at hub airports such as Heathrow to be allocated to flights from UK regional airports. The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and effective access to hub airports for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.
However, I cannot support the amendment because requiring hub airports to prioritise domestic regional services over international routes could conflict with non-discrimination and fair competition obligations in the UK’s bilateral air services agreements. It could also require the reallocation of slots from incumbent operators that have historic rights where usage requirements are met, raising legal and practical issues. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
The next amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime through criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the Government believe are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could be made only through further primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the noble Lord’s intention.
Lord Grayling (Con)
Can the Minister illustrate to me the kind of circumstance in which a criminal sanction is required?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord after today.
Clause 7 already reduces the severity of sanctions by removing the possibility of imprisonment for breaches of slots regulations. Any exercise of the power to amend enforcement provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny and debate in both Houses. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airport operators and others before making any slots regulations under Clause 7. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement and, where new policy is developed under this power, will carry out appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, an inflexible statutory consultation duty would not be appropriate. The power may need to be used urgently in response to significant disruption, as was necessary during the pandemic. In those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 70.
I will take Amendments 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require all regulations relating to slots to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill already draws a proportionate distinction. The negative procedure is available only where there is a significant threat to public health, or another substantial reason, and only for temporary changes to slot-usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case could delay necessary action during disruption, where speed may be essential. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 71 and 72.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would—
Lord Moylan (Con)
The point that the Minister makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill, which says on page eight:
“Regulations are excluded regulations if the Secretary of State considers that their only substantive effect is temporarily to disapply or modify a requirement as to regularity of use of slots”.
That would cover the airport slots regulations that we debated last week. Those would move from being affirmative procedure SIs to negative procedure SIs. The additional stipulations that the Minister mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines an excluded regulation.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I will of course take it away and consider what he has said.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would place the slot co-ordinator under the oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the intention to strengthen oversight, but the amendment would cut across a fundamental principle of the slots regime: that the co-ordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government. The noble Lord asked whether we are content with the current system, and we are. That principle is reflected in the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which align these matters across all level 2 and level 3 airports across the globe and are essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government. They protect new entrants and maintain confidence in the global system. Creating a statutory CAA oversight role would risk putting the UK at odds with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 73.
Lord Empey (UUP)
In the Minister’s response to my Amendment 67, he responded to a point that I had not made. I had not asked for domestic slots to replace international slots. Mine is a probing amendment, but it is a very simple proposition: in extremis, does the Secretary of State have the power to ensure regional connectivity, or does he not? It is not a complicated issue in essence, even though the operational issues are. He anticipated something that I had not actually proposed, and I assure him that on this issue, while I shall not move my amendment today, I do not intend to go away. Perhaps his team could engage with me before Report.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If I may, I shall respond to the noble Lord by saying that, if I have not understood his point clearly, I shall indeed go away and have a further discussion with him.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Again, some important issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes an important point. In fact, when reflecting on my own amendment at the start, I thought that what he was saying might be an element missing from mine. I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said.
I want to be frank with the Minister. He knows that I have the highest regard for him; he knows that I regard him as knowing more about much of the transport system than anyone I know, so I do not direct this comment at him, but at the Government. I am really quite unimpressed by the Government’s inability to explain what are relatively simple things, or should be relatively simple, if they had thought this through properly, in the measures that they are taking in this Bill and those in the debate that we had last week over the slot regime. If the Government want to take powers or continue powers to enforce criminal sanctions, they should at least be able to say what kind of issues those criminal sanctions are designed to address, because I do not think that this is simply a replication of existing EU law—and were it so, I would be asking what we can we do less of, rather than more of, outside the European Union.
However, if the Government’s intention is purely to replicate what is there already, they do not need new Section 34A(4), which says:
“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.
What does that mean? What it does is create a blank cheque for the Government to expand their remit in the slots regime beyond where it is at the moment. They are also seeking, as I say, to continue with criminal sanctions. That does not feel to me like a Government who are trying to maintain a light touch in what the Minister rightly says is a commercial marketplace with established processes that are part of international agreements that go beyond the European Union. So some of this should not be necessary, and it should not be necessary to continue some of it on from what we had before. Where it is continuing, there needs to be a good explanation for it. I am sorry, but I do not think that the Minister has been able to give that good explanation. The Government need to do a better job on what should be pretty basic questions about what they are proposing.
I will of course seek to withdraw this amendment today, but I give notice to the Minister that these questions need to be answered properly before we get to Report, because I can see no justification for having what are clear Henry VIII powers in the slots regime. There is not even a provision for the affirmative resolution so, frankly, in six or 12 months’ time, another Minister—I am sure that it would not be this Minister—could simply come back and take a much more interventionist approach to the slots regime, which would be absolutely out of kilter with anything that we have done either inside or outside the European Union. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I will not leave this issue untouched when we come back on Report.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section that would have the effect of facilitating airport expansion unless the Secretary of State has first—(a) consulted persons likely to be affected by the proposed expansion, including communities in the vicinity of the airport,(b) undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion, and(c) undertaken a noise impact assessment of the proposed expansion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that facilitate airport expansion unless they have first consulted affected communities, completed an environmental impact assessment, and completed a noise impact assessment. It ensures that proper scrutiny and community engagement take place before any expansion can be progressed through secondary legislation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, to which I have added my name. Amendments 69 and 105 address what is, for me, the key issue with the Bill: whether the powers could be used to facilitate airport expansion and, if so, on what terms. Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, complete an environmental impact assessment and complete a noise impact assessment before making any regulations that facilitate expansion. Amendment 105 would go further by prohibiting the use of the powers in the Bill for that purpose altogether.
All the communities that are most directly affected by airport expansion—those living under flight paths, those experiencing noise, air quality and traffic impacts and those with a general disturbance from planes flying over them quite some distance from airports—have consistently found themselves presented with fait accompli decisions rather than meaningful consultation. Amendment 69 would, at a minimum, require such consultation, environmental assessment and noise assessment to precede any regulatory action that facilitates expansion. That is not a high bar; it is basic good governance. Although I heard what the Minister said to us in our debate on an earlier group, we believe that this amendment is very much needed, so that it is clearly spelled out.
Airport expansion, at Heathrow in particular, is one of the most contested infrastructure decisions that this country faces. It has planning implications, climate implications and profound implications for communities living under flight paths. Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly asks for a published assessment of airspace slot and scheduling impact before any decision on a third runway. We think that he makes an important point.
The central question for the Minister is simple: can he give this Committee a clear, unambiguous assurance that nothing at all in the Bill could be used to facilitate airport expansion decisions that have not been subject to full environmental scrutiny, proper community consultation, which goes far further than the exercise we discussed earlier, and meaningful parliamentary oversight? I look forward to his answer with interest and I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 and make one or two comments on the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke to. Amendment 69 seems perfectly sensible, requiring consultation and so forth. I have more of an issue with Amendment 105. If the processes to determine airport expansion have been complied with, it does not seem sensible to say, “As a result, you can’t use any of the powers in this Act to facilitate that properly taken and consulted-on decision”. While I do not have enormous objection to the noble Baroness’s first amendment, the second one goes a bit too far, so I am half agreeing with her, which is an improvement on where we were last time. I hope that she takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.
My remarks on my own amendment may appear a bit disjointed because I am going to slightly amend them in flight, as it were. Members of the Committee may or may not be aware that, while we have been debating this, the Secretary of State has published a Written Ministerial Statement on the aviation framework, which is specifically to do with Heathrow expansion. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in drawing to my attention, because I have tabled amendments on Heathrow, that the timing of the Written Statement would be during our debate today. I have been through the Statement, but it is quite extensive, so I have done it at speed and might ask things that are covered in it or in some of the attached documentation, which I have not had a chance to study. Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about airport expansion, my amendment might give the Minister a helpful opportunity when he comes to wind up this group of amendments to perhaps set out for the Committee’s benefit one or two of the key points in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement, which I think will interest all noble Lords who are interested in aviation.
My amendment is drafted in such a way as to make sure that it is within scope of the Bill. The purpose of tabling it was to press the Government a bit on the choice that they made, which they set out last November and reiterated in the Written Statement today, to settle on the more expensive of the two options set out: the proposal by Heathrow Airport Ltd for a more ambitious, longer runway with a total price tag of £49 billion. Heathrow Airport has committed that that will be financed entirely privately. Obviously, there will need to be a regulatory funding mechanism for that, but I will not dwell on that now because I have some later amendments, in group 7, which I will touch on at that point, so as not to repeat myself.
I want to understand from the Minister whether the Government are satisfied—I presume that they are, given that they are proceeding in this direction, but I have not seen the underpinning rationale that supports the decision. When she made the decision, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s choice of the more expensive of the two options was “the most credible”, so I would like to understand the Government’s thinking about that.
The Minister and I worked together on HS2 when I was Secretary of State and he was chairman of Network Rail. He knows that infrastructure projects, albeit publicly financed ones, can end up costing rather more money than originally intended. I am worried that this project is now intended to be entirely privately financed. If that does not stick, the Government are very much committed—rightly, in my view—to expanding Heathrow, and I want to make sure that the taxpayer does not at some point end up being on the hook for very significant amounts of public money that they are not currently planning to spend.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lord, I shall speak to Amendment 114, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to attend the Committee today. I will speak to both her amendments, this one and one in a later group. I am mindful of what the Companion says on these matters, so, just to be clear, these are my words and not hers.
This amendment seeks to insert a new clause imposing a climate duty on the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. It would require the CAA, when exercising its functions under the Bill, to have regard to the target established by Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the carbon budgets established under the Act and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation. It would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to emissions reductions when exercising powers under the Bill, to refrain from using those powers for the purposes of airport capacity expansion and to use them in pursuit of a strategy aimed at reducing airport capacity.
The case for the amendment is reasonably straightforward. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, but difficulty is not an argument for inaction. It is precisely because aviation is hard to abate that we need clear legislative direction now rather than later. Without it, the CAA risks operating in a policy vacuum, exercising its functions under this Bill, particularly new functions, with no statutory obligation to consider our national carbon budgets or our commitments under the Climate Change Act, specifically in relation to new powers. I argue that that is not a sustainable position; it warrants examination and perhaps further clarity. The duty the amendment would impose is well known and deliberately light-touch. To “have regard to” is not a command. It would not stand in the way of other duties that the CEA continues to have in carrying out its functions. It would simply require that, when those functions are exercised, it has one eye on the statutory climate framework that Parliament has already enacted.
It would be curious indeed if the Bill to modernise our regulatory aviation framework contained no reference whatever to our climate obligations. I should be transparent with the Committee that my Amendment 107 in a later group pursues similar goals in perhaps a slightly different way. I guess my motivations are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
The CAA, particularly with its new powers, must be benchmarked against our national climate commitments. This and my future amendment both call for some form of reporting on that process. An annual account of the environmental efforts of the CAA’s functions and of its compliance with the climate duty is essential for meaningful future parliamentary scrutiny. Aviation’s contributions to emissions cannot be indefinitely treated as an afterthought in legislation. I hope the Minister recognises the constructive spirit in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is advanced, and I look forward to the Government’s response.
I turn briefly to Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. I thank him for his half-support, or support for one of our amendments, which is gratefully received. We on these Benches are supportive of his amendment: it is sensible and modest in its proposition. He asked some interesting questions of the Minister on the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement that have literally just come out, and I would be interested in hearing the answers. We could have completely opposing views on whether we need Heathrow expansion but both accept this amendment. The point is not whether we support expansion but how it is reported and properly assessed. There needs to be a proper framework for doing that, so we are supportive of that.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on the subject in general. I have long been an advocate for airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow. On that note, I support the Government taking this brave step. Having lived in south-west London and under the odd flight path from time to time, I recognise that there was an airport there long before me and before most people who live in the area. It was unfortunately most regrettable—I now intend to be quite party political—that the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats relied on objecting to every element of expansion at Heathrow, whether for new terminals or runways. Most people would agree that we should have had a third runway more than 30 years ago, when the cost would have been substantially less.
My final point is that, while I fully support the Government pushing ahead with expansion and a third runway, the decision on this particular project, at a cost of £49 billion, with disruption to areas around the M25 and elsewhere, is completely wrong. I see it ending up like some of the other massive infrastructure projects that we have had in rail. I do not believe this is the best way forward. There should be a rethink. Other projects would be less disruptive but have not been fully considered. As a general point, I fully support the Government’s ideals to expand but think that the initial decision is wrong at this time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I note the publication, while the Committee has been sitting, of the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement. Obviously, I have not read it, and I do not imagine that other Members have, apart from the Minister and his close associates.
It is worth saying that that this publication does not take us forward; it takes us back to 2018, when the Airports National Policy Statement was published. It was then taken through the courts. There were some ridiculous objections to it, but it got through the High Court. It fell on one particular objection only at the Court of Appeal, which turned, as I recall, on the question of the definition of the word “policy”—this is how great infrastructure projects proceed in this country. It eventually went to the Supreme Court, which took a different view on the definition of “policy” and finally approved the ANPS. By that stage, of course, it was totally out of date and Covid had intervened, so the work had to be started again by the department. The fruits of that work are what have been published today. As I say, I am not in a position to comment on it. We are back to where we were in 2018 and have made no progress in that period. We will see whether this new ANPS survives the sort of process that the previous one was subjected to and whether we will need a third ANPS a few years down the road.
In relation to these amendments, I unfortunately find myself not entirely able to agree with my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It is not because of the intention, because that is of course important—there should be consultation, an environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment if Heathrow is to be expanded—but because I think those things will happen anyway without this amendment. Nor can I honestly say that I support Amendment 105. One cannot create powers for the Government in specific areas of aviation and then say that they cannot be used for one particular purpose within the field of aviation. That makes no sense so, sadly, I am slightly out of sympathy on those two.
I understand the comments about the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but, sadly, this time, I do not feel I can pursue that either. There are other amendments relating to the environment later on, not least one in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, which raise some interesting questions.
I find myself very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper. I sympathise with his remarks about the financial consequences and financial circumstances relating to Heathrow expansion. Perhaps I can give a few figures that will help the Committee put this in some context, and then put a couple of questions to the Minister.
Heathrow is a private company and it is very difficult to know its market valuation, because its shares trade so rarely. There was a trade 13 or 14 years ago, which valued the company at approximately £14 billion. That was roughly the same as the value of the airport’s regulated asset base at the time. There was then a trade approximately two years ago—there was quite a reorganisation of shareholders approximately two years ago—and I understand that the valuation implicit in those trades was that the airport was now worth only £10 billion, roughly. Its value had fallen over that period. Meanwhile, its regulated asset base has gone up to in excess of £20 billion, so the shareholders bought a regulated asset base for half its price.
Of the capital structure of the company, there is a large amount of debt—in fact, more debt than there was some years ago. The amount of equity belonging to the shareholders in the company is therefore probably no more than £2 billion—let us say £3 billion to be generous. Now we hear of a company with £3 billion of shareholder commitment that wishes to embark upon a project costing, conservatively, £49 billion at current estimated prices. This is vaunting ambition at the very least. If it were purely a private company, it would be completely unfinanceable without a huge new infusion of shareholder capital, because no bank will lend £49 billion to a company that has only £3 billion of equity and already has several billion pounds of debt on top of that. It is simply an unfinanceable project.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns airport expansion capacity. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.
I will address Amendments 69, 105, 110 and 114 in turn. Before doing so, I will make two points that apply across the group. First, as I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is not a route to airport expansion. It does not grant planning consent, remove environmental safeguards or predetermine the outcome of any expansion proposal. Secondly, where airport expansion is proposed, the relevant issues, including noise, carbon emissions, air quality, economic benefits and local impacts, are considered through national policy statements and the development consent order processes, with consultation, assessment, scrutiny and independent examination. Those are the common justifications, which I will refer back to. Expansion decisions sit within the planning regime, while this Bill concerns aviation consumer protection and regulatory reform.
I turn first to Amendment 69 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation impact assessments before laying slot regulations that facilitate airport expansion. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to meaningful consultation with communities and to thorough environmental and noise assessment before airport expansion proceeds. However, slot regulations do not grant planning for physical expansion, nor do they increase the legally permitted cap on aircraft movements. They determine how capacity at co-ordinated airports is allocated between airlines. The slots measure in the Bill would allow regulations to be updated if needed so that any capacity already approved through the planning process can be used effectively. Amendment 69 would therefore duplicate consultation and assessment processes that already take place before slot allocation becomes relevant, and for that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I turn next to Amendment 105, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This amendment would prohibit the powers in the Bill being used for the purposes of airport expansion. The Bill and the question of airport expansion are distinct. The Bill is focused, as I said, on consumer protection reform of the aviation regulatory framework. The Government would take forward these measures, irrespective of any expansion decision. The Government support Heathrow expansion, but any decision on the third runway is subject to the national policy statement and the development consent order processes, both of which include consultation and scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is also needed, whether or not a third runway is proceeded with. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner, not to provide a shortcut to expansion. Similarly, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity after it has been approved through the planning process.
Amendment 105 would undermine the workability of the Bill’s regulatory framework. For example, it could prevent reforms to slot regulation where those reforms are needed to manage new capacity that has already been approved. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.
I turn next to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a third runway at Heathrow. The Government agree that decisions on airport expansion should be evidence-based and subject to transparency, consultation and scrutiny. However, Amendment 110 is not necessary to achieve that, because decisions on Heathrow expansion will be taken through the national policy statement and development consent order processes.
As noble Lords have noted, the department has today published the revised airports national policy statement, which has been renamed the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure for consultation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others, I am not going to be in a position to respond to the detail of what has literally just been published, which I am sure he and others will understand. However, I have no doubt that the points he and others raise will be discussed both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but as I say, this is for discussion at another time.
I have also written today to all noble Lords with further details. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will accept that I am not going to answer his questions now, because the Written Statement was laid less than two hours ago.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Would the noble Lord be so good as to answer them by letter before we reach Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.
The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.
Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.
Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. It has been an interesting debate, and I think that how noble Lords view these amendments and powers may reflect which side of the debate one sits on in terms of airport expansion. On these Benches, we are clear that we oppose expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick. I am grateful for the half support from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for our amendments, though we clearly have different views on Heathrow expansion. We will now need to reflect on the Minister’s words—and, of course, the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement that, as has been discussed, has been published while we have been sitting—ahead of Report in any amendments that we may wish to table then. But on that basis, I agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a lot of amendments in this group, but I assure noble Lords that a number of them are duplicative, because they seek to replace “document” with “guidance” wherever it appears in the clause. None the less, it will take me a moment to go through my amendments.
We are dealing here with the CAA’s rule-making powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the first part of the Bill is about consumer protection and the CAA’s role as the direct enforcer of consumer protection powers. This is a very different part of the Bill. It is about making rules. It gives the CAA huge, unprecedented powers to make rules, including ones that may have criminal penalties, and it does so with practically no supervision—certainly not by Parliament and, as far as I can make out, very little by the Minister either. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with.
The first one probes why it is necessary for the Civil Aviation Authority to have rule-making powers at all. Until recently, the rules it made emanated from the European Union; in fact, they often came through from the ICAO, trickling down in that fashion. But, for all their faults, regulations made by the European Union were not made in secret. One could see what was happening. We had, here in your Lordships’ House, a committee that reviewed regulations and statutory instruments relating to European Union legislation.
All these rules were made under air navigation orders, which are a form of statutory instrument—again, it is a parliamentary process. In future, neither will apply. There will be no scrutiny whatever. But, since these rules have been made by statutory instrument and similar in the past, a question arises: why should they not be made in that fashion in the future?
The Minister said—or I may have read this somewhere in some of the supporting documentation—that there is a backlog of 100 or so of these that have to be got through, and that using parliamentary time for this purpose is not appropriate. It is disturbing to think that there is a backlog, but that is not an excuse in itself. After all, we are all being made to sit here in Grand Committee for five hours rather than four, and for three hours on a Tuesday morning. There is no lack of parliamentary time for considering statutory instruments. We are all being held to the last, and we work very hard. There is no excuse that there is no room for them when the Chamber is full of debates on subjects such as tackling child poverty, rather than legislating, which is what it should be doing while we are in here. We will carry on in here; we will do the statutory instruments and put the time in, so there is no problem there.
At an earlier stage—I cannot remember whether it was on our first day in Committee or at Second Reading—the Minister said he had a trump card. He said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that it was appropriate for this regulator-led rule-making approach to be adopted. But he did not read the next sentence:
“Inherent in the proposition is that CAA made rules would be highly technical in nature”.
But this Bill does not limit the CAA to making rules that are highly technical in nature. It does not limit it simply to implementing ICAO powers.
In fact, this has caused concern to another committee of your Lordships’ House: the Constitution Committee. The chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, has written to the Minister saying among other things that:
“This Bill strengthens the secondary law-making and rule-making powers of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State”
and that this
“will, by the nature of negative parliamentary approval of secondary legislation, be subject to minimal parliamentary oversight. We are concerned that this will result in a scrutiny gap”.
We will wait to hear, but so far the Minister has had no answer to that.
So my first question is: why should we make such a dramatic change at all? Secondly, if there is going to be a rule-making power of this character, the Secretary of State should publish the underlying principles. It is not all given to the Secretary of State: it is for the Secretary of State, following the enactment of this Bill, to decide which rule-making powers are given over. There is no limit in the Bill on what those powers are. The second amendment, Amendment 77, would require at least a statement of principles, in advance of enactment of the Bill, as to what basis the Secretary of State is going to use for deciding which powers should be transferred over into this new process. Amendment 79 would require consultation by the Civil Aviation Authority when making rules. There is no requirement for consultation in the Bill.
Amendment 81 in my name probes why the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives statement is described as a “document” rather than “guidance”. As I said at Second Reading, this is the oddest part of the Bill. It says that the Secretary of State is allowed to issue a document that gives guidance to the CAA on what the Government’s priorities are in relation to rule-making. The word “document” is used and the word “guidance” is avoided. I fear that that is a deliberate choice. The word “guidance” has a legal weight to it; we understand what guidance is in relation to the action of public bodies and how they are bound to it, but we do not understand what obligation a public body has to pay attention to a document issued by the Secretary of State. Does it have the weight of guidance? What weight does it have? I am trying to replace it with the word “guidance” so that we have clarity.
Then we come down to this further point: the Bill prohibits the Secretary of State from issuing this “document”, which I would change to “guidance”, without the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority. This is truly remarkable. I do not think that I have ever come across an example where a regulated body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can refuse to accept the document or guidance that the Secretary of State is going to issue. I raised the point at Second Reading, and the Minister made no defence, although no doubt he is better prepared now—but what could it possibly be, and how could your Lordships possibly agree to such a thing?
There are other matters here. For example, on Amendment 98. The Bill states that the Civil Aviation Authority “may” publish a consolidated set of rules so that people can look at them. That is a good idea, but it would be a better idea if the Bill said that it “must” publish a set of consolidated rules. How could this be left to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority? Then the Bill has the cheek to say that anybody who is so impertinent as to ask for a printed copy of that set of rules can be charged a fee, with no limit placed on the fee or on how that might be used. My amendment would take away the fee.
This whole section gives new and unprecedented powers. There is no justification given for them and it is very difficult to understand why the Government would want to do this. I have respect for the Civil Aviation Authority because, as a safety regulator, it is of the highest quality. It is in the box of good regulators; there are bad regulators, but the CAA is not a bad regulator. I do not like to say something disobliging about the CAA, but it seems that this Bill has been written as an enormous power grab by the Civil Aviation Authority. It muscled its way into the digital markets Act in relation to consumer protection, and now it is taking over a whole swathe of rule-making powers. I just remind the Minister that, when we voted for Brexit, one thing we voted for was that rules should not be made by unelected bureaucrats. This Bill moves from a system where there is some scrutiny and understanding of the process and some parliamentary scrutiny of how these rules are made, to one where they are all being made by unelected bureaucrats, without supervision. It is a retrograde step, and not one that we should support. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 78 in this group. I shall only say a few words, and I suppose the very few words I could say are that, if we are to get new powers that may affect pilots, we wish to be consulted. In many ways, it is as simple as that. Hopefully, the Minister can give us a better feel for what this piece of legislation will be used for. I find myself almost agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If we are to have powers where we are not clear what they will be used for and what their extent will be, there are two sensible outcomes: either you do not bother with the powers, or you have an appropriate set of checks and balances to make sure that the powers are sensible.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moylan has done the Committee a service by bringing to our attention some of the conflicts within the Bill in terms of rule and regulation-making powers. I should add that I am a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. I have previously been a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, but I was not a member at the time that its report on this Bill was made, for reasons that I explained on Tuesday—I was not a Member of the House at the time.
This a highly complex subject and complex field, and it is very easy to get tangled up in it. Some of the principles that my noble friend has elucidated are extremely valid. The other point is that one perhaps needs to be careful what one wishes for, because I could see hundreds of very technical regulations—technical in the technological sense of the term—coming before your Lordships’ House for scrutiny. None the less, my noble friend has made the particular point around the Government choosing which regulatory process to utilise, and I think there are some real difficulties in that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I shall speak to Amendment 96 in my name. It rehearses an issue that we discussed in Committee on Tuesday, but it is pertinent to this section. Essentially the point at issue is this: we have a Government who have stated that they have no desire to legislate or regulate cross-sector or cross-economy for artificial intelligence and that a domain-specific approach is preferred. I suggest that that is a suboptimal choice, but it is still a legitimate choice.
The difficulty is that every time we come to some such domain—this Bill is about aviation—the Bill is silent on AI. I appreciate that there are data protection provisions in other legislation, but that is but one specific element of artificial intelligence. I believe that when one considers the role and functions of the CAA and the positive role it could take when it comes to artificial intelligence, all the people who are subject to the CAA’s powers would greatly benefit from an AI aviation standard to deal with transparency, explainability and bias and to look to the systems that not only the CAA uses, may use or, indeed, it could be said, must use in the very near future and to AI systems that are already in use across the aviation sector.
A specific AI aviation standard could bring clarity and coherence across this industry, across the roles and powers that the CAA is responsible for and across actions. It is imperfect because it would be far better to have AI legislation and regulations that could be understood by the public, business and all of us wherever we happen to come across AI, because those flexible, agile regulations would be cross-domain, cross-sector and cross-economy, so they would deliver the clarity, consistency and coherence that you require whether you are an aviator, an investor, an innovator or a citizen. However, that is not the choice the Government have made, so I suggest it would be worth considering an AI aviation standard at least to deal with this domain. The issues go far beyond data protection, which is but one part, albeit an important part, of this, but AI is already impacting in this sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by recording my registered interest as the president of BALPA. I strongly echo the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the importance of engagement with the pilot community on many of the key issues in the Bill. I very much welcome the recognition that I have heard from just about everyone in the Room of the vital expertise that BALPA members can bring to the consultations required by both the Government and the CAA in key provisions in the Bill.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 89 and 95 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Amendment 89 seeks to remove the apparent veto given to the CAA over the document to be issued by the Secretary of State setting out their priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, touched on this point in his remarks. It seems a curious piece of drafting in this part of the Bill. The amendment also strongly emphasises the importance of consultations on these issues with organisations and persons with relevant interests and expertise who would be affected by the new or amended proposed rules; that will clearly include pilots.
Amendment 95 would require the Secretary of State not only to publish any directions issued to the CAA, as the Bill currently requires, but to lay any such directions before Parliament, thus allowing parliamentarians the opportunity to probe and scrutinise them. This would provide greater openness and transparency without being overly burdensome. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has conducted a forensic examination of many parts of the Bill, to which I am sure we will return at a later stage.
I shall commence by referring to Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I agree entirely with the substance and strength of it but I will apply the same remarks to it as I did to a previous amendment he tabled, in that it is not appropriate to specify a particular trade union when it does not necessarily have a monopoly—never mind now; who knows whether it would in future. However, the sentiment is right, and I support it.
I have tabled Amendment 118. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on it before Report. We have here a situation where the CAA is getting a lot of powers and, if I interpreted one part of the Bill correctly, is almost in a position to veto a decision made by the Secretary of State. I might have picked that up wrong, but it seems to be accruing an exceptional amount of power.
One issue—it is a health and safety issue, apart from anything else—is flight-time limitations. A number of years ago, there was a major change to the relevant European directives that apply here, but, of course, flight-time limitations apply not only to airlines that operate or are based in the United Kingdom but to airlines in other jurisdictions that carry UK passengers and use our airspace. That is important. There are international agreements but, with all the changes taking place around who is regulating this area, it would be most helpful if the Minister could write to me before Report clarifying what his department believes the situation to be. This is one of the most difficult issues to deal with because safety is vital. At the same time, there is competition between the desire to have the safest possible environment and airlines pressurising for the maximum amount of efficiency. There is an in-built tension there.
Circumstances arise, be they weather-related or incident-related, in which an airport has to close and crews overshoot their time. We understand the practicalities of flying, but I want clarity on who is setting the rules for the operation of flight crews of not only UK-based airlines but airlines that use UK airspace. Those of us who fly have an investment in ensuring that the right conditions apply. We know that fatigue is a regular cause of accidents and fatalities: it has been well documented in reports, and air crash investigations frequently come up with it as a major issue. So it is important to know precisely where we stand now, given that our rule-making regime is undergoing so many changes and the CAA is accruing so many powers. We had a European arrangement prior to our departure from the European Union. I would be grateful to ensure that we have clarity on who does what and who sets the regulations.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan in two of his amendments.
On Amendment 76, my noble friend made some very good points about making sure that we have a proper parliamentary process. From a combination of listening to him and looking at the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, I am not against his argument that very technical rule changes should be done by the CAA, but that distinction is not made in the Bill. Clearly, rules that have more impact than that should remain with Ministers—obviously, with the CAA advising them—so that they are made through parliamentary procedure and receive appropriate scrutiny in the House. If there is a backlog of non-technical ones, we can put processes in place, even for a limited period, to deal with it, if that is required. That has happened before: it happened when we were putting through the various changes that were required as a result of Brexit. Both Houses set up processes to deal with the one-off process of changing our legislation. It can be done.
What I want to hear from the Minister is: what powers do the Government intend to give to the CAA, and what powers do they intend to keep for themselves? How will they make a judgment on which powers to make rules it is appropriate for the CAA, which will have no parliamentary oversight, to have? Where Ministers will retain parallel powers, what will they be used for? As far as I can tell, that is not set out anywhere; it would be helpful if it were.
My final point is small but important. My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 91 deals with the extraordinary idea that, when the Government are issuing guidance to the CAA, the CAA somehow has a veto over whether the Government can issue the guidance. That does not make any sense to me at all. It is clear that, although the CAA rightly has operational independence in its regulatory and safety responsibilities, the Secretary of State sets out its objectives—she did so as recently as 20 April—in the letter that she sends to the chair of the CAA. Ultimately, she has the ability to hire and fire members of the board.
So it is clear who is in charge here. It seems very odd that, with this drafting, the CAA will be able to stop the Government issuing the guidance. I do not understand why that is there. It might simply be a drafting error, in which case the Minister should bring forward an amendment on Report to deal with it. If not, he should give us a clear explanation of what it is there for; I genuinely do not understand it. My noble friend Lord Moylan has done us a service by spotting this and highlighting it to the Committee.
With that, I draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Although this amendment sits in this group, there is considerable overlap with the amendments that I had on day one in Committee. This amendment would require the CAA to publish a disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. The thought behind the amendment was to put disability rights higher up the priority list, while ensuring there is a better understanding of the needs of disabled people and that they receive both equal and equitable treatment. I am very interested in the Minister’s view on this amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group that touches on the constitutional and regulatory framework at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would change the power in Section 61A(7) of the 1982 Act to the affirmative procedure, in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This House takes those recommendations seriously and I am sure the Government do as well. When Parliament is being asked to delegate significant rule-making powers to the CAA, the least we should expect is meaningful parliamentary oversight of that delegation. I hope the Minister can support this.
Several of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this group probe the curious decision to describe the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives as a document rather than guidance. He made some interesting points in that it has implications for the enforceability of the Bill. Amendment 83 asks that this document address connectivity between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which we strongly support.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, would require a disability impact assessment before significant new regulations and speaks to obligations that should be automatic—these are not optional. We should not have to say, in this day and age, that disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility deserve to have their needs considered systematically before regulations are made, not just retrofitted as an afterthought once a problem emerges. Yet the experience of disabled travellers tells a very different story. We have seen wheelchairs damaged or lost in transit, and passengers left on aircraft without explanation or assistance, long after others have disembarked. We have seen accessible services withdrawn or downgraded, with no prior assessment of the impact on those who depend on them. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a culture in which the needs of disabled travellers are treated as a secondary consideration, rather than an absolute core service.
A disability impact assessment requirement before significant regulatory change would begin to change that culture. It would require the CAA to ask the right questions at the right time, to engage with disabled people and their representative organisations and to put on the record its assessment of how proposed rules will affect those with protected characteristics. This is not just a bureaucratic issue. It is the minimum standard we should expect of a modern regulator. We on these Benches strongly support the noble Baronesses in pressing this point, and we look forward to hearing a response from the Minister.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns Civil Aviation Authority rule-making. I begin with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to continue to be made by the Secretary of State, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, also spoke. That would prevent the delegation of technical rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a central purpose of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the current process risks the UK falling behind its international safety obligations. Delegating technical rule-making to that authority will allow the regime to keep pace with international standards and industry change, while retaining robust safeguards, ministerial oversight and parliamentary accountability. As I will say on a number of amendments in this group, the Bill is designed to create a quicker, more responsive regulator-led system, without removing proper democratic controls.
The words of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe at Second Reading strongly resonated with me then, as they do now, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly recognised a case for such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the letter from the chair of the Constitution Committee, which as yet I have not seen but will obviously fully consider when I do. I will reply to it as soon as I can and take on board all those matters that need to be considered in the Bill before Report.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The argument is that these rules have to be made by the CAA because parliamentary scrutiny slows things down and there is a risk that we fall behind meeting our international obligations. That is the case for change, but how often in the past have we fallen behind our international obligations using the existing system?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly consider what the noble Lord says and respond to him. I am sure that what I have said is correct, but I will produce an answer for him as soon as I can.
Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. Amendment 102 would move the relevant regulation-making power to the affirmative procedure, while Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish principles explaining how the power to prevent CAA rule-making in certain areas would be used.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for seeking to address the committee’s concern. The power is important because it helps to define the boundary between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. We are considering these points carefully, and, as I said at the previous Committee hearing, I fully intend to return before Report. I strongly note the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, to be careful about what we wish for, given the possibly hundreds of technical amendments. On that basis, I hope the Committee notes that I will fully answer the points of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that noble Lords will not press those amendments at this stage.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would require the CAA to consult the British Airline Pilots Association. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult. The Secretary of State will expect it to consult appropriately with all relevant stakeholders, and the British Airline Pilots Association will of course be able to respond to consultations. However, a specific duty to consult that organisation in all cases would not be appropriate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, the British Airline Pilots Association is not the only trade union representing pilots, and pilots are not the only people affected by CAA rules. Nor would it be proportionate to require that trade union to be consulted on every rule, including matters unlikely to affect pilots. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss how consultation will work in practice.
The next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would give the Secretary of State a power to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to consult specific persons. As with the previous amendment, I recognise the importance of appropriate consultation. However, new Section 61G, inserted by Clause 8, already enables the Secretary of State to direct the CAA in how it uses its rule-making functions, including by requiring consultation with specific parties. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a disability impact assessment for significant rule changes. Accessibility is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that anyone who wants to fly can do so without barriers. The Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to equality impacts when making rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, remarked, that should be considered automatically where appropriate. It includes careful consideration of the impact on disabled people and people with reduced mobility. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment, but, as I said on Tuesday, I am considering the many powerful points raised about disabled travellers and what we can and should do further in this Bill.
I will deal next with the 10 amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would replace references to a document setting out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives with references to guidance. As he notes, the distinction matters. This is not statutory guidance; it is intended to be an agreed administrative framework and work programme for the CAA’s functions. That approach allows Ministers to set clear expectations, maintain appropriate oversight and secure visibility of future rules, while respecting the CAA’s statutory independence. Labelling the document as guidance would weaken that intended effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.
Amendment 83, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Secretary of State to explain how the CAA’s new rule-making function supports regional connectivity. The Government fully recognise the importance of strong air connectivity across the United Kingdom. However, most technical safety rules will have no direct bearing on that policy. Those wider objectives are more properly addressed through aviation strategy and policy, rather than through technical safety and operational rules. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
I will speak to Amendments 89 and 91 together, as both concern the governance of the priorities and objectives document. Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, would replace the requirement for agreement with the CAA with a broader duty to consult stakeholders. Amendment 91, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would similarly remove the CAA’s role in agreeing the document.
Here, I return to a common point in this group: the Bill seeks to create a streamlined, effective system with clear roles, while preserving regulatory independence. Replacing agreement with broad consultation would duplicate consultation that already takes place on individual rule changes and would slow the process. Removing agreement would also undermine the CAA’s ability to stand behind the programme it is asked to deliver. Agreement is not a veto; it ensures the programme is credible, deliverable and consistent with the Civil Aviation Authority’s statutory duties. If agreement cannot be reached, the Secretary of State retains existing powers, including the ability to make regulations directly. I will further explore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on this. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 89 and 91.
The next amendment, also from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, concerns parliamentary oversight of the priorities and objectives document. I recognise the importance of transparency. However, Ministers must retain clear backstop powers to direct or intervene quickly where appropriate. Where directions are issued, they will be published, and the Secretary of State will remain accountable, including through the Transport Select Committee. In that context, laying the document before Parliament may not add significant transparency. We will continue to reflect on the points raised but, meanwhile, I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend not to press the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on AI technical standards. Artificial intelligence and automation are already important to aviation safety, and automation has contributed significantly to the high levels of safety achieved over recent decades. The Civil Aviation Authority takes developments in AI seriously and has a developed AI strategy, which it will continue to review as technology evolves. The Civil Aviation Authority already scrutinises technology used in safety-critical systems, including AI, through expert, system-specific certification and oversight. A single framework for all AI use would not be workable, and mandatory human intervention in every decision could undermine safety by introducing avoidable human error. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I will take Amendments 97 and 98, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook whenever a new rule is made, or an existing rule is updated. The CAA rulebook runs to many thousands of provisions. Republishing it in full for even minor changes would be disproportionate, costly and time-consuming, and would frustrate the aim of an agile, consolidated rulebook. The Civil Aviation Authority will publish new rules and updates to existing rules in a timely way. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 97 and 98.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Can the Minister give a commitment that the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain an up-to-date rulebook on its website at all times? Any changes made could simply be inserted on the website. That is what I am asking for; I am not asking for a book. The amendment says “publish”; it does say “publish a book”. At the moment, the Bill does not require the CAA to do that; it specifically exempts it from doing so.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point; I will take it away.
Amendments 99 and 100, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to provide a free paper copy of the rulebook to anyone who asks. As I have just noted, the rulebook is extremely large, so requiring free paper copies would create a significant cost and administrative burden and, frankly, could be open to abuse. It is right that the CAA may charge for that expense, while ensuring that rules remain available to view for free on its website. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 99 and 100.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for Amendment 101. The provision he seeks to remove is needed to ensure that the transition to CAA-led rule-making works coherently, including by enabling necessary consequential changes to existing legislation and enforcement provisions. Without it, gaps could arise that would require further primary legislation, which would not be proportionate or efficient. This is not an unfettered power. It is limited to what the Secretary of State considers necessary to facilitate or give effect to CAA rules, and it is subject to parliamentary procedure—affirmative where it amends primary legislation and negative in other cases. That provides proper oversight while allowing the new regime to operate effectively. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 101.
Finally, Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, concerns flight time limitations. The CAA is responsible for ensuring that operators comply with those regulations. It already has powers to audit and enforce compliance, and is currently reviewing flight time limitations and enforcement. That review will be published later this year and will inform the CAA’s future approach. I will write to the noble Lord on the points he raised. I hope that that reassures him, and I ask him not to press Amendment 118.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I note and am grateful for the assurance from the Minister that he will return on Report with an amendment—or amendments—that will address the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will study that carefully, to see whether it will allow us not to press our own amendments. Beyond that, I am afraid to say that the Minister has, I think, disappointed the Committee with his response.
I will briefly comment on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the CAA. In normal circumstances—we might take Great British Railways as an example, as it is being created at the moment—we expect the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out the Government’s priorities and to impose them on the body being regulated. However, in this case, the Minister seems to envisage a partnership arrangement—a contract of some sort—between the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, in which the CAA can say, “No, we don’t accept that part of the contract. We want something else”.
That seems to be unprecedented, although it is possible that the Minister can find precedence for it elsewhere in the regulatory environment in which we exist. It seems unprecedented, but it also seems to requires its own supervisory structure. In the end, if the Civil Aviation Authority can decide what it is willing to do, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to issue guidance requiring it to do those things, then we have created a monster that is totally outside of our control. I hear the Minister’s justification, but, as far as I understand it, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Harper
“(g) set out how the CAA will have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions under this Act, including any implications for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether the CAA will be required to have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions and what that would mean for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, let me explain what the amendment would do and the rationale for why I have tabled it. It goes back to the famous document of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that will be issued and seeks to add one thing to the list set out in the Bill: for the Secretary of State to set out to the CAA how it will have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions, specifically
“any implications for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel”.
The amendment’s purpose, if I am being frank, was to make sure we could discuss this issue, because it is important and connected. A number of noble Lords have talked about the environmental impact of aviation.
Before I get on to my specific questions about the seventh carbon budget, I want to put this in a little context to make sure—although no one in this Committee would do so—that no one outside misrepresents me. I am a strong supporter of decarbonising aviation. I chaired the Jet Zero Council when I was Secretary of State, working with government, industry, airlines, airports, manufacturers, suppliers of fuel, academia and representatives of the Climate Change Committee looking at how we develop technology to ensure that we can continue flying but in a way that has less impact on the environment. As I said in our debate on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, I had the great pleasure of being on the VS100 Virgin flight to the US, which was the first flight that had 100% sustainable aviation fuel, showing that it was technically possible to deliver that with a significant reduction, in the order of 70% to 80%, in emissions. I am a strong supporter of decarbonising aviation.
I want to flag, though, the real challenge for government and the question of who makes these trade-off decisions. The current position, which I was operating under when I was Secretary of State and which the current Government have no plans to change, is this: with the net-zero target due to be hit in 2050 in statute, and the Climate Change Committee making its reports on carbon budgets, which the Government accept—Parliament will have the chance to vote on the seventh carbon budget shortly—there is a hard stop for the impact of carbon emissions. A clear path is set out by the Government for the technologies that will be needed to make sure we can decarbonise aviation and those are explained by the Climate Change Committee. But what happens if those technologies do not proceed at the pace that we hope and expect they do?
I am a strong supporter of ordinary people being able to continue to fly. The danger, which I will come on to in a minute, is that, if the technology does not go fast enough and the legislative position remains unchanged, the Government will be forced to use what is euphemistically called demand management—that means jacking up the price of flying so that ordinary people cannot fly any more. Wealthy people will continue to be able to do so because they will be able to afford it, but ordinary people will no longer be able to take their reasonably priced holidays and businesspeople will not be able to fly for essential economic activity. Those sorts of trade-off decisions should be made by Ministers, who are democratically accountable, rather than, as would actually happen, judges, when people judicially review decisions and so they would be made in the courts. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I want to test where the Government’s thinking is on that.
The Committee will be aware that the Climate Change Committee published the Seventh Carbon Budget, which covers the period from 2038 to 2042, on 26 February 2025, which, coincidentally, was my birthday, for completely random reasons. The committee recommended carbon budget 7 and the Government are required to legislate for it by the end of this month. The Climate Change Committee supports the various technologies that are needed to decarbonise aviation; it specifically sets out in the budget that the primary tool in that timeframe is sustainable aviation fuel. A number of Members of this Committee were also involved in the debates on that, so I will not rehearse this at length. There are also other technologies such as the development of hydrogen-powered aircraft for smaller and shorter-haul flights and battery-electric planes. There will also be the necessity, which the Climate Change Committee sets out, to do direct capture of carbon from the atmosphere and then store it. That is how you reach net zero.
The problem is, as I said, that the Government’s current view—it is the view I took when I was Secretary of State and I do not disagree with the Government at the moment—is that the technology the industry is developing will get us on a path to hitting the targets and all will be well and good. But there is risk involved in this process. My view is that Ministers should make the judgments about risk and should balance those things. That is why, while being a very strong supporter of decarbonising aviation, I support the position my party has reached that we should not legislate the net-zero target. If you do that, these decisions—I think my noble friend Lord Moylan talked about the judicial challenge to the Airports National Policy Statement—get challenged and end up being made by judges, not democratically elected and accountable Ministers. In the end, because Ministers are democratically elected, decisions are made by voters.
Given that we are in a position where this is in law, I just want to test the Government’s view. It is set out very clearly in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, the Minister has said on a number of occasions and it is in the policy statement published today, that the Government support the aviation sector and understand how important it is to economic growth. On a number of occasions, Ministers have made it very clear, rightly, that they support people being able to fly to see family and friends around the world and take holidays, and all those sorts of things, and business. We talked on day 1 of this Committee about the real importance of UK trade and the amount of valuable cargo that is shipped by air, which is particularly important for an island nation such as the United Kingdom.
There are trade-offs here. If the net-zero line is legislated for, it becomes the most important thing, as opposed to one of the things you have to balance. I just want to test Ministers and listen to what they have to say. If the technology does not move quite as quickly as we would hope, are the Government planning to use the demand management measures? To be clear, those are taxes and charges that make aviation more expensive. Are they proposing to give the CAA direction in its regulatory decisions? For example, the CAA has a number of airports that have regulated asset bases and are allowed to pass on a certain amount of charges to consumers. I would not want to see the CAA making aviation and flying more expensive to reduce demand because, inevitably, that would mean that the burden would fall on people who are less well-off, and I do not think that would be reasonable.
I just want to hear from the Minister, when he responds to my amendment and the other amendments in the group, which are obviously on the same theme of the environmental impact on aviation, about where the Government think that these lines should be drawn, given that the Government say that their number one priority is economic growth. If they start slamming the brakes on aviation, they are not going to deliver economic growth and that is not really their number one priority. That is what I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister when he winds up. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I meant to stand up at the start of the group, but the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was a little too quick on his feet. I just want to point out that we now have bang on an hour to finish the remaining groups, which I think that we can achieve, if we have concision in our remarks. That would be very helpful.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I note the comment just made. I welcome the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. That is useful in the Bill, so I thank him for that.
I will speak to my Amendments 106 and 107. Together, they seek to form a coherent case for environmental accountability in the regulation of civil aviation. Amendment 106 asks the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Act passing to lay before Parliament a report assessing its impact on passenger information, on low-carbon travel choices and on emissions from civil aviation. The Bill contains important consumer protection measures, but a consumer framework is only as good as the information that it generates and the behaviour that it manages to change. The amendment asks a simple question: once the Act is on the statute book, how is it actually working?
My amendment calls for a report, which must address four things. First, it must address whether consumers are receiving clear and consistent information about the carbon emissions associated with their flights. Currently, there is no standard for presenting that, and the report would help to establish whether the Act drives progress. Secondly, it must address whether consumers are genuinely comparing aviation and rail options at the point of decision. At present, they largely cannot and booking platforms are entirely siloed. The integrated comparison of journey time door to door, total price and carbon footprint and the whole booking simplicity just barely exist for people who want to be able to do that. For short-haul routes, where rail is a credible alternative, this is a serious market failure. Thirdly, and relatedly, it must address whether consumer awareness of lower-carbon alternatives to short-haul flights has improved. Evidence from France and Sweden shows that better information helps to shift consumer behaviour. Fourthly, it must address the overall emissions trajectory of civil aviation, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult to decarbonise. Demand management, through better information, has an unavoidable role to play while sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emissions flight technology continue to mature.
The amendment would also require consultation with aviation, rail and consumer representatives. It would require the report to include recommendations, not merely descriptions. If the Act is working, the report will say so. If not, Parliament will have the information that it needs to act.
Amendment 107 addresses a related but distinct gap: the absence of any statutory environmental duty on the Civil Aviation Authority itself, particularly in relation to the new powers in the Bill. The duty that I am seeking is deliberately light touch. The amendment says that the CAA “must have regard to”. It does not override safety, does not prescribe outcomes and leaves the CAA to weigh its environmental responsibilities against its other functions. It would simply require those commitments to be present when decisions are made.
Three specific matters in subsection (2) are carefully drawn out: reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts; supporting biodiversity and natural environment, consistent with the framework in the Environment Act 2021; and improving resilience in the aviation sector to the physical effects of our warming and changing climate. This would be in the form of an annual report, which would also be published to Parliament. It might be that the amendment is clunky and not acceptable because of how I have drafted it. I am more than happy to work with the Minister between now and Report. If there is a form of wording that could capture some of this in a better way, I am more than happy to discuss it.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 115 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment is straightforward in its purpose. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations by statutory instrument to reduce carbon emissions from private aviation. These regulations could impose restrictions on private aircraft operations, impose changes on private aircraft movements, prohibit specific categories of movements and make different provisions for different classes of aircraft. This instrument would be subject to the negative procedure.
We have not talked about private aviation yet, but it is important. There is a compelling case here. Private jet movements in the United Kingdom have grown by over 40% since 2020. The carbon emissions per passenger of a private jet are on average five to 14 times higher than those of a commercial flight, yet private aviation sits entirely outside the consumer and environmental framework that this Bill seeks to create. That is a significant gap. The vast majority of private aviation growth is coming from short-haul flights and private aviation is a big part of that. It is in precisely these segments where we have the strongest leverage to change consumer action.
We cannot meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, as have heard, without using some of those levers. Short-haul flights and private aviation are two of the matters that we need to move the dial on. On these Benches, we have considerable sympathy for the principles contained in this amendment and I welcome the challenge. However, I am not fully supportive of the drafting. The powers in subsection (2) of the new clause are substantial. They are broad, restrictive changes prohibiting entire categories of movements, yet subsection (3) subjects them only to the negative procedure. For powers of this reach, the affirmative procedure would provide more appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome a clearer policy framework sitting behind the regulation-making powers, rather than leaving it entirely to ministerial direction.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of private aviation emissions and whether a levy, perhaps proportionally hypothecated towards sustainable aviation, has been considered alongside perhaps a restrictions-based approach. How do the Government plan to regulate that sector, considering that it is not mentioned in the Bill?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, between them, my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have drawn attention to the unreality of this debate. Everything in this Committee and everything to do with this Bill is about growth—economic growth, building new airports, having a new runway at Heathrow and so on. However, elsewhere there are, as I mentioned, government policies and statutory commitments that are undeliverable unless that growth is restricted. It is a great advantage to the Committee that the two noble Lords between them have drawn attention to that.
My Amendment 111 asks for a review of the cost of sustainable aviation fuel and takes us back to the issue that we discussed when the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act was before your Lordships’ House.
Ministers have said that SAF costs are subject to fluctuation but are currently based on costs of £3.30 per litre for conventional SAF and approximately £4 per litre for power-to-liquid fuel. They have also set out estimated RAF market costs rising from £16.5 million in 2025 to £187 million by 2040 as a result of SAF. That has been reported as the RAF spending more than £1 billion over 15 years on switching to sustainable jet fuel. Wider commentary has suggested that sustainable aviation fuel can cost up to eight times as much as conventional jet fuel.
It matters because, as we know, the mandate requires an ever-increasing amount of SAF to be used by the commercial aviation sector. For passengers, it will mean higher fares, and therefore less demand. For airlines, it may mean higher operating costs, but also weaker competitiveness and a reduction in aviation activity. If the demand is falling, the number of planes in the air will be fewer, the number of destinations served will be fewer and the amount of regional connectivity that we can look forward to will be less.
If the Government are imposing this policy, they should be prepared to assess openly what it means for airfares, airline costs, public expenditure and national security for the UK. My amendment calls for the Government to make that assessment within two years—plenty of time—of the passing of the Bill and to publish it. It is the least they can do.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns environment and climate impacts. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each in turn, but first I will make two common points that apply across the group. The Government recognise the need to reduce aviation emissions and to ensure that environmental impacts are properly considered. At the same time, many of the amendments would duplicate existing statutory duties, reporting arrangements or wider decarbonisation policies. Where I refer to duplication, proportionality or the need to treat aviation as a whole sector, these are the common justifications I have in mind.
I begin with Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how the CAA should consider the seventh carbon budget when exercising the new powers in the Bill. I agree that aviation’s climate impacts must be properly considered, but the CAA already has statutory responsibilities in this area, including a legal duty independently to monitor, assess and report on the environmental protection performance of the UK civil aviation sector through the UK Aviation Environmental Review. Domestic aviation emissions have been within legally binding carbon budgets since the first carbon budget, and the Government have laid legislation to include international aviation emissions from the sixth carbon budget, beginning in 2033.
The Government are also supporting greener aviation through the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act, airspace modernisation and funding for low and zero-emission aircraft technologies. Most safety and operational rules are technical and have limited environmental impact. Where environmental effects are relevant, the CAA will consider them as part of rule-making. A blanket requirement would be disproportionate, add red tape and risk slowing the benefits of delegated rule-making. However, I hear the noble Lord’s question about a political decision on whether demand management might be required. This Government support the ability of ordinary people to fly, so I will consider this point further. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 84.
Amendment 106, on supporting low-carbon travel choices, was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The Government agree that passengers should have clear information and that aviation policy should support environmental objectives. However, a further statutory review is unnecessary. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 already requires the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice on the environmental effects of civil aviation, including measures to reduce, control or mitigate adverse effects. This is again through the annual UK Aviation Environmental Review. The CAA also works to improve consumer information so that passengers can make informed choices. The Government keep aviation policy impacts under review, informed by CAA reporting and wider climate work. I am afraid that Amendment 106 would add process without improving the evidence base, so I ask the noble Earl not to press it.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am mindful of the Whip’s injunctions on timing. Just very briefly then, before I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, my objective was to probe the Government’s policy, and particularly to make sure that aviation remains affordable for ordinary people to be able to use and that its cost does not rise significantly. Given that the Minister has given me a clear commitment to write to me on that specific point or those related points, I am content to seek leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Harper
“Assessment of impact of business rates revaluation on airport services and consumer protection(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the 2026 business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and consumer protection measures.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the revaluation on—(a) the cost, quality and resilience of airport services provided to passengers and other users,(b) airports’ ability to meet consumer protection obligations and service standards,(c) airport investment in facilities and infrastructure used for the provision of airport services to consumers,(d) airport expansion and infrastructure development in order to meet regulatory requirements,(e) the financial sustainability of airports and the effects of that on consumers,(e) regional air connectivity, and(f) the regulatory stability of the airport sector.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the assessment before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the 2026 business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and consumer protection, including its effect on passenger outcomes, service standards, investment, infrastructure, financial sustainability, regional connectivity and regulatory stability.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 108 in my name, I will also speak to Amendments 116 and 117, also in this group. I am afraid it is my group, I suppose. This seems an appropriate moment, given that it is about economic impacts and competition, to remind the Minister that when on Tuesday my noble friend Lord Moylan and I referred to the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25% during this Parliament, he said he could not furnish us with the details immediately but confirmed that he would come back to us today with whatever information he was able to lay his hands on. Since this is effectively an economic-related matter, I thought I would mention that at the beginning of my remarks, and I hope that when he winds up he can give us what he was able to find. If he was not able to pull it all together comprehensively, if there is more to come, I am sure my noble friend Lord Moylan and I will be content for him to write to us with that further information. I wanted to give the Minister a bit of notice rather than springing it on him at the end.
Amendment 108 is distinct and Amendments 116 and 117 are effectively linked. I will deal with Amendment 108 first. If noble Lords are wondering why I have raised it, it is because part of the Long Title of the Bill is to:
“Make provision for the protection of purchasers and users of air transport and airport services”.
One of those protections is obviously to look at the cost of those services and what services people get. One of the things that is going to drive up the cost of those services is the 2026 business rates revaluation, which has had a particularly significant impact on our airports. Rateable values will increase more than sixfold at some regional airports. To be fair, the Government have put in place transitional relief, but all transitional relief does is delay things. Most airports are going to see their rate bills more than double in the next three years. I do not want to spend too long talking about rates in general, but they are a particularly bad tax because they are not linked to the profitability of a business. They are not like corporation tax, where you pay only if you make a profit. They are a cost that hits your business above the line. Given that the aviation sector in general is not a high-margin business, it is inevitable that the cost of that business rates revaluation is inevitably going to flow through to the customers of airports—that is, the airlines—and they will inevitably have to pass that cost on to consumers.
From the figures that I have managed to lay my fingers on, for example, Manchester Airport is going to see an extra £4.2 million per annum on its business rates bill. That is a significant percentage increase, going up to £18 million. Bristol Airport is going to see an increase of just over £1 million, taking its bill to just over £5 million. Those organisations have explained the consequences. Manchester Airports Group, for example, has said:
“Airports were already some of the highest rates-payers in the country and were prepared to pay significantly more. But increases of more than 100% mean we have to look again at our plans to invest more than £2bn in our airports across the UK over the next five years. It is inevitable air travel will become more expensive”.
I draw attention to that because the Government’s position is that aviation and airport expansion are an essential part of driving economic growth, and they keep telling us that economic growth is their number one priority. It seems to me that having a significant increase in your business rates bill of more than 100% over the next three years in a sector where margins are quite tight is inevitably going to increase the price to consumers, business travellers and those shipping cargo in a way that is not going to drive economic growth but do the opposite.
The purpose of my new clause is to say that the Secretary of State, within three months of the day that this Bill is passed, should publish an assessment—that is all; we are not telling her to change the taxes—of the impact of that business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and specifically to look at the cost, the ability of airports to meet their obligations, the investment that airports have available to invest in the facilities and infrastructure, their ability to expand the financial sustainability of airports, the effect on consumers and, an important issue that has come up in this Committee before, regional air connectivity.
All the amendment does is ask the Government to assess the impact of that business rates revaluation on this sector. That seems to me to be a reasonable request. It would also have the benefit that if the amendment were accepted and that assessment was done by the Secretary of State for Transport and it showed that the business rates revaluation had a negative impact on the sector, it would give the Secretary of State the evidence base that she could use to have a good conversation with the Chancellor about changes that might be needed to reduce the burden on the sector. There seems to be no downside to producing that information. It might be a useful tool for the Secretary of State and provide some transparency for business.
The second two amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 116 and 117, are related to the conversations we had earlier about the role of the CAA and the cost of flying. The first is about adding to the CAA’s duties when it is exercising its economic regulation functions. It should have a primary duty to promote effective competition in airport operations, services and infrastructure where that competition can deliver benefits to passengers, airlines and operators. The CAA’s objectives are set out in the letter that the Secretary of State sends to the chair of the CAA. The six priorities for 2026-27 in the letter sent by the Secretary of State to the chair of the CAA on 20 April are growth and innovation, economic regulation, airspace modernisation, decarbonisation, modernising its consumer focus and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I wholly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Harper. I keep coming back—I must—to the absolutely cruel imposition of increased business rates on airports. They are a smash and grab of deliberate design; they can have no effect other than to make aviation less accessible to ordinary people, despite what the Minister has just said is the Government’s policy. Equally, if the CAA is to have these very substantial new powers, it is reasonable to ask why it should not also have a clear duty to promote competition. For that reason, I strongly support the amendments in this group.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank your Lordships for the debate on this group regarding economic impacts and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular for his amendments. I turn first to his amendment on the impact of business rates revaluation. At the Budget, the Valuation Office Agency announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. This revaluation is the first since the pandemic to result in significant increases in rateable value for some property, which includes some airports. The Government recognise the impact that these changes can have. We have considered this carefully and have put in place measures to ensure that the effects are manageable. We are delivering a support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years, including a £3.2 billion transitional relief scheme. That provides more generous support to the largest ratepayers, including airports. It caps increases in airport bills arising from revaluations to just over double by 2028-29, before any supplements and reliefs are applied, preventing the much larger increases they otherwise would have seen.
The Government believe these arrangements strike the right balance, reflecting updated property values while ensuring a smooth and manageable adjustment for airports. Looking ahead, however, the Government recognise that businesses with decades-long capital cycles need stability and predictability to deliver capital investment plans. To provide this, the Government published a call for evidence around the receipts and expenditure valuation methodology and its impacts on long-term, high-value investments. This will allow the Government to work constructively with airports and other ratepayers ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I should also note that if an airport, or indeed any business, disagrees with their business rates valuation, they may challenge it with the Valuation Office Agency and, if that fails to produce a satisfactory outcome, the affected party may escalate the case to the independent Valuation Tribunal. As a result, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 116. The Government agree that effective competition, where it can be delivered, plays an important role in improving outcomes for passengers, airlines and the wider sector. The CAA already has a clear statutory role in economic regulation and a duty to further the interests of air passengers, both of which it actively applies. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 provides a well-established framework designed to give the Civil Aviation Authority clear focus on furthering the interests of passengers. The framework ensures that competition is properly considered as a means of furthering those interests, while allowing the regulator to take a balanced and proportionate approach in markets where competition may not always be effective. It is important that the CAA continues to have discretion in how it regulates airports, including by balancing the promotion of competition with other ways to further the interests of consumers where those are more appropriate. Although the CAA’s competition remit is targeted, the Competition and Markets Authority is able to intervene when wider competition issues arise.
We recognise that there are arguments for looking more broadly at the CAA’s role in relation to competition, but so far we have seen no evidence that the current framework is not working effectively, although we will continue to keep it under review. If we consider it necessary, we will, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggested, add competition to the next letter to the Civil Aviation Authority chair.
Changes in this space could have wide-ranging implications for investment, passenger costs and regulatory independence, so it is important that those impacts are fully considered before any changes are made. Amendment 116 does not address those broader questions, and it risks cutting across a more considered approach. The proposed reporting requirement is unlikely to add significant value, given the CAA’s existing transparency and reporting obligations. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.
Finally, Amendment 117 seeks to enable the CAA to impose pro-competition remedies at Heathrow. As noted, the CAA already has a well-established framework of powers relating to economic competition. These enable it to act where competition is not working effectively. It can impose and enforce licence conditions on dominant airports and has concurrent competition powers alongside the CMA. In short, the tools to act are already in place, and competition consideration is already embedded in the statutory duties.
We note, as the noble Lord did, that the CAA is currently consulting on aspects of the future regulatory framework at Heathrow, including options, as he mentioned, that relate to competition and the delivery of airport infrastructure. In answer to his question, the CAA does not believe it needs further powers if it chooses a more radical option. On his second question, about whether the Government will take a view on the CAA’s choices, I cannot say at the moment, but since the Heathrow expansion national policy statement has been launched, we will no doubt be able to in due course. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is engaging with those processes and, for that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The noble Lord asked on Tuesday about the department’s role in reducing the administrative burden of regulation on business by 25% in this Parliament. I can confirm that the department is working closely with regulators and with the Department for Business and Trade to identify legislative and practical changes to deliver that. We have already made progress: for example, changes to rules for large vehicle licence holders with diabetes, which reduce costs by several million pounds a year; and there are some examples of Civil Aviation Authority initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the administrative burden incurred by businesses, including investment in systems modernisation, the recent update to the Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service, and the general aviation licensing and training simplification programme. I am very happy to write to him further, and I will do so.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful. On Amendment 108, I am very pleased that the Government are consulting on the process by which business rates revaluations are done for airports, given the necessity for capital expenditure over a significant period. I will look carefully at the results of that consultation. I am sure airports will have been, and are, responding to that consultation to make the arguments that they need to, so that is welcome.
On the extent to which competition should be one of the CAA’s objectives, I accept that the CAA has to balance objectives, and that is very sensible. If it were added to the Secretary of State’s letter, which sets out a range of objectives for the CAA, then the CAA would be able to balance those objectives as it is taking its decisions. I think that that is perfectly appropriate. As I said, all I would ask is that, when Ministers are formulating the next letter, they think about whether an explicit mention of competition is set out as part of one of the economic sections of that letter.
Finally, the Minister has confirmed more explicitly than he was able to at Second Reading that the CAA has all the powers it needs to do any of the options, including the more radical ones. I am sure that, when we no doubt get the opportunity in the House to ask questions about the Heathrow document, whatever it will now be called—
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is the Heathrow expansion national policy statement.
Lord Harper (Con)
I thank the Minister for that prompt. When we get that opportunity, we can no doubt ask whether the Government will take a view. For very sensible reasons—and I am not trying to be mischievous—I was always very careful to let the CAA get on with their economic regulations, and there is a very strong argument; it is simply that, if the Government are very wedded to delivering the Heathrow third runway, they have to make sure that they are confident that the economic model will finance it. We will no doubt come back to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 108.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, and wholly unnecessary. In a letter sent by the Civil Service to the Delegated Powers Committee, civil servants identify every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that all amendments necessary are already made in the Bill. Why should the Government be seeking a Henry VIII power to amend even further legislation, yet unknown and undiscovered, when the case has been closed off already?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.
Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.
Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.
I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that the job has been done. The Minister did not address the point that all the relevant Acts have already been identified and that no further amendments are required. He did not explain—perhaps he cannot explain—what legislation this power should be used for. It is not constrained and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, some of its provisions, although not those that allow the alteration of primary legislation, can be processed using the negative procedure. It is not appropriate.
I will conclude very briefly. We started by identifying this Bill as a massive power grab. Our last discussion in Committee is yet more about massive power grabs. This is not the way to treat Parliament. I think many of these issues are going to come back on Report and there will be widespread opposition to the way the Government are conducting themselves. For now, however, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 10.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Grainger
Face-to-face Banking Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure communities have access to face-to-face banking services.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing Garter King of Arms, this being his last Introduction, a very happy retirement and all best wishes.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The Government are committed to ensuring that people who need face-to-face banking can continue to access essential services. Therefore, the Government have commissioned an independent review into access to banking services to assess whether the change in branches is causing detriment, and to whom. The Financial Services and Markets Bill also includes a power to enable the Government to act, if necessary, to protect access to banking services should evidence from the review support intervention.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reply, as well as the Government’s Access to Banking Services review and the powers they have committed to taking through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Everybody knows the negative impacts that the denial of face-to-face banking has on communities, small businesses and vulnerable people, and especially on many elderly people, blind people and those who cannot and do not use online banking. People in this country bailed out the banks at a critical time and are looking to the Government to ensure that the banks are there for them at their point of need. As the Government look towards the review at the end of this year, will they consider taking greater statutory powers to safeguard in-person banking face to face, as they have done with protecting access to cash? Will they also continue to encourage and facilitate the rollout of shared banking hubs—there are over 230 now across the country—which are very important in tackling this issue?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We must take into consideration that 93% of adults now use online banking, but the Government still take access to face-to-face banking seriously. We have set a target of 350 banking hubs across the country through this Parliament, and 239 are already operational—including seven in Northern Ireland—with more in the pipeline. The figure of 350 is not a ceiling, and there is the potential for more to open, including in Northern Ireland. The Access to Banking Services review is currently in consultation, is open to the public and, I understand, is very popular. The consultation is attracting a lot of attention, and I therefore encourage the noble Lord to send comments to the review via the Government’s website. They would love to hear from him and, in fact, from every other noble Lord.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the tech companies are rapidly moving into the banking space—digital money, wallets, payments, payroll, savings and investments. Will the Government insist that these tech players contribute to the costs of interoperability, inclusion and face-to-face services, and not get a free ride?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a valid point. We must wait for the results of this review to see what it says. It is important that we have an enabling clause in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and that we are able to implement the recommendations of that report as soon as possible.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has had two bad experiences with banks recently. The first was in a personal capacity when ringing the Barclays call centre. No one would give their name or number, and so they lost the business: it was frustrating. The other experience was as chairman of an SME, which was going through its KYC for the directors. We had to go through Revolut’s automated bots and software, and it cost the company a vast amount of money. No real person would talk to us; five or six emails were never replied to. That too was a bad experience. What more can the Minister do to persuade these banks to take small businesses more seriously?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I refer back to the review that has taken place into access to banking services. We are encouraging small businesses, and the business sector that will use the review, to get involved with that consultation and raise the issues the noble Lord has mentioned.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the recent Age UK survey. It notes the relatively large number of elderly people who do not like using digital access for banking, but who are using it for shopping. The international evidence is clear: the more you make banking and other digital access to public services safe and easy, the more people will willingly participate. Is that not the message the banks need to understand?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. We need to encourage the banks to look at what their customers require. Some 93% of the adult population who have a bank account do their banking online, while 26% of UK adults used a bank branch in the 12 months to May 2024. We need to have an open mind about what else we can do to access and reach out to people. We have more than 10,500 post offices that can be used, and we can use ATMs in areas where there is no banking. There is a whole host of things that we can do. We just need this review to come up with recommendations for the Government to implement as soon as possible.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, the closure of bank branches presents a case study in increasing regulation and declining service. The regulations were put in place to preserve access to retail banking. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the overarching settlement for banks in the UK to ensure that retail banking does not decline any further?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We do not want to see retail banking declining further. We need to take into consideration the changing way in which people use their banks. A lot of banking is now online, but a lot of people still need access to a banking hub, a bank on the high street, or a post office. We need to make sure that all the points the noble Lord raises are taken into consideration.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the banking review, can my noble friend the Minister outline what help can be given to credit unions? They are a form of banking that provides face-to-face services, particularly to those in disadvantaged communities. I note that there is a section in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that could help their further development.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the part of the Financial Services and Markets Bill that refers to credit unions. We want to expand the use of credit unions. About 1.5 million people across Great Britain use credit unions or financial co-ops. Our reforms will make it easier for the 220 credit unions in Great Britain to attract more members, allowing millions more people to potentially benefit from the expansion. This supports the Government’s ambition to double the size of the mutual sector, as credit unions are deeply embedded in their communities. I know that the role of credit unions is devolved in Northern Ireland, but I also know that the Treasury has been speaking to the Executive about what we intend to do in the rest of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, there are over 100 credit unions.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for indicating that there may be further banking hubs in Northern Ireland. Rurality is a big issue in Northern Ireland. When we tried to attain a banking hub in my local town, the answer that came back was that there were not enough customers, but that is because we live in such a rural area. Has the Minister had any thoughts about rural proofing what comes forward in relation to banking hubs?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As far as rural banking is concerned, as I have said, 99% of the population are within three miles of a post office. We need to expand the role of banking hubs, but we also need to look at credit unions and at where we can display ATMs. We need to look at a whole range of issues, a lot of which will be taken into consideration by the review into access to banking. Some of the points that the noble Baroness has made will be taken into consideration, and she can also take part in the consultation.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Face-to-face banking may be a lost cause, but we should at least be able to put in place a system that enables customers to speak to a human being rather than face a bot. This review could benefit from widening its terms of reference. Can the Minister take away what he has heard today with a view to making sure that the terms of reference cover the points that have been made? While he is at it, can he make sure that the role of competition can be considered? Even now, it is extremely difficult to get a banking licence, despite many efforts to make it easier. There will be new entrants into this market that are prepared to offer a customer the option of talking with a human being, but to secure that, competition must be made easier by the regulators.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Noble Lords have made some very pertinent points. There is a great element of consensus in the Chamber today, and all the issues the noble Lord has just raised are ones we need to take into consideration. The consultation is already taking place. It ends in July, and we will have the recommendations in due course. We have an enabling clause in the Bill that is currently going through Parliament. Again, I say to the noble Lord that if he wants to take part in the consultation, he is more than welcome to do so.
Transnational Marriage Abandonment
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of transnational marriage abandonment cases since 2024; and how many perpetrators have been prosecuted for this type of domestic abuse.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government monitor data on applications under the transnational marriage abandonment route and publish quarterly data on GOV.UK under the “Settlement VDA” section. The latest data shows 82 applications in 2024 and 69 in 2025. Transnational marriage abuse behaviours are covered by a number of existing offences. As part of our work to tackle violence against women and girls, we are working with policing partners so that perpetrators are pursued and victims are protected.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, transnational marriage abandonment has devastating consequences. It separates mothers from their children—a form of gender-based abuse. Australia has made it illegal, so perpetrators who abandon their wives and children abroad are charged with exit trafficking. Will the Government bring in similar legislation? At present, perpetrators are not held accountable, and it has been going on for decades. My father abandoned me, my mother and my brother abroad, and it took us years to get back. It is still going on, so please can the Minister give this serious thought?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s personal experience and her commitment to resolve these matters. The Government are keeping all matters under review, but, in essence, we are looking at prevention through existing legislation. In January 2024—this would have helped the noble Baroness in her circumstances—we expanded the victim of domestic abuse category to include transnational marriage so that individuals can apply to the United Kingdom, without a fee, and get these matters treated quickly. As I said in my Answer, a large number of people have taken this route: there have been some 203 applications since 31 January, and we encourage others to do so.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, women and children who are repatriated often rely mainly on charities. What support do British embassies give, and will they help with repatriation to lift the burden on charities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important matter. Without repeating myself, let me say that we have waived the fees that would be expected in normal applications for victims of transnational abuse. That is a big commitment. Obviously, there are other costs, and the individual or charities can potentially cover them, but the Government’s contribution is to say that, if you are a victim of transnational abuse, you will not have to pay the expected fee that would normally need to be paid for consideration, which is around £3,200. That is a significant government contribution.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in recent months, I came across a very strange case in my community. A couple who had lived here for about three or four years had a child, and they were working and paying their taxes and so on. They then went on holiday to India and took their child with them. On their way back, they were told at the airport that they could enter the country, but their child could not, so they had to take their child back to India and leave them with their parents before coming back. Is that government policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would be grateful if my noble friend would write to me with the specifics of that case. I cannot comment on the reasons why any particular entry was refused at that time. Self-evidently, the Government want to see families reunited, and I am not aware of the circumstances of that case. That is not transnational abuse in the way in which the noble Baroness raised it, which is a deliberate act of malicious behaviour. This may be an issue that I will have to investigate, and I am happy to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, just two nights ago in Parliament, there was a two and a half-hour session organised by one of the all-party parliamentary groups at which a number of women and girls gave evidence. Evidence that was given by Professor Javaid Rehman and Professor Mariz Tadros is germane to my noble friend’s Question, and I hope that the Minister might be willing to meet both those reputable academics to talk about some of these associated issues as part of the review that he has said is under way.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to meet when possible external bodies via Members of this House, and I will ensure that is arranged accordingly.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, a recurring feature of these cases is that the victim’s passport is taken by the perpetrator before or during travel, leaving them unable to return to the UK independently. Improperly obtaining another person’s passport is already a criminal offence under Section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. Can the Minister say how many prosecutions have been brought for that offence in the context of transnational marriage abandonment cases and whether the Government will issue clearer guidance to the CPS on charging this offence in such circumstances?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the main causes of transnational abuse is where the passport is taken from the person so they cannot travel. We have tried through the new visa route to ensure that issue can be addressed locally so that travel can happen—free of the fees, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness a moment ago.
One problem we have—and I encountered it in preparing for this Question—is that some offences, for example of passport theft, will not be broken down in relation to the number of individuals who have had their passport stolen in the context that the noble Lord mentioned. We need to examine that as an issue. I cannot give him figures now, and I suspect I will not be able to do so in writing for that reason, but he raises an important point, and we need to get the whole picture of how transnational abuse works.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I raise with the Minister another group of very disadvantaged women: those who come from overseas to marry somebody in this country? They go through a religious marriage, very often a nikah, but they never have their marriage registered. The husband then abandons them, and they have no right to remain in this country. That seems to me an issue which the Government ought to consider.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, in the context of transnational abuse, passport theft, abandonment abroad or abandonment in this country are issues where we have those potential difficulties. We are trying to ensure that we treat the individuals—almost always women and children—as victims and not as people who need to be tested by the state as to their validity to stay. That is why the transnational visa route we introduced in January 2024, which was not there before, is an important measure to help support those individuals.
Prostate Cancer Screening: AI
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Warwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use artificial intelligence in prostate cancer screening pathways to reduce late diagnosis of that disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to looking for opportunities to implement AI in cancer services, investing £113 million in the AI in health and care award. As AI in screening is still in a trial phase, it will not be used in the targeted prostate cancer screening programme when this is introduced. However, we are maintaining the model used to develop this screening recommendation so that any emerging evidence that supports using AI in screening can indeed be considered rapidly.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. A few months ago, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I want to thank the NHS for the excellent treatment it has been giving me, but it made it clear to me, after my first biopsy, that early detection was vital in the context of my treatment. I would also like to thank high-profile personalities, such as broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson, former soccer player John Barnes and, of course, Olympic cyclist Sir Chris Hoy, for making the same point about early diagnosis.
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK and there is still no national screening programme. The UK National Screening Committee has admitted that its model does not look at artificial intelligence within the diagnostic pathway, but the model remains open to being updated. Can the Minister clarify how the evidence will be collected in relation to artificial intelligence? It is moving at pace in trying to sort out this terrible illness. How can the stakeholders engage with the committee?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord well as he deals with the diagnosis. I am sure that many would associate with his kind comments about the NHS care he has received.
I very much agree that early diagnosis is key. That is why we have introduced the first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. It will roll out next year and will focus on those at the highest risk. To the noble Lord’s question on AI, there is a whole range of ways in which we will gather the information necessary—for example, developing a new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical knowledge summary. That will support discussions for those men who are not eligible for this programme. Also, through the cancer programme innovation open call, we will pilot the use of AI to assist radiologists using MRI to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. There is much scope in this area, and indeed our 10-year plan confirms that.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while artificial intelligence may improve the interpretation of diagnostic tests and support earlier identification of prostate cancer, does the Minister agree that technology alone will not reduce late diagnosis unless it is embedded within a wider prevention and early detection strategy? What steps have been taken to ensure that AI tools are integrated into primary care pathways, with targeted outreach to high-risk groups, particularly Black men, and equitable access to different communities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I agree with the noble Lord. While we are ambitious about the benefits of AI and wish to embrace them, we are equally clear that safety, fairness and public trust have to come first. That means that the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare, which was established by the MHRA, will review the current regulations and provide the recommendations for a new regulatory framework. I assure your Lordships’ House that AI always will support professionals, not replace accountability.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, AI has the potential to significantly improve options for patients, but this will be possible only if NHS staff have the right skills, time and infrastructure to be able to test and use such tools. How will the Government invest in staff to help drive this innovation and improve outcomes for patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is why we are publishing the workforce plan fairly soon, why we are building our cancer workforce and why we are creating new opportunities across multidisciplinary teams. Certainly, the use of AI is absolutely key, and we are, not least, working closely with the Royal College of Radiologists.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, at the other end of the scale of artificial intelligence is canine intelligence. The wonderful charity Medical Detection Dogs has had wonderful results in early and accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer. Are the Government looking at this as one of their diagnostic tools? If the Minister does not have labradors and spaniels in her brief, perhaps she can write to me.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, because I do not. However, I am aware of the great contribution being made to cancer detection, and the department is looking closely at that. I thank her for raising it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s £42 million investment in the TRANSFORM trials, and I am extremely grateful. AI MRI tools are often trained on populations that underrepresent Black men, and they are at double the risk of prostate cancer. Will the Government require AI diagnostic tools to be independently validated on diverse populations before wider NHS use?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We always take into full account my noble friend’s very important point. She referred to the TRANSFORM trial, which will enable all eligible Black men to be invited to stage 2 of the trial. It is worth saying that Black men are historically underrepresented in clinical trials, and we are working closely with Prostate Cancer UK to work alongside and draw in communities from across the United Kingdom.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will follow up on that reference to the TRANSFORM trial. Black men are around twice as likely to develop prostate cancer and to die from it, yet historically they have been underrepresented in many screening and research programmes. The Minister mentioned the TRANSFORM trial, which hopefully will transform that inequality, but what assurance can she give that AI tools being developed for prostate cancer screening will reduce as much as possible any bias against higher-risk populations, such as Black men, and will not inadvertently widen health inequalities?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, several trials are assessing the use of AI for prostate cancer screening and diagnostics, as well as testing the accuracy of digital imaging and histological imaging of biopsies to understand better the progression of disease. Some of them are well funded. For instance, the screening programme has £42 million of funding. Similar trials are conducted for lung, ovarian, breast and pancreatic cancer. The common issue that comes out is that we need digital transformation throughout the NHS to deliver any of these uses of AI for cancer. We need a workforce that is trained to use it, and I hope that the workforce strategy that the Government are about to publish will specifically include how the workforce will be trained to use AI in healthcare.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I said, your Lordships’ House will not be waiting too long for the workforce plan, but I certainly recognise the noble Lord’s points. He describes the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan, and the workforce plan will support that.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, although I very much welcome the programme for Black men, who are at greater risk, does the Minister not accept that very many of us who are not Black—I am one—have benefited from early diagnosis? Does she not accept that, going forward, it will not be sustainable to have testing available only to one ethnic group? It needs to be universal.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps I can clarify that the TRANSFORM trial is not exclusive to a particular group. We are looking at people who have susceptibility to prostate cancer because they carry the gene and there is family history. I simply point that out because I hope it will be a reassurance to the noble Lord.
Livestock Grazing on Dartmoor National Park
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation took place between Natural England and commons graziers before announcing plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor National Park by 75 per cent.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interests as a commons owner and non-grazing grazier on Dartmoor.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, Natural England has not announced plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor by 75%. However, we recognise that changes to grazing regimes need to be carefully and sensitively handled and agreed to collectively, in order to address declines in wildlife and biodiversity. We expect Natural England and commons graziers to work collaboratively to develop more adaptive grazing arrangements, working with the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the latest ELMS agreements require a 50% reduction in grazing effort on the moor to be compliant, and that follows a historic 50% reduction. So I believe that the 75% figure is correct if farmers want to access the funds available. Natural England may not have been targeting the ponies on Dartmoor, but it should have known that a cumulative 75% reduction in grazing would impact pony stocking rates disproportionately, given their limited commercial value. That is a massive blunder. The Government’s arm’s-length body is trying to impose its centrally determined will over the legal rights of the graziers on Dartmoor and creating disastrous consequences for public acceptance of nature recovery efforts. What is the Minister doing to bring more control and accountability to Natural England’s performance? Will he step in and save the ponies?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The obvious answer to the noble Lord’s last question is, of course, yes. I want to be absolutely crystal clear: Natural England has not recommended a cull of Dartmoor ponies. It does not have the power to do so, and it has not advised one. As a Government, we are clear that Dartmoor ponies have an important part to play in Dartmoor’s heritage and in continuing to support the habitats of Dartmoor. As the noble Lord referred to—indeed, the Fursdon review also referred to this, and we agree—Dartmoor is in dire ecological health, in part because of decades of inappropriate grazing. Our agrischemes are designed to fix the situation through changed grazing patterns. The Natural England chair, Tony Juniper, said that ponies are central to that approach, and he is right. The Dartmoor hill ponies are part of that solution, not the problem. They are safe under this Government.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I live on Dartmoor. The publication within the local and national newspapers has caused real concern. We cannot measure natural habitat against the other advantages to Dartmoor of the ponies, particularly tourism. Dartmoor prison is currently shut and, in my opinion, unlikely to reopen. There is huge rural poverty in many parts of Dartmoor, and it is absolutely essential that decisions about livestock are related to the total needs of the community. Can the Minister explain whether he agrees with my premise?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a number of important points. As I have said, no cull of the ponies is under consideration. The fact is that the ecological health of Dartmoor is in a dire state, because one factor that does not get talked about is the preponderance of sheep on Dartmoor, as well as cattle and ponies. We have to get the right mix of grazing. She is absolutely right: Natural England has been working with all stakeholders in the area, through the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I am sure it is listening to all the stakeholders’ concerns, including those who are interested in promoting Dartmoor in its totality, as a community in which people live as well as a tourist destination. I am sure it will continue to take that into account.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, a brief search of the internet reveals considerable anger among graziers and farmers on Dartmoor at the proposed culling of ponies by Natural England. Farmers are at a loss to understand how Natural England could believe that farmers would choose to reduce cattle and sheep numbers, on which their businesses rely, rather than reducing pony numbers. We have seen the result of a lack of meaningful consultation in the Malvern Hills. Will the noble Lord agree that this issue on Dartmoor could have been handled much better?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I absolutely re-emphasise that there is no planned cull of ponies or other any other livestock. It is about getting the right mix in the right parts of Dartmoor. Those who know the area well—probably much better than I do—know that there is not one landscape or one habitat. It is a wonderful ecological mix, and we want to protect and promote the biodiversity there. Natural England is in regular contact with all agreement holders where they have agreements with Defra to support their grazing and other activity on Dartmoor. It works with farmers and commoners to agree proposed management plans on specific sites and their compatibility with the management of nature on those sites. I am sure that Natural England has listened to the real concern voiced about this issue on Dartmoor, but we and it are clear: it is a member of the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group and should work with everybody in the area to get the best outcome.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, could not some of these ponies be sent to the South Downs National Park, where I declare I live, so that they could eat the tussocky grass, thus allowing the natural grassland to regenerate? This has been done in the past and it has been very successful.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I will not direct the movement of ponies or any other livestock from this Dispatch Box, but it is an interesting idea. I am sure that Natural England and lots of people on Dartmoor—commoners, graziers and others—would like to keep all their ponies there. But it is an interesting idea.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to reflect on the importance of balance in the countryside between the interests of farming and conservation. One of the lessons I think we should take from this is that there has not been proper co-ordination of the impact on rural communities of this proposal. I hope that, within the Defra family, there will be a much greater concentration on co-ordination of the impact. The noble Baroness spoke about the importance of the pony in dealing with Molinia, an invasive grass. This is a key part of why this endangered species, the Dartmoor pony, should be cherished by everyone, rather than a potential reduction in numbers even being thought of.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, as I would expect from his long experience and interest in these matters, about the importance of tackling that invasive species, Molinia, and the role that both ponies and cattle have in tackling it. That is why Natural England is looking at the best way to get appropriate grazing in the appropriate parts of Dartmoor. To go to his wider point, though, we recognise the important role of countryside stewardship that commons graziers, farmers and indeed people who live in the countryside take. That is why Defra is bringing together partners from across Whitehall and beyond, through its Defra-led Rural Taskforce, to make sure that all its policies are rural-proofed from the get-go, rather than there being a patch-and-mend approach to policies after the event.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I live in Devon, partly, and I have owned Dartmoor ponies, although I do not, unfortunately, live on Dartmoor. Is not one of problems that Natural England wants to reduce the grazing on Dartmoor, and the farmers understandably want to protect their cattle and sheep, rather than protecting the ponies that do not give them any money or very little?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I said in response to previous questions, the point is getting the appropriate mix of grazing by the appropriate animals in the right spot.
I did not properly address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, around ELMS. The ELM offer for moorlands is made up of a number of different actions for different livestock stocking rates with supplements for grazing with ponies, cattle and native breeds. We recognise that in some areas, an increase in the proportion of cattle and ponies may well be required to secure the outcomes needed, rather than a decrease.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I set up the Fursdon review for Dartmoor and, in terms of the recommendations, it would be helpful for the Government to update the House on what commitments they continue to have. It was set up because of a clash and a lack of trust, so it is important that trust is re-established as quickly as possible. That would be helped if the Rural Payments Agency had not said to commons landholders across the country, “Computer says no”, when they were trying to apply for SFI and ELMS grants this year. Will the Government get a grip of the Rural Payments Agency, but more importantly, Natural England?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to identify the issue at stake in terms of access for common graziers groups to SFI and other payments. The Rural Payments Agency has been tasked to work on a solution to this issue and to assess how commons land applications can be made in the schemes. Once this is complete, the agency will communicate its planned approach. We are on the case, with the RPA, and hope to develop a solution as soon as possible.
Short-term Leases (Disclosure of Information) Bill [HL]
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Steel Tariffs
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, yesterday there was cross-party concern in the other place, including from government Back-Benchers, that these steel measures risked doing real damage to downstream businesses. Of course, we all want to protect British steel-making, but the Government have designed a regime that risks penalising British manufacturers for importing specialist steels that are not made in this country, or not made here to the grade certification or volume that is required. That is not protecting British industry; it risks pushing value-added manufacturing jobs and contracts overseas.
The Minister in the other place said that this was necessary to respond to overseas tariffs and job losses, but the Government have had plenty of time to reduce the structural costs facing steel and manufacturing businesses, from energy and carbon costs to business rates and employers’ national insurance. Will the Minister therefore accept that the Government need not only emergency tariff measures but a proper, comprehensive steel strategy? Will they now revise the proposed quotas so that specialist steel products desperately needed by downstream manufacturers can be imported tariff-free where there is no realistic UK supply?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. While calls for delay are totally understandable, our existing steel safeguard will expire and cannot be extended under WTO rules. Without replacement measures, the UK risks becoming a destination for diverted, subsidised steel, as other jurisdictions act. We have carefully designed the regime and we are consulting extensively with producers and downstream users. Ministers are considering changes based on downstream feedback. We will continue engaging with industry and finalise the measures ahead of implementation on 1 July.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in responding to the last point made by the noble Lord, today I forwarded to the Minister a very detailed list of the categorisations of steel that will not be available in the UK but which will be subject to tariffs, and I would appreciate a response on that. Further, he mentioned 1 July. Most of the steel under consideration is imported from the EU, and negotiations are under way with the EU around a mutual tariff system. It is unlikely that those negotiations will be concluded before 1 July. It makes no sense to implement a tariff regime and then come to an agreement with the EU which will necessarily change that regime, so will the Minister go back to his colleagues and suggest that no change is made to the UK tariff regime until the EU agreement has been concluded?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the noble Lord’s first point. Following extensive engagement with downstream importers, we have introduced a transitional arrangement, as the noble Lord knows, so that the new tariff will not apply to goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September of this year. Quotas will be administered quarterly, with unused allocations carried forward within a quota year to provide greater flexibility.
To address the point about the EU, the United Kingdom and the European Union share a unique trading relationship, with highly integrated steel supply chains that support jobs and industry on both sides. We are, as all noble Lords know, engaging closely with the European Commission to secure a solution that protects the vital EU-UK steel trade. While I cannot comment on live discussions, we have made it clear that restricting UK access to the EU market would disrupt supply chains, increase costs and harm businesses in both the UK and the EU.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note and welcome the recent agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India, on the FTA and its commencement date in July. However, there is another issue on the horizon when it comes to steel tariffs, which is the imposition from 1 January next year of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, particularly on steel which is imported into the country, and which relies on coal. Bearing in mind India’s heavy burden on coal manufacturing, will we need to look at the FTA again?
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord for all his work when he was a Minister in having conversations with the Indian Government. We should be celebrating and we should all be delighted that the landmark UK-India trade deal will now finally take effect from 15 July, delivering benefits for businesses and working people across the United Kingdom. This agreement, which is the most comprehensive India has ever concluded, is expected to boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion, increase bilateral trade by around £25.5 billion annually and raise real wages by £2.2 billion. Key sectors will benefit from this substantial tariff reduction, including exports of whisky, automotive products and cosmetics. I will write to the noble Lord on CBAM.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are consulting on this, and therefore that some of the suggestions made in this House and in the other place can be taken into account by the Government and amendments made? Can he also tell us—despite the rather theatrical intervention from the Front Bench opposite—what would have been the state of the British steel industry if the Government opposite had continued?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I always agree with my noble friend. We have listened carefully to downstream steel users and designed these measures to balance manufacturers’ needs with the imperative to protect domestic steel production. Imports will continue to play an important role, and transitional arrangements will provide flexibility for some of the contracts that I have identified earlier. Delaying implementation would leave the UK exposed to damaging global overcapacity while our international partners act. We will continue to engage closely with the European Union as discussions progress.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat said that the distinguishing feature of a good economist is looking beyond the visible and seeing the secondary consequences. There are some 34,000 people employed in the steel sector in this country; one can argue about whether protectionism will help even them. Let us look at the numbers in the steel-using industries: 183,000 people work in the automotive sector, 452,000 in agriculture and 2.8 million in construction. These sectors either cannot buy the kind of steel they need other than through imports, or cannot get the volume from the UK alone. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of pushing up the cost of these imports, especially in the north-east and the West Midlands, which are hubs for the aeronautic and automotive sectors?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that the steel sector is a very important part of our industrial strategy. That is why the Government are taking steps to protect the steel industry. It is not just another commodity; it underpins everything we do, including in the defence, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy sectors. We are intervening to protect our domestic production and we are protecting jobs up and down the country; whether it is in the Midlands or elsewhere, we are doing what is required of a Government to protect jobs.
Lord Redwood (Con)
This is a very large increase in costs for steel processors, so what is the Government’s estimate of the job losses and business losses that are sure to follow such a comprehensive, large increase in a major cost to these businesses?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, we have to recognise how important steel is to thousands of workers and families and the wider supply chain. Our objective is to secure a viable long-term future for steel-making in the United Kingdom. Maintaining domestic steel capability is essential for jobs, investment and economic resilience. Whatever we do, flexibility is needed to explore future options not only for British steel but for other sectors which use steel, while safeguarding an industry that remains strategically important for the nation.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the changes
“could add millions of pounds to manufacturers’ costs”.
Why do the Government want to add more costs to UK industry, which is already reeling from the increased national insurance costs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord listened to the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We have been engaging extensively with downstream importers. We have introduced transitional arrangements that I set out earlier for contracts made before 14 March and for any imports between 1 July and 30 September. We are listening to end users, and we will continue to listen to end users. As I said before, Ministers are consulting with users and, if needed, changes will be made.
Jo Cox Civility Commission
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
That this House takes note of the Government’s steps to strengthen communities and implement the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission 10 years on from her murder.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, like many in this House, I had the privilege of knowing Jo. Ten years on from that devastating loss, I pay my respects and send my condolences to her remarkable family, who have shown such strength and courage. We know that this week will be particularly challenging for them.
Jo was petite in stature but a giant in so many ways. She had a remarkable zest for life. She was a catalyst for action in her constituency and the wider world, where she worked in international development, witnessing at first hand the impact of conflict and inequality. Jo was a courageous campaigner against injustice and bigotry in this country and the wider world. She was a feminist and a humanitarian, who loved her fellow human beings. She believed in service. Most importantly, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a fantastic friend to many.
Jo inspired love and hope, and it was for that reason that, following her appalling murder, there was an outpouring of love as well as grief. Jo’s murder was an act driven by extremism and division, but people responded not with fear but with something that Jo believed in: connection. In December of that year, friends and family set up the Jo Cox Foundation to pursue the issues about which Jo was passionate, guided by her values and principles.
It is an immense honour to serve as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. Our vision is a society underpinned by her enduring belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us; a society where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection and respect across difference, with decency and civility in public life.
A decade on, our work is more important than ever. Sadly, despite the collective promises made 10 years ago to address hate, foster unity and bridge divisions, our society is more fractured and communities are more divided. Loneliness remains a profound public health crisis, and the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives have intensified. This 10-year mark is not only a moment for remembrance; it is a call to action. Social connection is not just a “nice to have”; it is the bedrock of a safe, resilient society, and it is fundamental to the healthy functioning of our democracy.
The heartening news is that the desire to connect is fiercely alive. New research by the Jo Cox Foundation, in partnership with More in Common UK, shows that while many feel community ties have weakened, one in three people actively want to improve their connection to those around them. Crucially, those who are currently the least connected are the ones who want to connect the most. The issue lies in the systemic barriers to that connection: financial hardship, anxiety among young people, online interactions replacing real-life communities, and deepening political polarisation. We must act—we have a duty to act. We urgently need to bring people together, in person wherever possible; to support our young people to access places, relationships and opportunities to belong; to give communities the resources and power to take forward community-led social action themselves; and to remove the barriers to connection, whether that be by creating accessible and affordable places to connect, or more intentionally addressing loneliness by adopting our joint call to action for a new cross-government action plan on loneliness and connection.
Jo was dedicated to combating loneliness and formed an independent, cross-party commission of MPs and charities. This led to the appointment of the first Minister for Loneliness, Dame Tracey Crouch, whom I am delighted to say is now on our board. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for having drawn Tracey into the Government. As we are all aware, we now have an epidemic of loneliness, especially among young people, which is having a profound impact on individuals, society, the NHS and productivity. When lonely people are isolated in their rooms, they are sometimes prey to social media algorithms that exacerbate divisions and can lead to violence, and sometimes political abuse and aggression.
We understand the importance of meaningful social connection so, together with other members of the Loneliness Policy Action Group, we have launched a cross-government call to action—a set of policy calls aimed at embedding loneliness prevention and promoting connection more deeply across government policy and public services. I warmly welcome the Government’s report, published earlier this week, Loneliness, Isolation and Social Connection Among Boys and Young Men in England, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister agreed to meet me and my colleagues to discuss much needed cross-government action.
I do not suggest that the recent horrendous murders in Southampton and Belfast were the result of loneliness, but I have no doubt that the violence that ensued was whipped up by social media in toxic online spaces, algorithms, anger and division in our fractured society. Fear of the other was weaponised. Yet, there are extraordinary examples of generosity in words and deeds, such as from the father of Henry Nowak and those who gave shelter to those in fear of racist thugs in Belfast. There is much work to be done to bring people together, break down barriers, nurture understanding and heal divisions, enable people to listen, talk to each other and disagree agreeably.
Polarisation in our politics adds to the ferment. Politics face a crisis of connection, confidence and safety. Both Jo and Sir David Amess were murdered by extremists while carrying out their democratic duty in their constituencies. Since then, the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives and candidates has intensified. The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Reported crimes against MPs have more than doubled since 2019. Some 96% have experienced threatening behaviour, with threats of sexual violence disproportionately targeted at women, minority and disabled MPs. In a Question for Short Debate two weeks ago, we heard of the intolerable abuse suffered by councillors, both online and in person. Our political system is under attack and our democracy undermined.
The pressures fall disproportionately on women and those already under-represented in our democracy—the very people whose participation make our institutions more representative and resilient. This risks a reversal of progress on political diversity. A Girlguiding survey found that a third of girls and young women are deterred from pursuing careers in politics because of the hostility that high-profile women face online. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as “part of the job.” It is not, and we must reject the growing normalisation of abuse and intimidation. This is a systemic problem, rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem. It is a direct threat to our democracy. Talented people are stepping down, not standing in the first place, and self-censoring.
We need an inclusive democracy, one in which people feel safe and confident to participate in robust but respectful debate. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must never be used to incite violence, spread hatred or justify harassment. Language matters, and we must ensure that we never return to the toxic public discourse we endured during the Brexit debate. We must not allow our country to be dominated by extreme voices. We must deplore the racist voices and policies of Restore, which is backed by Elon Musk and would welcome Tommy Robinson as a member. We must choose hope over hate.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission has successfully advocated for improvements such as expanded police support and security co-ordination for elected representatives, making security costs exempt from election spending limits, ending the requirement for councillors to publish their addresses on council websites, and improving specific guidance for families of MPs. It is outrageous that families of MPs and councillors are targeted and subjected to abuse. However, we must go further. We call for further change, including for political parties to enforce higher standards of conduct, for social media companies to make their platforms safer, and for improved media, digital and political literacy for all ages.
I want to end on a positive note—a note of hope. For every act of division, there are hundreds of acts of connection and community up and down the four nations. We see this every year during the Great Get Together, which takes place this weekend. Thousands of people across the country reject division and step out of their comfort zones to get together with friends, neighbours, people whom they have never met before, in parks, at picnics, in community halls and gardens, to eat, drink, bake, sing, run or merely sit in the sun and talk over a cup of tea. It is the living embodiment of Jo’s belief that we have more in common than that which divides us.
I thank the many friends in this House who have engaged, and continue to engage, with the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. It is the responsibility of every one of us to foster community and connection, and to build a more respectful political culture. We should be guided by Jo’s words but, rather than repeating them, we should act on them.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and her introduction to this important and timely debate. I agree with everything she said, and I congratulate her on her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation and on this report, which I wholeheartedly support.
Jo’s core belief, as we have been told, is that we have more in common than that which divides us. This is an important challenge, because often we emphasise our different identities and forget to celebrate what we have in common: our British identity. We obsess about the relatively small number of things that go wrong and forget to celebrate the millions of things that go right across our country every day. It is like players and fans leaving the England game in Dallas last night and demanding an independent inquiry into who was to blame for Croatia’s two goals and forgetting to mention that we scored four and won the game comfortably. Jo’s sister, Kim Leadbeater MP, said yesterday:
“We’ve got to make sure the voices of positivity and perseverance and resilience are the ones that are amplified”.
I agree.
We call ourselves the United Kingdom, but united is not only an adjective, it is a verb. I will use my time to remind us of the amazing things this country, which we are privileged to call home, has done and is doing. We have given the world its most widely spoken language, with 2.3 billion speakers. It is the language of the internet, international trade and navigation. William Shakespeare perfected the language in the greatest literary works of all time. We are in the mother of parliaments. We are surrounded by statues of those who witnessed the signing of Magna Carta, which established basic human rights and set limits on government. English contract law is the basis of international trade—even time is measured from the Greenwich Meridian, which established longitude and opened up the oceans for navigation. We were home to the first industrial revolution and are the birthplace of the railways. We are a G7 nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We play a leading role in the Commonwealth; we are a nuclear power; we are a cornerstone of the NATO alliance. The first meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council took place just a few hundred yards from here, 80 years ago this year. We have stood alone against tyranny, stood up for freedom, stood by our allies, led the abolition of slavery and offered sanctuary for those being persecuted.
This year, the UK overtook India to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. London is consistently ranked alongside New York as the world’s leading financial centre. The UK is recognised as being a world leader in fintech, medical research and AI—the industries not of the past but of the future.
The world wide web was invented by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee; Alan Turing was the father of AI; Geoffrey Hinton was the father of machine learning; and Demis Hassabis is the brain behind Google DeepMind. We have more unicorn businesses—billion-dollar tech companies—in this country than Germany and France combined.
On the day on which we welcome into your Lordships’ House another great Olympian—the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger—we should remind ourselves that we gave the world so many of its great sports: football, cricket, tennis, rugby and, of course, the Paralympics, all invented here. The Premier League is the most watched sports league in the world, broadcast to more than 200 countries. Formula 1 is the most technical of all sports, and seven out of the 10 teams are based here. When Lewis Hamilton won in Barcelona on Sunday, he stood on an all-British podium as our national anthem played.
This is the land of the Enlightenment: Hume, Smith and Locke. Newton’s laws of motion and Darwin’s theory of evolution continue to shape our understanding of the world. It is home to the National Health Service, the envy of the world. We are home to some of the greatest medical innovations: Fleming’s penicillin, IVF, CT and MRI scans, and Crick, Watson and Franklin’s discovery of the structure of DNA, the building block of life itself. We are now at the forefront of vaccine development around the world. We are home to four of the top 10 universities in the world. We have won 148 Nobel prizes, second only to the United States. Cambridge University alone has been awarded more Nobel prizes than Germany.
It is time for us to celebrate who we are and what we have in common, and to drown out the voices of pessimism and division, which have had their day. It is a privilege to live in this country, but that privilege comes with duties and the responsibility to contribute to it and to make it even better. That will require us to come together, to be united not just in name but in nature and purpose. That is what Jo Cox stood for, and that is what we must now work for.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such an amazing tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Bates—I thank him very much. I am going to take that speech, print it out and stick it on my mirror to have it as an affirmation in the mornings.
It is a real honour to take part in this debate, and I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. As we reflect on the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we are reminded, as we have already heard, of Jo’s values, of how she lived her life and of her unwavering belief that a kinder, fairer, more tolerant society is within our reach. She understood, as we have heard, that connection is not an abstract ideal but something practised daily—through listening, through respectful disagreement, and through recognising our shared humanity. Her words, that we have
“more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
are an aspiration, but they are a challenge to us all, and we must keep them in mind as we go forward in our work in this House.
This challenge feels especially urgent today. The national discourse has become increasingly strained. Polarisation, declining trust and a harsher tone in public discourse are not simply political concerns; they affect how people relate to one another and how resilient our communities can be. The commission’s findings make it clear that the health of our democracy, as we have heard, depends not only on strong institutions but on strong relationships between citizens—between us.
If we are serious about rebuilding trust, we must recognise the essential role of our civil society. Across the country, charities, voluntary groups and community organisations create those spaces we need, where people meet not as opponents but as neighbours and collaborators. They foster belonging, participation and shared purpose.
I see this every day in the work I do with the Youth United Foundation. All these youth organisations, such as the Scouts, the Guides, about which we have already heard, St John Ambulance cadets, and the police and fire cadets, bring young people from all backgrounds together. They learn teamwork, service and responsibility. They form bonds that transcend difference and build the foundations of active citizenship.
Each week, in communities up and down the country, more than a million young people are supported by over a quarter of a million trained volunteers. These local groups give young people a shared identity rooted in service, teamwork and belonging. They also create opportunities for young people to build mutual understanding and enhance community cohesion. Their impact is strongest because local delivery is supported by national organisations which have the evidence, oversight and safeguarding frameworks to give young people the safe places they need to ensure that these programmes are effective.
When young people come together in these settings, differences begin to recede. They learn to lead, to listen and to support one another. They discover that citizenship is not merely a concept but something to be actively lived. This is how community identity and resilience are fostered—through shared experience and participation.
Yet, despite our Government’s best intentions, funding for these groups is shaky. The uniformed youth fund has come to an end, which jeopardises many of the new places that were created through that work, particularly in areas of social deprivation. I get that the Government need to review funding streams to align with the new youth strategy, which I wholeheartedly welcome. But we cannot afford a hiatus, and our communities need better.
Civil society’s contribution extends well beyond youth provision. With over 170,000 charities and millions of volunteers, it plays a significant role in both our social fabric and our economy. Yet its true strength lies in the trust it commands. These organisations are deeply rooted in the communities they serve, reaching individuals who may feel disconnected from formal institutions, or who experience loneliness, as we have heard, creating opportunities for meaningful engagement across differences. Yes, we saw this during Covid, but we also saw it through moments of unrest, such as in Southport, and in Belfast only very recently, where local people came together to repair the damage that had been done to their community—physically, with brooms, but also with support for other community members. By doing this, these community groups give us all hope, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bates.
However, we must also acknowledge the growing tensions that exist. Demand for services provided by civil society continues to rise, while funding and stability have not kept pace. We are asking more of these organisations at a time when many are under strain. This is especially true for youth services, where the work being done is not short-term programme delivery but the shaping of confident, resilient citizens. Will the Minister investigate the hiatus I have talked about and look at what can be done to stabilise the funding for the youth strategy?
Government has a crucial role to play here. I welcome the civil society covenant, which is an important step. The work being done there is very important and essential to the health of our democracy. Again, I welcome the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. We remember her today with love and with sadness.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, first, it was a wonderful list from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will also be printing a copy of, because it was very uplifting.
I did not know Jo Cox. I never had the privilege of hearing her speak. But in the years since her murder, I have come to understand her through the words of those who did, and they describe somebody who believed with total conviction that politics could be a force for good, that public life could be conducted with decency, and that you could argue hard but still treat your opponents as human beings worthy of respect.
It is in that spirit—Jo’s spirit—that I support the work of the Jo Cox Foundation and the Jo Cox Civility Commission. There are two recommendations in particular that I wish to speak on today: the urgent need to regulate social media platforms, and the responsibility of all of us to model the behaviour that we want to see.
I have spoken before in this Chamber and in this House about the abuse and intimidation of elected councillors. I have described cars being set alight, candidates stalked, and a candidate punched unconscious on a doorstep. There are brilliant councillors, such as Stockton council leader, Councillor Lisa Evans, whom I spoke to earlier, who experience horrendous online abuse, including doctored AI images of herself being published online. She now says the abuse is something she is used to.
This normalisation is unacceptable in our democracy. Over the past few weeks, many of us from many minority communities have begun to question whether we are truly welcome in this country any more. Something has shifted in our discourse, and there seems to be permission to say whatever we want and to behave without boundaries, regardless of the impact, from both the left and the right. I said then that we are failing the people who make local democracy work, and I say the same again today.
I know from speaking to colleagues, councillors, MPs and activists that the scale of the problem has significantly worsened. Through the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we have a clear, cross-party, evidence-based framework of what needs to be done. First, on social media, the commission calls on platforms to acknowledge the dramatic significance of local politicians—not just MPs and Peers but councillors—and to provide better and faster routes for reporting abuse and misinformation. It calls on Ofcom to address specifically the abuse of elected representatives. The evidence of what happens when platforms abandon that responsibility is now stark and quantified.
The House may be aware of the work of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Its report, Safety Off, published just this month, should be required reading for anyone who doubts the scale of what we face. In January 2025, Meta rolled back its content moderation policies, cutting proactive enforcement of rules against violence, incitement, hateful conduct and bullying. The CCDH predicted a surge in abuse. When it analysed nearly 8 million Facebook comments directed at Members of Congress, it found that abuse did not merely surge; it skyrocketed. Overall, abuse comments tripled and violent threats and hate quadrupled—and it was not directed only on one side of the political aisle. The CCDH named its report Safety Off because that is precisely what Meta did: it switched off safety. When a platform with billions of users removes guardrails against violent conduct, violence surges. That is not correlation; it is causation. The platforms know it and they choose it anyway.
I am mindful that we are speaking in a British context, and there are benefits to social media, but the platforms and algorithms are the same, and the business model that rewards engagement is the same. This crosses borders: it shapes the environment locally, nationally and globally. Research makes it clear that the majority of councillors who experience abuse experience it online. It is targeted and co-ordinated, and disproportionately affects women, people of colour and those from minority communities, precisely the people whose presence in our politics makes it more representative and more reflective of the country it serves. When abuse drives out people, we are not just losing individuals; we are making our politics narrower and, in doing so, making it weaker.
The commission’s second recommendation is harder. It asks all of us involved in politics to model respectful behaviour—in the Chamber, online and in public life—and it asks us to consider carefully the impact of our words on public discourse. I think of Jo Cox here again. Those who knew her speak of somebody who, by instinct, was a builder of bridges; who did not mistake loudness for strength or contempt for conviction; and who understood that the way you argue matters just as much as what you argue for. We live in a political moment that rewards the opposite: when outrage drives engagement; when inflammatory language spreads further and faster than measured argument; when the easiest path to a news cycle is to treat your opponent not as somebody with a different view but as an enemy to be destroyed; and when jokes are made about an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home. Politicians at every level are not merely victims of this culture but, sometimes, the architects.
When a public figure uses demonising language, it does not stay within the walls of Westminster—it travels, it gives permission and it is heard by the councillor chairing a planning meeting or by the activist sending a message at midnight. Online and offline abuse feed each other. What is said in public life shapes what is considered acceptable online, and what is permitted online shapes what happens on our streets. The commission asks us to take responsibility for that: not to be silenced or to abandon robust debate—Jo Cox herself fiercely believed in that—but to recognise that there is a difference between challenging an argument and degrading a person and between holding a power to account and making public life uninhabitable.
Ten years on from Jo Cox’s murder, the threat to our democracy has not receded; it has changed shape, moved online and become faster and more persuasive, and it is actively enabled by the choices of the wealthiest companies in human history. The response that the commission calls for is, yes, to do the practical things—regulate the platforms, protect the candidates and resource the police—but also to do the harder thing of being the politician that you want others to be. I truly believe that we can, and I remain defiant against hate and division. We
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
That remains one of the most important sentences in modern British politics—and, a decade on, it remains work that we still have not finished.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox will always be remembered for the belief that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
In today’s often angry and fractured political climate, those words feel as important and necessary as ever. They are a reminder of the kind of politics and society that many people want to see.
I was profoundly shaped by the inaugural Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, established in her memory to support more women into public life. Many women from the first cohort have gone on to serve in leadership roles across public life. I am proud to sit on these Benches with my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton, who was part of our first cohort. That experience reinforced how important it is that politics feels open to people from every background, especially those who are too often excluded from leadership or unheard in various institutions. The lived experience, insight and perspectives that we bring to the table matter. They make our politics stronger, our decisions better and our democracy more representative.
The commission recognises that abuse, intimidation and hostility are not simply unpleasant features of modern politics; they silence voices, drive good people away from public service and weaken democratic participation itself. If people feel unable to engage in public life because of fear, intimidation or abuse, our democracy is poorer for it.
We also know that this abuse is not experienced equally. Women, people from ethnic-minority backgrounds and younger representatives are too often subjected to particularly vicious abuse. If that becomes normalised, we risk creating a politics where only the most privileged or thick-skinned feel able to participate. That cannot be acceptable in a healthy democracy.
Civility does not mean avoiding disagreement. Democracy depends on debate, challenge and scrutiny, but there is a profound difference between disagreement and dehumanisation. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but so are responsibility and accountability. Words can inspire and unite, but they can also wound and divide.
Too often, anger now travels faster than understanding. Social media can reward outrage over reflection and division over dialogue. Hostility and misinformation are amplified in ways that deepen division rather than understanding. That is why the commission’s focus on political and media literacy is so important. In an age of misinformation and polarisation, helping people develop the confidence and critical thinking skills to question and challenge what they see online or hear has become more important than ever. If we are honest, that lesson may not be limited to young people.
In Lewisham, I have seen the value of bringing people together across differences and generations through interfaith work, libraries, community spaces and civic participation. The more that people from different backgrounds, communities and cultures can learn from one another, share experiences and listen with openness, the stronger understanding, respect and trust between us become. That is why strengthening civility and strengthening community must go hand in hand. There must be stronger codes of conduct and higher standards of behaviour at all levels of public life.
In public life, language and behaviour that would be unacceptable elsewhere are sometimes dismissed as simply a part of politics. Those in public life at every level must lead by example through the tone they set, the respect they show and the standards they uphold.
One of the greatest tributes we can pay to Jo Cox’s memory is to build a politics where more people feel able to step forward and contribute, where different voices are welcomed and where we recognise that our differences need not divide us, because when people are encouraged to participate rather than pushed away, our democracy, communities and country are stronger for it. That is a responsibility we all must share.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I cannot disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, just shared with us. Particularly, I think that this House and the other place have welcomed many women who have come through the Jo Cox programme, and that has made our politics much better and richer.
“We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP, we are reminded of her profound legacy and the enduring power of those words. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for bringing this important debate before the House. I have been deeply moved by the many thoughtful contributions we have heard today.
While I did not have the privilege of knowing Jo personally, I have, in a small way, come to know her through her sister, Kim. Most recently, we found ourselves on opposing sides in an interparliamentary tug of war, raising funds for Macmillan. It was a light-hearted moment but also a powerful demonstration of what can bring us together, even across lines of difference.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission’s recent report, A Renewed Call to Action for the devolved nations, offers a series of important and practical recommendations which deserve careful consideration. The findings are striking: some 75% of Senedd Members and Welsh MPs reported that there are times when they feel unsafe in their role. Many elected representatives across the devolved nations do not feel able to participate in public life fully and freely. Abuse and intimidation, we are told, are driving people away from politics altogether. This is deeply concerning. A healthy democracy depends on participation and on people from all backgrounds feeling able to step forward, serve and speak without fear.
The report’s recommendations are constructive and grounded in collaboration between elected representatives and civil society. They include calls for the devolved Parliaments to provide clearer guidance and support to Members and their families; for adequate resourcing of Operation Ford, the police support mechanism for elected representatives; for political parties to enforce robust codes of conduct; and for all of us in public life to model respectful behaviour.
I particularly commend the recommendations specific to Wales. They are practical, clearly articulated and directed to the appropriate institutions. At a time when political discourse can feel increasingly divisive, such clarity and focus are especially welcome.
I have always believed that disagreement is both natural and necessary in a democracy. At its best, it sharpens thinking and leads to better outcomes, but tone matters. We are seeing with growing frequency forms of political discourse that are unnecessarily abrasive and, at times, that seek to demonise entire communities. That does little to advance understanding and risks deepening division. We all, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to set a better example.
Turning again to the report, its publication in the lead-up to elections in both Wales and Scotland may, understandably, have meant that some of its messages were lost amid the pre-election debate. However, even in the months since, there have been welcome signs of progress in Wales, thanks to the report. The Senedd has begun piloting a social media monitoring scheme to support Members, and has published its report, A Senedd for All: Report of the Family-Friendly and Inclusive Parliament Review, which includes proposals to address abuse, including the establishment of a safe participation in politics taskforce. Further, the Welsh Government have taken important steps, including exempting safety-related expenditure from campaign finance limits and introducing voluntary diversity and inclusion guidance for political parties—guidance that my own party, Plaid Cymru, has engaged with actively.
During the recent Senedd election, the Jo Cox Foundation also contributed to the development of a digital safety guide for candidates, working alongside organisations such as Shout Out UK, Glitch and Elect Her. I know that many candidates found this resource not only practical but reassuring, at what can be a particularly exposed moment in public life.
These are all positive developments, but there is clearly much more to be done. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, could provide an update on the responses received from institutions and bodies in Wales to these recommendations and on whether she anticipates any barriers to their full implementation. I would also like to ask the Minister a specific question relating to the recommendation directed at His Majesty’s Government; namely, what consideration has been given to expanding the remit and resourcing of the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre to cover Members of the devolved Parliaments, in addition to its existing responsibilities for Members in the other place and First Ministers?
If we are serious about honouring Jo Cox’s legacy, we must ensure that public life remains open, safe and respectful. Civility is not a constraint on political disagreement; it is a condition that makes healthy disagreement possible. So, we must ask: what kind of politics do we want to model for those who come after us and for the communities that Parliament is here to serve?
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox was a dear friend, and it is so hard to realise that 10 years have passed since her tragic murder. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for tabling the Motion for this important debate and for her continuing brilliant work chairing the Jo Cox Foundation. We commemorate Jo’s memory best by holding fast to what she said in her maiden speech in the House of Commons, which every single speaker so far has quoted; namely, that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
We need surely to relearn that lesson now more than ever.
The Civility Commission and the Jo Cox Foundation help us to do so. Their focus is particularly on the abuse and violence directed at elected representatives. They are about promoting a respectful and inclusive politics. We need only to think of Jo Cox herself, David Amess, Stephen Timms, and the levels of abuse directed at many other politicians, at both national and local level, especially abuse directed towards women representatives and towards political representatives of colour. This can never be right. Respectful disagreement is what democracy and democratic politics ought to be all about, but it goes further than this.
All too often at the moment, the response of some voters and some political figures to issues and challenges is to resort to hatred and violence. The scenes we saw in Southampton and elsewhere in the aftermath of the tragic death of Henry Nowak and what happened in Belfast following the assault on Stephen Ogilvie are obvious recent examples. What happened to Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie was, of course, unimaginably awful, but there are some political figures in our country who will turn tragedy into a political opportunity for rage and hatred and violence.
Such a response, however, diminishes them, undermines our community and society, and does huge damage to our country. It stems ultimately from fear of difference, fear of otherness and the prejudice that follows from that. It is what gave us, nearly 40 years ago, the wretchedness of Section 28. It is what has fuelled much of the rise of the far right around the world. It is what leads to manufactured, whipped-up protests about migrants and asylum seekers. There are, of course, good and bad migrants; there are good and bad members of society more generally. But manufactured outrage is primarily something fostered by bad actors.
Let us instead listen to the families of Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie, who have bravely asked us all not to turn the tragedies that have affected them into weaponised division and violence. Let us listen to the wise words of Jo Cox, reminding us that we have so much in common. Let us celebrate the richness and diversity of our communities. Let us hold fast to the idea that we make progress only when we unite, when we do things together, when we do not foster division and hatred. Let us do better.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and to remember the amazing Jo Cox, whom I met when she was chair of Labour Women’s Network and I was starting my political journey spending a weekend together in Bristol on a Labour Women’s Network training course. She shone brightly, and we heard many testimonies last Thursday in the other place about how being in Jo’s presence changed people for the better and how she drew people together, creating connection.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about my preoccupation with how we live well together, and five months on I am more preoccupied than ever. The three interconnected priorities of the Jo Cox Foundation, set up in her memory, are, sadly, unrelentingly relevant to us today: addressing loneliness; civility in public life; and grass-roots community work bringing all kinds of people together. There is a need urgently and comprehensively to address and think through on-the-ground solutions as well as legislative policy levers that create spaces and places—physical and otherwise—that enable everyone in society to thrive. There are some brilliant suggestions in the civility commission recommendations, some of which have been adopted, and we have heard about the excellent work today of the youth sector from my noble friend Lady Morgan.
This desire is born not out of utopian idealism but, as my noble friend Lady Dacres pointed out, out of living and working in diverse settings. My experience in Islington taught me similarly: from community centres to the council chamber, it is possible to build community, to build empathy, to increase understanding and to seek the common good. Connection with other human beings is essential to this; listening is essential; being open to learning is also essential. Kae Tempest says this better than I can in the song “People’s Faces”:
“But it’s hard to accept that we’re all one and the same flesh
Given the rampant divisions between oppressor and oppressed
But we are, though
More empathy, less greed, more respect”.
The last several decades have seen our social fabric stretched thin and to breaking point. In an often atomised and individualistic world, there is an urgent need to renew communal life, to renew solidarity, to commit to being together in spaces with people who do not look or sound like us and to challenge ourselves to listen well and ask questions.
Human beings are amazing. We are constantly evolving, continually being made and remade, and every day becoming and emerging. No one is fixed in their identity. No one is complete. Because of that ongoing evolution, there is always hope, and there is always the possibility of change and of shift. I have seen that in my work in prisons, in my work with people in addiction, and in my own life day by day. Sometimes it is little by little, and sometimes it is all at once in this giant wave. People can and do change; communities can and do change, through connection with other humans, a sense of belonging and doing something to meet the need of another.
The great, late Archbishop Desmond Tutu knew a thing or two about helping people to live together well, and his whole work was grounded in the concept of Ubuntu: “I am because we are”. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others, and because my humanity is bound up with others in this nation, I cannot ignore the pain and rage spilling out in Belfast and Southampton. Neither can I ignore the fear and terror expressed by my friends who are people of colour about going about their daily lives. Moreover, I cannot ignore the survivors of trafficking, whom I met last week with the Sophie Hayes Foundation, telling me about the failings of so-called safe houses and the failings of the national referral mechanism. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others.
On connection and listening, I do not know what that looks like in every community up and down our great nation. I know that, in my community, it looked like the Arsenal parade. It looks like an interfaith meal or the community homework club. We have a responsibility, as others have pointed out in this House today, to foster community; to foster connection, to share a meal and to be careful how we speak.
The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas took the “face of the other” as his foundational ethical concept: encountering another precious and totally unique human being face to face. We need human connection, seeking to understand and, as legislators, a commitment to listen, learn and collaborate with communities to find answers so we can live together well. I am not afraid of hard work, so let us go, with rolled-up sleeves, sharp minds and soft hearts. The common good must be sought, because we have far more in common than that which divides us.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to pay my respects to Jo Cox’s family and all her friends. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for arranging to have this debate today and the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, because without the work that it has been doing, we would not be here today, communities would not be in the situation they are in, and we would not be training women to come into public life. More and more we need to do this, and more and more we need to work with schools and other institutions so that young people know, like the Girl Guides and others, that every door is open to them—and I mean every door is open to them.
I was lucky to be brought up being told that every door was open to me, but not everybody has that opportunity. They might be bullied in every way: being bullied at school, being bullied at work, being bullied somewhere. When somebody is bullied, they go into their house, they go into a room and they never come out of it again. That is where we have all these problems, in many ways, in the community. It is part of our role to stop that happening.
I first met Jo when she was working at Oxfam and then, when she came to the House of Commons and I was here, she introduced me to the work they were doing on Syria and the White Helmets, on which we worked together. I still work with them, but we miss Jo deeply. I also went, just after Jo died, to Trafalgar Square when we had a memorial outside and I brought home, as my noble friend Lady Royall has seen, one of the placards that we had that day. I brought it home, got it cleaned and had it framed. I have that on my desk, and it reminds me every day about what we should be doing and why we should be doing it.
It is so important to ensure that women, who make up 50.7% of our population in this country, are in public life. What percentage of them are not in public life because they are not persuaded to be there or, when they have thought about it, they are told it is not for them, or they try and they are bullied? We have to insist that women are selected at every level. Otherwise, we will not have the right form of communities, and their children will not do this either. For example, there should be more women magistrates. There is a big shortage of magistrates, and women and young girls should be taught about the magistrate system so that in later life they apply to be trained.
The situation for MPs, councillors and other people in public life has now gone beyond the question of being bullied due to the rhetoric that we are seeing outside. We have not taken it seriously enough, and we now have to take it seriously. If necessary, as the Jo Cox Foundation has said, we have to pass stronger legislation. Councillors should not have stuff thrown at their doors, eggs thrown at their cars, their children interfered with or taunted at school and university, and so on. It is vital that we follow the recommendations of the recent report by the Jo Cox Foundation and More in Common, because we want a society that is together and is going to thrive. If we do not thrive, our country will not thrive.
That is why it is important too that we encourage women in public life to apply to be on boards at every level, whether it is at local or international level. We need to take men with us as well. This is about men and women working together in communities to stop what we have been seeing over the last couple of years, including what we are seeing in the media and on the web. It is disgraceful, and we must do everything we can to stop it happening. This abuse must cease. Thank you again for having this debate on the report; we must continue to build on it and to have further reports.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for introducing this debate and raising the importance of community, of respect, of getting involved, and of the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. I need to declare that I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I thought this debate might be a bit of a downer but he really uplifted it, and I think we are all feeling much better for that. I think that is the right legacy for Jo Cox and others: for us to feel good, not bad. We should look up, not down, and recognise what a wonderful country we live in, and that the vast majority of people are good.
We need to cherish and protect that which makes our country great. We need to rely on our politicians to lead and develop our country. We want the best politicians. Politicians should not need to continually look over their shoulder for threats when they inevitably have to make what will be difficult decisions—because there will be difficult decisions for all politicians.
I particularly want to focus on councillors—I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, so noble Lords might not be surprised. Councillors are embedded in their community, and in many ways they face greater risks because they are well known. It does not matter whether your address is published; most people know where you live as a councillor because you are part of that community. The LGA survey in 2025 showed that 72% of councillors had faced abuse, 50% were subject to misinformation and 25% had received threats of violence.
We want the best councillors. Traditionally, many councillors were not particularly politically driven; they basically just wanted to help their community and do what was right. Maybe it was to try to get a leisure centre built, or maybe, like me, they were fed up with too many potholes. Whatever it was, it was not because they were saying, “I am definitely a strong Labour person”—or a strong Conservative person, or whatever it was. They just wanted to do good.
That was why, when I was chairman of the LGA, I launched the Debate Not Hate campaign—which, to be topical, is about playing the ball, not the player. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, said, we need to recognise that what we say matters. In the age of social media, comments made will inevitably be exaggerated. They will be misquoted and distorted and frequently will snowball.
One of the reasons I like door knocking is that I get the chance to talk to somebody for five or 10 minutes. I have pretty much never walked away from a door and had somebody say, “You’re a terrible person”. They may still disagree with me, but at least we had the opportunity to realise that we were coming from different angles. We could be wrong but we were not bad. That is really important when we have our debates. We should not imply that somebody is wrong because they are bad. They are wrong because we may have a different set of values or because we do not agree with their analysis, but it does not make them bad. To say so is a shortcut that causes huge problems.
The risk—or the reality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, said—is that you get only the people who are thick-skinned, to which I add the highly motivated, standing. That is not good for our country or for our local communities. It is not enough to talk about community; we need to live it, be comfortable with our actions, respect each other and not give the opportunity for this foul abuse.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, as many of your Lordships know so well, Jo Cox had only 13 months as a Member of Parliament before the tragic, horrific end to her parliamentary career. It is a huge tribute to her legacy, epitomised by today’s debate, that her impact has been far greater than, frankly, that of many people who have served for rather longer. It is a huge tribute to her.
My own path in politics never crossed with hers—although, like her, I spent some years in politics in Yorkshire—but I know that other members of the Liberal Democrat Benches speak very fondly of their memories of working on a cross-party basis with her. Her legacy is an important one because her work, beliefs and commitments are, 10 years on, still so relevant, both to strangers to her like me and to those who have the privilege of happy memories of working with her and of the friendship they experienced. They are of course happy memories tinged with the sadness of knowing what has since been missing in their lives.
An important part of her legacy is of course carried forward by the Jo Cox Foundation, and I pay tribute to its scope, its ambition and its necessary persistence. There is a positive side—a happy upside, as so neatly epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Bates—to the challenges that the foundation tries to help us see through, but there are also some grimmer ones.
To focus on just one aspect of those, I think we have heard both in today’s debate and in our recent debate a few days ago, focusing on abuse and intimidation in local government specifically, just what a serious challenge that is. It is quite shocking that the LGA survey of councillors involved in the May elections this year found that 70%—nearly three in four—had faced at least some form of abuse or intimidation. We quite rightly worry about the safety and security of parliamentarians, but councillors often have far fewer security provisions and far less support available to them. Those threats and that danger can feel just as real, damaging and corrosive to our democracy as it does to parliamentarians.
In a way, we also saw the importance of the Jo Cox Foundation’s work on civility in our politics with the news at the beginning of this week of the conviction of two people for arson offences relating to the Prime Minister. An important part of that story, which no doubt we will return to in one of the debates next week, is the Russian links of those people. But foreign powers can incite violence in our politics only if people within this country are also willing and able to be enticed into violence themselves.
We are reminded also of one of the challenges that the Jo Cox Foundation rightly faces up to. Frankly, every time we look at our phones or turn to see what is new on social media, we have to battle against the temptation that those algorithms deliberately create to try to pull us into extreme emotions and to secure our time and our engagement, but that often also means inciting and encouraging our anger and even our dislike of others. Although there are many positives of social media, which we should not forget, so often it pulls us towards division, anger, even hatred and, in the worst cases, violence.
We have heard in the speeches today a broad understanding and shared commitment to face up to these challenges. However, while it is welcome that the Government have been listening on many of the issues that have been raised, I think it is fair to say that there is a general concern that more needs to be done—and quickly. I will give two simple examples. I mentioned the importance of the safety of local councillors and those involved in local government. We heard in a debate a few days ago about the very mixed reputation of Operation Ford: the police activities to protect councillors. In some cases, rightly, it has been very highly praised, but often people feel it is frustratingly short of what is needed to properly protect them.
We have also seen the importance of a continued commitment to action, and I hope an acceleration of action, in the continuing controversy over the ability to create non-consensual nudes using the Grok tool. That is a problem that affects many people in many different ways, but people who are prominent in public life, such as those who put themselves forward to stand in elections, are particularly vulnerable. We have seen a sequence of claims by Grok about how it is dealing with those issues, so far always followed by more journalistic investigations showing that the issue has not ended.
So, as we remember Jo Cox and others such as Sir David Amess, and, in my own party, Andrew Pennington, who lost his life protecting Nigel Jones, then a Member of the other House and later a Member of this House, their memories should prompt us to do more, to move more quickly and to honour their legacy.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today and thoroughly embarrassing and humbling to hear the contributions of many Members.
It is with a deep sense of duty that I rise to address the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and the broader imperative of safeguarding those who participate in public life. The murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were not merely acts of violence against individuals but profound violations of the democracy that binds our society together. They also remind us of the values that Jo Cox lived by: working together, respect for others and a belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us. Every speaker has mentioned that, so it is a really good testament. Those values must shape not only our response to rising hostility but the kind of political culture that we wish to build. However, despite the clarity of the commission’s recommendations and the urgency of the threat, the Government’s response has been insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us. The commission issued 28 recommendations, yet only seven have been adopted so far, and I think we all would encourage the Government to look at the others very quickly.
It is particularly troubling for people like me that none of the recommendations relating to local government has been implemented. As has been said, local councillors, who often serve without staff, without security and without the institutional protections afforded to Members of either House, remain acutely vulnerable. As the former leader of Bexley council, I know this vulnerability all too well. My colleagues and I have ourselves been subjected to sustained abuse, often anonymous, often from keyboard warriors, often deeply personal and mainly inaccurate, simply for carrying out the responsibilities of public office.
The fallout has impacted both officers and members: their health, their families and their lives. It is an experience that is shared by councillors across the country and underlines why the commission’s recommendations on local government cannot be treated as optional. The commission’s call to expand Operation Bridger to support local councillors was clear and unambiguous. The Government’s inaction leaves a significant gap in our national resilience. It is entirely proper to ask how we will ensure that local democracy is not treated as a secondary concern.
The Government frequently cite the Online Safety Act as evidence of progress, yet the lived experience of elected representatives tells a very different story. As has been mentioned, the 2025 survey of Members of Parliament revealed levels of threat and intimidation that should trouble every Member of this House. Women and Members from minority ethnic backgrounds face disproportionate levels of abuse. Candidates in the 2024 general election were twice as likely to face abuse if they were women and three times as likely if they were from minority ethnic backgrounds. The commission’s recommendation that social media companies provide enhanced support to candidates, particularly during election periods, remains unimplemented.
The dangers of social media are no longer abstract. They influence who feels able to stand for office, who feels safe to speak and who feels welcome in public life. A third of girls and young women now say that they are deterred from entering politics because of the hostility they see online. If we do not address this, we risk losing a generation of talent.
Furthermore, the commission identified the absence of a central government unit as one of the principal obstacles to progress. Without such a unit, efforts across police forces, regulators, political parties and tech companies remain fragmented and inconsistent. The renewal of the Defending Democracy Taskforce is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated, properly resourced co-ordinating body. The commission was unequivocal: this is a systemic challenge that requires a systemic response. The Government must provide one.
The commission’s call for impartial political and media literacy to be embedded in the curriculum is timely and necessary. Yet the Government’s proposed reforms will not take effect until 2027, with the teaching beginning in 2028-29, five years after the commission’s first call to action. In a digital environment where misinformation spreads in seconds, this delay has real-world consequences. We must recognise that civility is about not only how we conduct politics but how we sustain community cohesion. Loneliness and social disconnection remain significant challenges. They weaken trust, reduce civic participation and increase vulnerability to polarisation. Jo Cox understood that democracy is strengthened when communities are connected. That is why the Great Get Together, now marking its 10th year, matters. It is a reminder that respect is built locally through the simple act of bringing people together.
Within the Representation of the People Bill, we welcome the measures that protect candidates from harassment and intimidation. However, we remain vigilant against any drift towards the policing of legitimate political expression. Democracy must protect those who serve within it, but it must also preserve the right of citizens to criticise those who hold power.
At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires care, vigilance and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable realities. The Jo Cox Civility Commission has provided a thoughtful and comprehensive blueprint for strengthening the integrity of political culture. It is now for the Government to act: not with selectivity or delay but with the seriousness that this moment demands. If we fail to protect those who serve, we risk diminishing the very institutions on which our freedoms depend. If we fail to foster respect, we risk losing the trust that holds our society together. If we fail to work together, we risk forgetting the message that Jo Cox gave us: that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an incredibly thoughtful and well-informed debate, and I am very pleased to respond for the Government. I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Royall for opening the debate and all noble Lords who have spoken for some truly outstanding contributions today.
I want to start by paying tribute to all those who have worked to preserve Jo’s legacy. Tuesday marked 10 years since Jo’s tragic murder. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, will be with her family and friends: with Brendan, Cuillin, Lejla and, of course, our wonderful colleague in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, Jo’s sister. Last week, my colleague, Minister Ali McGovern, led a debate honouring Jo and her legacy. Members spoke of her civility, courage and determination and how she was a fierce advocate for those in need. I want to take a moment now to echo these sentiments in this House.
The hatred and violence which led to this senseless act has no place in our society. I am grateful to those who have worked tirelessly over the last decade to counter violent extremism and to bring our communities together. My noble friend Lady Royall mentioned Sir David Amess, and I have an abiding memory of working in Southend Council on a peer review on the first anniversary of Sir David’s murder and feeling the enduring impact of his loss.
Even in the wake of tragedy, the number of people who seek to come together greatly outnumbers those who aim to divide. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we build stronger and more resilient communities. This is the key to bringing people together: restoring pride in place and repairing social cohesion across the UK. It is the core priority for our Government. However, in today’s uncertain and changing world, community resilience has also become a matter of national security. We all know that hostile actors, at home and abroad, now seek to sow division and undermine local resilience as a means to pursue their own agendas and undermine our national interests. We know that a strong nation demands strong communities and we will prevent subversive forces undermining the community bonds that are the very foundation of this country.
Despite the threats we face, I am confident in the foundations we are building on. When people think of resilience or community strength, they often invoke images of the Blitz spirit and are nostalgic for a sense of defiant community that they fear may be lost. But this resilience endures, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I see this every day in my own community, not least when around the people who are there every single day in my community. Just last Sunday, I met with 25,000 people and hundreds of community groups and organisations, including musicians, dancers, sportspeople, politicians of all stripes, local businesses, who were all gathered together to celebrate our town on Stevenage Day. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for the fantastic reminder he gave us of our history and our legacy. We all celebrated Scotland’s World Cup win on 14 June and England’s fantastic win over Croatia last night. The noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said she was not going to mention the Arsenal parade. I am not going to mention the Arsenal parade, either, but it was estimated there were 1 million people there, all celebrating together.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, and celebrate the first all-British podium in Formula 1 since 1968. I am only wheedling that in because, of course, Lewis Hamilton was a Stevenage boy. In relation to Lewis Hamilton, he has invested very heavily in ironing out some of the inequalities in STEM through his Mission 44 project, and I am really grateful for that.
My noble friend Lady Morgan reminded us of the veritable army of volunteers out there who support our young people in sport, in scouting and Guides and in myriad other activities. Their work often goes unrecognised and we should celebrate what they all do. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, we should celebrate the enormous good in every community: as ex-councillors, many of us here saw this every day in our work. This resilience endures. We saw it at the height of the Covid pandemic when neighbours came together to support each other. They shopped for the elderly and delivered prescriptions for the vulnerable. In the face of sickness and isolation, communities united to make sure no one was left behind.
More importantly, in the wake of the unrest that gripped Southport in 2024, local residents came together to rebuild their neighbourhood. I had a real lump in my throat when I saw that young man helping to rebuild the wall that had been knocked down the day after that happened. Amidst the grief of community tragedy, people took a stand against prejudice, clearly saying that this violence was not in their name. I am going to use Jo’s words too, and say
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
When building strong, resilient communities, it is important to remember that we are defined not by our lowest moments but by how we respond to them. To this end, the Government are taking tangible action to support community resilience across our country. In March this year, I presented the social cohesion action plan to the House. Cohesion is not about suppressing differences—we should embrace and celebrate our diverse communities—but about renewing a shared social contract rooted in our fundamental British values: democracy, the rule of law, on which my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has spoken so powerfully, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance. Our plan, entitled Protecting What Matters, sets out our cross-government approach to building confident, cohesive and resilient communities. Of course, this agenda necessitates a whole-of-society approach, and it does not fall within the remit of just one department.
To build resilience, we are resetting our approach to counterextremism, focusing on ensuring a consistent understanding of extremism across government, countering extremist influence in the UK and abroad, and strengthening measures against extremist abuse of our institutions. The plan also supports resilience to online harms, building on the Online Safety Act to provide greater platform transparency, stronger media literacy, protections for children, and better crisis response during periods of heightened tension. More widely, MHCLG’s common ground resilience fund will help deliver targeted cohesion and integration interventions and support local authorities and grass-roots organisations to run practical initiatives that bring people together. But, as my noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Dacres said, we must all show the leadership our roles enshrine. Words matter: we must watch our own and we must call out those who forget how language can divide and intimidate.
In relation to the Civility Commission recommendations, earlier this month I stood before the House and responded to a debate on the intimidation of councillors. The examples of abhorrent behaviour councillors have been subjected to that we heard from my noble friend Lord Forbes and others were seriously disturbing: a stark reminder of the scale of challenge that faces us. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life but recognised as a direct threat to our democracy and to democratic representation.
I am also aware of the vulnerabilities of some of our front-line workers. I was very pleased that the Crime and Policing Act introduced new protections for retail workers, and I have started a dialogue, from my own department’s perspective, with the planning profession, whose members are often in public meetings and at the front line of people’s frustration with the planning system. It is unacceptable that they or anyone else doing their job should be subject to intimidating or threatening behaviour. The Civility Commission has made a range of recommendations across sectors for national government, Parliament, local government, police, the courts, political parties, politicians, regulators and social media companies. Clearly, we all have a role to play in creating a stronger, more resilient society. This must be a joint effort: a joint responsibility. I am pleased the Government have made progress in this space.
As part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol, we have committed to funding Operation Ford, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned. This provides a dedicated elected official adviser in every police force to provide security briefings and work with local authorities to co-ordinate appropriate security support where heightened risk is identified. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the somewhat inconsistent application of Operation Ford; I heard that as well in last week’s debate, and I will feed that back and see what can be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me about the fixated threat assessment; I will write to her on that issue.
We are also taking decisive action to tackle harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners. We are changing the law so that those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff can be disqualified from holding or seeking elected office. This will bring electoral staff under the same protection already given to candidates, campaigners and elected representatives under the Elections Act 2022. The Representation of the People Bill will allow tougher sentences for those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. In addition, we will remove the requirement for election agents, including candidates acting as their own agents, to have home addresses published on the notice of election agents.
On publishing anonymised data on protected characteristics of election candidates, the Government are committed to commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, and we are exploring when and how we can do so. Careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the necessary supporting regulations and whether a phased implementation might be needed.
I turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords. There were some very powerful speeches, which included speaking about loneliness, from my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Morgan and Lady Hyde. We are working very hard to ensure that improving social connection and tackling loneliness are embedded in government policy-making, including the Pride in Place strategy, backed by £5.8 billion over 10 years, the men’s health strategy, and the national youth strategy. There is a particular issue around young people and loneliness, and that strategy is backed by £500 million over three years. It will provide safe spaces, fun activities and trusted adults to mentor and support our young people. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her welcome of the report, and I am very happy to meet with her.
My noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Goudie, the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, all referred to the harassment and intimidation of local councillors. The noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, referred to some of the startling figures in the LGA survey. Of course, I share these concerns. I am very glad that the LGA is doing that survey, but I am alarmed by some of the figures it is showing us. We need to take decisive action on this issue and ensure that people are not put off campaigning and standing for public office. That is one of the reasons why we are changing the law and why the Representation of the People Bill, by introducing a new statutory aggravating factor, will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about work going on across the recommendations. Although some are formally approved, there is work going on right across the recommendations, so I can assure her that we are taking them very seriously.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Dacres talked about local government standards. We intend to strengthen the current standards and conduct regime to make sure all local authority members embody the highest standards of conduct, which the electorate have a right to expect, and which greater devolution will certainly rely on. We published a government response to a consultation in November last year, and we intend to legislate on whole-system reform. Those reforms will provide the tools needed to deal swiftly and fairly with misconduct in every type and tier of local government.
My noble friend Lady Dacres raised the important issue of media literacy. The Government agree that media literacy helps people develop the skills needed to question information, judge credibility and build resilience to misinformation and other forms of harmful content. On 16 March, DSIT published its media literacy action plan, a whole-of-government plan for media literacy that sets out clear priorities for the next three years. By 2029, the action plan aims to improve critical engagement with online content, including recognition of misinformation and disinformation, and access to trusted information supported through schools, libraries and local services. There is a great deal more going on in the updated national curriculum, following the independent curriculum and assessment review; there is active work going on in that space too.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Shah, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the very difficult issues of online harassment. The Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a framework of duties, overseen and enforced by Ofcom. In an electoral context, this framework means that in-scope services must tackle illegal content where it amounts to existing offences, including offences such as incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference and false statements about a candidate’s character. Where anonymous abuse does not meet the threshold for illegality, the Act’s user empowerment duties, which are expected to come into force from 2027, require the largest services to make sure they manage their interactions, including the ability to filter out content from non-verified users. It is simply not acceptable for platforms to shrug their shoulders and shrug off their responsibility to tackle this, and our Government are determined to tackle it.
On supporting women and minorities in politics, issues raised by my noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Goudie, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the current UK Parliament is the most diverse on record and sees a number of firsts. The number of women elected to Parliament and in local government elections has risen: 40% of Labour members are now women. We do not have the overall figures on the ethnic diversity of the House of Commons, but available estimates suggest that there has been significant progress with that. The Government’s plans will further strengthen women’s role in public life, breaking down barriers to opportunity, tackling misogyny and creating more equal workplaces. We will encourage better political representation, including by ensuring political parties publish diversity data through commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act. But this is a whole-system issue: we have to tackle the intimidation and the online abuse that people face, or we will just not encourage people to come into political life.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, issued a challenge to me about leadership of this project. The Government will not tolerate the harassment and intimidation of those who serve in public life. That is why the Defending Democracy Taskforce is chaired by the Security Minister, with a mandate directly from the Prime Minister. She is bringing together departments, the Electoral Commission and our intelligence agencies to drive forward a co-ordinated and determined response to protect candidates and elected representatives from threats. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life, so we need to make sure that this action goes forward.
This Government are committed to strong, cohesive and resilient communities, and this will continue to be a priority for the remainder of this Government. I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions to this important debate, and I hope that noble Lords will continue to engage and work with us as we bring people together to restore pride in place and repair social cohesion.
I want to close by thanking all those who worked so hard to honour Jo’s life with this indelible legacy of protecting, promoting and strengthening our democratic freedoms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lady Goudie said powerfully, the Jo Cox Foundation has become a unifying force for good in our public and political life. I want to end by thanking Jo, our sister. Her life, too short though it was, truly made a difference.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, what a glorious way to finish; I thank my noble friend the Minister. To think that we are a unifying force—that is a wonderful way to finish; I thank her so much. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for sharing their experiences, but also for expressing their hopes and fears. I am grateful too for the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and for our wider work, because strengthening our communities, addressing the epidemic of loneliness and nurturing respect and civility in politics are all inextricably linked. These are the ways to address the challenge of making a more resilient society.
Still, notwithstanding the divisions and difficulties in our communities and our country, there is always hope. There are many great things and so much positive action in our communities. Like everyone else, I love the catalogue of positivity, which is going on my wall as well. In fact, I might print it out and circulate it to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. That is real, positive action.
It is also uplifting that across the Chamber, where quite often we disagree agreeably—and that is fine; that is as it should be—today we have agreed on all the points of this debate, and I think that is a matter of strength. We have all shown a great determination to bring about change where it is needed, and it is needed if we are to ensure a healthy democracy and a resilient society in which everyone feels safe to participate. We must hold firm to Jo’s words, and we must act.
I will end on a lighter note. I encourage all noble Lords to participate in the Great Get Together this weekend and, perhaps in the next 10 days, to go and raise a glass to Jo in one of our bars where they are serving Great Get Together beer.
Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards the (1) treatment of, and (2) research into, severe myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to have secured time for this debate on the treatment of and research into severe ME. I am particularly grateful to Action for ME, whose work with those living with ME and advocacy to improve care, treatment and understanding has been tireless. Someone very close to me has ME, and I know from our personal experience what so many other families know: that ME is not just a matter of policy documents, clinical pathways or departmental responsibilities; it is about lives changed beyond recognition. It is about people who were active, engaged, ambitious and full of plans who suddenly find that the most ordinary of tasks become impossible.
ME is a complex, chronic and disabling condition that affects multiple systems in the body, characterised by debilitating fatigue that does not improve with rest, cognitive dysfunction, pain and hypersensitivity to light, sound and movement. Even the most minimal activity can cause a serious worsening of symptoms in some people. Around 1.35 million people in the UK are estimated to be living with ME, although the true number may well be higher because of underdiagnosis and limited research. Around one in four of those with ME are severely affected. To be clear, that means they are housebound or bedbound, unable to carry out daily independent activities and totally reliant on others for personal care. Those with very severe ME may have extreme symptoms and are dependent on full-time care. Many are unable to process or tolerate food and are dependent on nutritional and hydration support. We need to be clear about the scale and the seriousness of this issue.
There have been some welcome developments recently with regard to ME. The Government’s ME/CFS delivery plan, published in July last year, was an important step. It finally recognises the needs of people with ME and has signalled a greater willingness to address an illness that has been neglected for so long. However, that recognition, welcome though it is, is not delivery. In March this year the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that work to explore a specialist NHS service for people with severe ME will not begin until at least April 2027. That is not delivery of the service; it is simply the exploration of one.
For many illnesses a delay of a year would be troubling, but for people with severe ME it may be devastating, leading to further deterioration in their health and, crucially, signalling to them that once again their illness is being forgotten. In practice, the delay will mean that patients continue to be passed between services that simply do not know what to do, or, even worse, continue being harmed by care that is totally inappropriate to their needs. Recent prevention of future deaths reports into the deaths of Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis raise serious concerns about the lack of specialist services, insufficient clinical understanding and failures to meet even the most basic care needs. These reports should weigh heavily on all of us and, I am sure, also weigh heavily on the Minister.
Those reports make it clear that it is not just a question of future improvement but of patient safety now. More deaths from ME must be prevented. I know the Minister will say the delivery plan is a starting point, and I accept that, but sadly it is a plan without funding, timelines or accountability, and it risks becoming just another document that people living with ME are told to welcome while their daily reality remains unchanged.
I would like the Government to set out what interim support will be available for patients with severe ME before exploratory work on a specialised service begins in April next year. We need clear interim measures, dedicated accountability within the department and within the NHS, and proper co-design with people with severe and very severe ME, along with their families, carers and the charities that support them.
There is also the question of research. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement to invest £4.75 million to enable the Sequence ME and Long Covid study to completely sequence the whole genomes of the 6,000 ME patients already collected. However, ME remains significantly underresearched when compared with its prevalence, severity and economic impact. For comparison, the UK spends 20 times less on ME research compared to multiple sclerosis, despite the fact that ME is twice as prevalent. Private investment has historically been limited because of the lack of established biomarkers and an underdeveloped clinical research pipeline, and this is precisely why the Government need to act. There is an opportunity here for the UK to lead in post-infectious disease research, with ME as a central part of that agenda. Along with Action for ME, I call on the Government to commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME through the life sciences sector by 2027, and this should include targeted support for diagnostics, biomarkers, treatment development, clinical trials and research into severe and very severe ME. The proposed innovation and research duty in the NHS modernisation Bill provides a clear opportunity to strengthen that commitment.
There is a very practical problem with data. At present, poor coding and inconsistent diagnosis mean that the NHS does not have a reliable picture of how many people have ME, where they are, how severe their illness is or what support they need. This makes proper service planning almost impossible, and it makes it too easy for people with ME, particularly severe and very severe, to remain invisible to the system, and they are left without adequate and safe care. I am very conscious that there are excellent clinicians, researchers, carers and voluntary organisations doing everything they can to support people with ME. My criticism is not of those individuals but of a system that has not given those with ME, especially severe ME, the services and the care they need.
I want to finish with a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she outline what interim support will be put in place for people with very severe ME before April next year? Will she consider setting up an expert advisory panel on severe ME which can give guidance to hospitals when they admit severe ME patients? Will the department look at providing clear nutritional guidance for patients with severe ME? Perhaps it could think about establishing a remote, virtual ME clinic along the lines of virtual wards. Will the Government commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME, including research into severe and very severe ME? How will the Government ensure that the delivery plan is backed by clear accountability, funding, timelines and local commissioning duties? People with ME have waited far too long, first to be believed and now for research and treatment.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I want to make a very short intervention in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing a very important debate. As she pointed out, an estimated 1.25 million people across the United Kingdom are living with ME. Many of those are suffering severely affected and unable to carry out the daily activities which others take for granted and therefore require significant support with personal care. The level of care services is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, leaving those in need with major gaps in provision, causing serious deterioration in their personal well-being.
I therefore join in asking the Minister whether she can tell the House what interim support will be provided for people with severe ME, bearing in mind the delay to the expiration of the nationally commissioned service until April 2027. ME remains significantly underresearched considering how prevalent it is within society. Therefore, can the Minister’s department take action to accelerate ME research, thereby gathering the necessary evidence base for better care? The dignity of many suffering from severe ME depends on appropriate services across the UK. I trust that this short debate highlights the importance of the issue, and I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her debate today.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on her very moving speech. She comprehensively covered the major issues that are before patients with ME.
The prevention of future deaths report into the death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill emphasised that there is no known cure into myalgic encephalomyelitis—not only no cure but no known cause, no known reason why some are susceptible to developing ME and no known reason why one in four sufferers develop severe problems. It was clear that despite three periods in hospital, the NHS was unable to reverse Maeve’s malnutrition and sadly she died. One might think that apart from lots more research into causes, prevention, diagnosis and effective treatment, there is nothing that can be done to care for sufferers appropriately. But there is.
I note that in a recent survey by Action for ME, just 10.8% of respondents with severe or very severe ME said they felt supported by the NHS. I began to wonder what “good” looks like, so I looked at the NICE guidelines and there it was. But I recently heard from a carer of a patient with severe ME. She said: “There is almost no help available on the NHS for patients of this severity. We waited six months for an NHS specialist appointment. The consultation lasted 10 minutes over the phone. The consultant, whose primary speciality was diabetes, reviewed blood tests, said they were normal and suggested my partner take a multivitamin. The clinic was disbanded the following day due to the consultant’s retirement, with no handover to an alternative service. Our experience with primary care has been equally concerning. Most GPs we have encountered have little understanding of severe ME, how profoundly disabling it can be or best practice for care. To give one example, a GP recently suggested to me that my partner try ‘talking therapies’ when he was unable to tolerate sound”.
My first question to the Minister is therefore: do the Government know how many ME services are implementing the NICE guidelines? If not, what is being done to find out? What is being done to support those that are not implementing the NICE guidance to do so? Obviously, we need to take several steps back from the quality of care to find out how this disease develops. Clearly, the Government should commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME, including the severe and very severe conditions. This should include targeted funding for diagnostics, biomarkers, treatment development, clinical trials and other post-infectious disease research, as my noble friend demanded. But there are also off-label, low-risk interventions, including cannabis-based medicines, which patients may be willing to try but cannot access on the NHS.
As we have just heard, ME remains significantly underresearched relative to its prevalence. Severe sufferers often cannot work from an early age. Those who are bed-bound require constant care at home, which also limits the economic activity of their carers. Improving economic evidence is important as it encourages grant-making decisions. Better cost of illness data would help demonstrate the wider social and economic impact of ME, including costs to the NHS, social care, the welfare system, families and carers, and the wider economy. State-funded research into this would pump-prime investment by charities, academics and pharmaceutical companies. It sends a message that ME matters.
The condition is increasingly being understood within the broader field of post-infectious conditions such as long Covid, but we must avoid the danger of the two conditions being confused. However, I welcome the announcement of a £1.4 million NICE research programme to explore the cost effectiveness of existing healthcare for ME and long Covid to improve the quality of care. Major UK research studies, including DecodeME, LOCOME and Sequence ME & Long Covid, are helping to build momentum. As my noble friend said, there is now an opportunity for the Government to position the UK as a leader in post-infectious disease research, with ME right at the heart of it. Is there a coherent plan for a broad range of research to cover all aspects of ME, or is it a bit here and a bit there? Are we lagging behind other countries and losing an important economic opportunity?
We will also need targeted support to translate biomedical science into commercially viable diagnostics and treatments. In this context, a recent report from your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee into the need for more support for science-based companies trying to scale up is certainly worth a read. It is called Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency. In other situations, there has been successful repurposing of pharmaceutical interventions developed for other diseases. Dexamethasone was an example during the Covid pandemic, and it certainly saved lives. There is a new funding opportunity for an NIHR award focused on evaluating repurposed pharmaceutical interventions. I wonder whether these grants might be applied to treat post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, including ME. Can the Minister say whether there has been any progress on this?
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something for ME patients now. The sensory overload suffered by some sufferers means that they must restrict their stimulus by lying in a quiet, dark room, and their care needs to be physically gentle. This means that the environment in which care is delivered is as critical to their health outcomes as the treatment itself. The current definition of patient information in the NHS modernisation Bill risks creating a significant safety blind spot. While the single patient record is welcome and designed to consolidate a patient’s medical history, current guidance omits the contextual clinical data providing accommodations to make services accessible to all patients. Without formal, recorded and transferable data on reasonable accommodations, these patients face preventable harm, wasted clinical resources—when no sensory adjustments mean that appointments fail—and having to re-advocate for their safety needs at every new touchpoint.
By amending the definition of patient information to include reasonable accommodations, we could ensure that the SPR acts as a true safety net, not just for ME patients but for those with learning or communication difficulties. Including this provision does not merely add data; it formalises the duty of care, ensures clinical safety and embeds equity into the very architecture of the future NHS digital infrastructure. Will the Government accept an amendment to correct this omission?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for securing this important debate. I join others in paying tribute to the patients, families, clinicians, researchers and charities who have worked tirelessly to improve understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis. For too long, people living with this condition have faced scepticism and inadequate support.
While significant challenges remain, it is right to acknowledge that progress has been made. There is now a much greater recognition that ME is a serious and often profoundly debilitating condition requiring appropriate clinical care and support. We on these Benches welcome the publication of the ME delivery plan in 2025. Many of the origins of that work lie in the commitments made by the previous Conservative Government in 2022 to develop a cross-government approach to ME. It is encouraging that the plan contains a broad range of actions across health services and educational research. We also welcome reports that a substantial number of those actions are complete or in progress.
However, publication of a plan is only the beginning. What matters to patients is whether they experience tangible improvements in their daily lives. The plan contains 44 actions, but patients and charities have raised understandable concerns about how delivery will be monitored in practice, who will ultimately be accountable for implementation, and how responsibilities will be managed as NHS England functions transfer into the Department of Health and Social Care. I therefore hope the Minister can tell the House today when the promised progress report will be published and who will be responsible for ensuring delivery across government and the NHS.
Nowhere are these questions more urgent than for those living with severe and very severe ME. These are often the patients with the greatest needs and the least ability to advocate for themselves. It is therefore concerning that the only delayed action within the delivery plan relates to consideration of specialised services for this group, with the decision now not expected until April 2027. The evidence presented by charities and campaigners illustrates why this matters. Preliminary findings from Action for ME’s recent survey suggest that many people with severe and very severe ME are unable to access existing specialist services because they are simply too unwell to attend them. Large numbers report receiving little or no ongoing support from either specialist services or primary care, while many face serious challenges in meeting basic needs, including nutrition. This matters not only because of the immediate impact on the patient’s quality of life but because early intervention and appropriate support can prevent longer-term deterioration.
If people have access to advice, treatment, system management and practical support at an earlier stage, there is a greater chance of helping them maintain their independence and remain connected to education or employment where appropriate. Delays in accessing support can leave people becoming progressively more unwell, making recovery and participation in everyday life considerably harder. That is why timely and effective services are so important, not only for those who are already severely affected but for those at risk of reaching that point.
It is also important to recognise that ME disproportionately affects women. Evidence consistently suggests that women are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ME than men. Can the Minister therefore say what assessment the Government have made of the reasons behind this disparity and whether the needs of women living with ME are being specifically considered as the delivery plan is implemented?
Recent prevention of future deaths reports have also highlighted serious concerns regarding the care available to some of the most severely affected patients. The Government have stated that integrated care boards remain responsible for commissioning appropriate services in the meantime. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the current provision for severe and very severe ME, whether significant variation exists across the country, and what interim support will be available before any decision on a nationally commissioned service is reached in 2027?
We must also not lose sight of the critical importance of research. We welcome the support provided for the DecodeME survey. Its early findings identify potential genetic links involving the immune and nervous systems, representing an encouraging step forward in understanding the biological mechanisms underlying this condition. Yet ME remains significantly under-researched relative to its prevalence and impact. The Government have rightly spoken about the UK’s ambition to lead in life sciences and post-infectious disease research. There is a strong case for ensuring that ME forms part of that agenda, including through support for research into diagnostics, biomarkers, treatments and clinical trials.
In closing, I ask the Minister three questions. When will the Government publish their next formal update on the delivery of the ME plan? What interim support will be provided for people with severe and very severe ME before April 2027? Can she assure the House that the decision on specialised services will not be subject to further delay? Those living with ME have waited a long time to be heard. They deserve not only recognition and promises, but delivery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for securing this important debate, which matters so much to so many, and for her clear introduction to these matters. I am also grateful to all the other noble Lords who spoke for their thoughtful and probing insights. The debate has certainly underlined the profound impact that myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME/CFS—has on those living with the condition, but also on their families, friends, carers and communities.
Noble Lords have spoken very movingly about the reality, and I am grateful for the welcomes across the House for a number of government actions. I recognise what noble Lords have described, which is—to pick up a few points—a lack of awareness, variability in services, the stigma faced by those with ME/CFS and the need to go further. We recognise all of that.
The fact is that the system has not worked as it should for people. But that is why, early on, the Government prioritised publication of our final delivery plan on ME/CFS, which we published in July last year. I assure noble Lords that we work closely with those most impacted by the effects of this debilitating condition, including those with lived experience. I add my thanks to charities and campaigners for their work, because they have given voice to this subject. We want to ensure that patients are truly heard by a system that can respond to those voices, because historically that has not been the case. So the plan sets out a clear direction for improvement, and it focuses on three key ambitions: boosting research, improving understanding and education, and strengthening the care and support people receive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, raised a number of questions about funding timelines and accountability. I confirm that the department has overall responsibility for progress against the final delivery plan, and officials are actively tracking progress. It is very much worth noticing that three-quarters of the plan’s actions have been completed or commenced or are currently ongoing. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that an update on the delivery of the final delivery plan will be communicated next month.
We know, as has been spoken about, that a lack of research has meant that those with ME/CFS have been left feeling undervalued, frustrated and overlooked. That is why the final delivery plan commits to stimulating research, including through new funding opportunities, better support for researchers and building capacity and research. We have gone beyond the actions in the final delivery plan, as all noble Lords were good enough to reference, by investing £4.75 million in SequenceME, which will create the first high-resolution genetic map for ME/CFS. I believe that this will offer new hope to patients and pave the way for better diagnostics and future treatment, which, after all, is what we need.
All noble Lords asked for further commitments. To the points I have just made, I add that the Government are investing in turbocharging clinical trials research. Key to this is enabling new treatments to get to patients faster; and the NIHR has funded projects to explore the feasibility of a clinical trial for treatments for ME/CFS and other post-acute infection conditions, as noble Lords have asked for. Of course, funding and support is available for researchers, and the Medical Research Council and the NIHR welcome funding applications for research into ME/CFS and other post-acute infection conditions. Addressing gaps in knowledge and awareness around this condition is also crucial, because people who live with ME/CFS have to be seen and feel seen. They need to be reassured, and they need evidence that they are going to be taken seriously. I am therefore glad to say that NHS England has developed an e-learning programme, which consists of four modules and seeks to improve the understanding of healthcare professionals, and to support them to provide the right care at the right time for those who need it, including those with severe ME/CFS.
Experiences of care vary widely—that should not be inevitable, but we recognise that they do—but I believe that those with ME/CFS deserve a high standard of care, no matter who they are or where they are. We will seek to improve that through the development of a new template service specification for mild and moderate ME/CFS, and that will expand to include the severe nature of the condition. The template will focus minds and demonstrate to integrated care boards the ways in which NICE guidelines can be implemented. Key here too is that it will provide good practice examples for ICBs, so they can model their own services on where it is being successful.
There is, as I said at the beginning, much more to be done. We are working at pace to implement this final delivery plan, and we will work continually with stakeholders to make sure that it meets the mark. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked about interim support. We are not just committed to considering a specialised service for those with a very serious version of the condition; we are also exploring what preparatory work can be taken forward ahead of April next year. We want to progress the work at pace once the transformation in respect of NHS England has been concluded. In the meantime, we are considering a range of potential interim measures to support those with severe ME/CFS, including further promotion of the e-learning modules that I referred to, making sure they span very severe and severe ME/CFS, alongside the recommendations that have been presented to government directly by patient groups.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked about setting up an expert advisory panel. We do not currently have plans for such a panel for those with severe ME/CFS, but I assure the noble Baroness that we engage very closely with experts from NHS England, clinicians and experts in the charity sector so that we can develop a much broader approach to supporting patients with ME/CFS.
In response to the question about exploring whether a specialised service should be commissioned for very severe ME/CFS, any decision on whether this committee would be convened remains at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that we recognise that ME is more likely to affect women and that early results in the DecodeME study have found that women with ME/CFS tend to have more symptoms and co-occurring conditions than men. That will be taken into account. Again, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her work and advocacy in this area.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked what support is being given to those services that are unable to fulfil the NICE guidelines, and about the Government’s attitude to including reasonable adjustments in the information on the single patient record.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be pleased to take those two points away and look at them, particularly the second, which is a very practical suggestion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, as ever, and I will gladly write to her.
Child Poverty
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
That this House takes note of the Government’s actions to tackle child poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to introduce this debate on the first UK-wide child poverty strategy, and strategy for England, since 2010, during which time child poverty, particularly deep child poverty, has worsened. I am grateful to the noble Lords taking part, and I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity to highlight some of the strategy’s strengths and to suggest where it might go further in tackling child poverty effectively.
One of the strategy’s great strengths has been the taskforce’s wide engagement with stakeholders, including, in particular, parents and children with experience of poverty. Four of those parents, who were involved in the Changing Realities participatory project, said in the foreword:
“We have experienced genuine listening and collaboration, and it has been encouraging to feel that our lived experience can and should influence policy solutions”.
There is a commitment to continuing this engagement as part of the strategy’s evaluation and development, which I will return to.
Although the strategy document itself did not mention children’s rights, a subsequent child rights impact assessment, published alongside a child-friendly version of the strategy, emphasises:
“From the outset, development of the strategy has been guided by a children’s rights approach”,
and that this will continue by
“involving children in monitoring its impact”,
which is very welcome.
Another very positive aspect of the strategy document is its language and tone. It makes a very strong case for action on child poverty, starting with the Prime Minister’s foreword, setting out both the moral case and its importance as an economic and social investment in our future. Child poverty costs us, as a society. Moreover, the document recognises the key role played by social security and, indeed, uses that term rather than what has become the pejorative language of “welfare”. The tone is a far cry from the dominant false narrative of a “ballooning” welfare budget. A companion evidence pack spells out how previous cuts mean that basic benefit levels are worth “significantly less” than in 2010-11, and how this has contributed to the worsening of child poverty.
This lays the ground for the most important and welcome policy shift: the total abolition of the heinous two-child limit, which I will not dwell on because we have already debated it, other than to remind noble Lords that its abolition represents the single most effective means of reducing child poverty at a stroke, supported by modest real increases in the universal credit standard allowance for the rest of this Parliament. According to the latest published official estimate, abolition of the limit will reduce the number of children in poverty by 550,000 by 2030, and as many as 7.1 million children will be in gaining households, of whom 1.4 million are in deep material poverty.
Nevertheless, official projections suggest that there will still be around 4 million children—29% of all children—in poverty at the end of this Parliament, and Barnardo’s warns that the depth and severity of poverty could worsen further. The challenge facing the Government is a measure of the dire situation inherited from the previous Government. As the Resolution Foundation warns, the strategy is still working against economic forces and other policy choices that could weaken its impact.
One such policy choice is the retention of the benefit cap, which is a key driver of deep poverty, especially among single-parent families. I know that removal of the cap is not government policy, even though evidence suggests its impact on employment has been pretty minimal, while the hardship caused is considerable. However, at the very least, I ask, yet again, for them to consider ways of mitigating its impact, including annual uprating of the threshold limits. According to CPAG, of which I am honorary president, if they had been uprated in line with inflation since 2016, they would be 26% higher now.
The other main social security omission is the failure to end the freeze on housing allowance, which aggravates poverty among families living in the private rented sector. More generally, there is no hint of the further investment in social security that is needed if it is to provide for a decent life, genuine security and a healthy diet, as argued by the Food Foundation. Yet analysis suggests that, as the record of the last Labour Government shows:
“We can only get significant and lasting reductions in child poverty by investing in our social security system”.
The same analysis, published by CASE at the LSE, also shows that
“changes in parental employment, whilst important, will never deliver change to child poverty rates on the scale we need to see”.
We should remember that nearly three-quarters of children in poverty live in working households. Certainly, there are reforms that could ensure that paid work is more effective in tackling child poverty, as recent analysis by Action for Children and the IPPR demonstrates. However, it will never be the silver bullet that some politicians suggest.
One such reform that the Government are very aware of is childcare, which is again of particular importance to single-parent families. The IPPR and Action for Children research underlined just how important childcare is to both finding and progressing in paid work, especially for mothers, whose poverty is still inextricably linked to that of their children. Childcare is an important element in the holistic approach taken by the strategy.
Other important elements include action on homelessness and the use of bed and breakfast accommodation; reduction in some of the costs of education—which is crucial if every child is to achieve and thrive at school—including the very welcome extension of free school meals; improved maintenance provisions; and strengthened local services, especially those prioritising prevention. These are aimed as much at reducing the impact of child poverty as its incidence but are nevertheless welcome.
Here, I wish attention could have been paid to how services are delivered, as the experience of poverty is worsened when service users feel they are not treated with dignity and respect, thereby worsening the stigma which continues to hurt people living in poverty. This is something that a human rights approach to poverty would address, as recognised in Scotland and Wales. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in warmly welcoming the strategy, argues that its
“implementation would be significantly strengthened by taking a human rights based approach”.
The strategy recognises the important role played by local authorities, but in the words of Resolve Poverty:
“It will need to give greater consideration to how localities in England will be supported to develop and embed strong strategic responses to poverty and in ensuring that all localities are properly resourced and supported to deliver strategic anti-poverty activity”.
It would like to see
“the introduction of a requirement on localities to develop anti-poverty strategies”.
Another hole in the strategy concerns migrant children in families with no recourse to public funds, which includes child benefit, the key bedrock of support for children. While its explicit recognition of this group of children and commitment to ensuring
“they receive the support they require, regardless of their immigration status”
are very welcome, it has ignored calls for easing the application of the NRPF rule, which can spell abject poverty for much of a child’s childhood. Moreover, proposed reforms to the asylum and settlement rules are likely to worsen poverty among migrant children, already at disproportionate risk of poverty. Sarah, a refugee parent, in a recent blog warns that any further limit on support for refugees
“would be devastating for my family”.
I look forward to the promised baseline report, which will give more detail about implementation and monitoring, elaborating on what looks like a well thought out monitoring and evaluation framework. I do not know how much my noble friend can say about that today, but could we perhaps have a few hints? I was very encouraged by the written evidence from the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to the select committee inquiry, which stated the Government have
“committed to maintain a core, central child poverty team, with cross-government oversight by Ministers”.
That was not my original understanding, and I and others were a bit worried about whether future responsibility lay just with the DWP, so I wonder whether my noble friend could say more about this.
I hope the baseline report will say something about targets, or at least milestones, in the name of accountability and transparency, as called for by a wide range of organisations. That would be a way of demonstrating to the electorate the Government’s intent and their belief in the strategy, a point that I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would be able to expand on—but he has unfortunately not got to his place, so he will not be able to.
With regard to monitoring, there was an exchange between the chair of the Social Mobility Commission and the Work and Pensions and Education Select Committees in an oral evidence session which reminded me that the Social Mobility Commission started life as the Child Poverty Commission. This made me think that perhaps the resurrection of the latter, with input from those with lived experience, would be the ideal independent body to monitor the strategy, with its reports published and debated annually in Parliament. I would welcome my noble friend’s thoughts on that.
The strategy document describes it as just
“the first step on our road to ending child poverty”,
emphasised by the Education Secretary, who presented it to the Commons as “a strong start”. This debate provides an opportunity to think about further steps—how we best build on that strong start. There is a lot of talk in politics at present about the need for hope, which we heard more of in the first debate today, particularly when so many are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When I hear senior Ministers talking about tackling child poverty as this Government’s moral mission, it gives me hope. More importantly, it offers hope to the millions of children and parents who remain in poverty, despite the measures already taken by the Government.
I will finish with more words from the foreword from the parents involved in Changing Realities:
“This strategy begins the work of lifting the weight of poverty off the shoulders of millions of families. With some of the changes, families like ours may start to breathe again. Not just survive but live with dignity. We’d all like to feel secure knowing that if something breaks, or a bill goes up, we won’t be pushed into crisis. More than anything, we want our children to have opportunities without us constantly having to say ‘no, not this time’ … But we must not get complacent and stop there. All of us owe it to the children who are relying on decision makers to put them first … and ensure we are doing everything we can to propel our children into a future filled with hope and not despair”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. It is very timely in recognising the ongoing challenges that families in this country face, including issues around inflation, the reduction in the number of jobs available and the increase in unemployment, as well as the need to tackle the strategic challenges around NEETs. While we are talking about children today, the increase in youth employment really worries me about the future of our country.
I agree with the noble Baroness on one issue, and that is childcare. I lost this argument with other Ministers when I was in government, but we need to look very carefully to try to increase significantly the number of child carers—not necessarily nurseries—to help people get into and stay in work, and to expand the number of hours they have. It is all well and good having 38 weeks a year when the schools are sitting, but that does not help when someone still has that job in the summer or over Christmas. They are the sort of strategic challenges that we need to face.
I am very proud of my three years at the DWP. Working with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, we did a lot of good to try to help people get out of poverty. One of the battles I had was about the definition of poverty. The British Social Attitudes survey is very clear that people do not agree that getting 60% of the median income automatically means that someone is poor—as the noble Baroness said, they prefer the concept of deeper poverty. Lots of our big organisations will continue to try to use relative poverty as the only way to consider the definition. I was slightly bemused that, during Covid, relative poverty fell—it did so because it is a statistic—but it did not reflect how people felt.
As we learned in the message that today’s DWP Secretary of State exchanged with Lord Mandelson—I think that is still what he is called—too many MPs are asking what taxes can be put up to pay for more benefits for others. He said that they are asking the wrong questions, and he was right to do so. That is why I was somewhat concerned about the child poverty strategy, as it seemed to continue to focus on how more cash benefits or other benefits would address the statistical change but not the strategic change.
I think that 60% of the median income last year was £22,370. It is no surprise that a lot more single-parent homes are in relative poverty. We had a debate the other week about child maintenance; I do not want to rehearse all that, but I will continue to make one plea. For those parents—mainly men—who are not contributing to their children’s income, because they are either on benefits or just not paying anything, we need to make sure that they are a top priority in their local job centre when it comes to getting a job. I really need to stress that. In the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only 29% of the population was happy to increase taxes in order to do that, yet that is exactly what has happened with removing the two-child benefit cap.
I am conscious that, for many Peers, this has been a long-term campaign, and I accept that they disagreed with what we did. But we did that with a purpose of reflecting that the welfare system is intended to be a hand-up and to support people desperately in need. Yet, we are now in a situation where, due to other factors, everybody on universal credit who has children gets free school meals. That is difficult when there are 220,000 households with children on universal credit are actually getting over £40,000 in household income. It is difficult when the warm home discount has been expanded to every recipient of universal credit. It actually means that the smaller cohort that used to get the money, using more energy and more with children, now get less discount in cash terms as a consequence.
There are all these little changes start to happen, and all these extra things mean that, as used to happen with tax credits, you would be almost insane to work a minute more than 16 hours per week, unless you work full-time, because you would lose money. Now, families are, very carefully and perfectly rationally, adjusting their hours and not moving to full-time work, because they will lose out. These are strategic problems that we need to face as a country.
Finally, debt is a real challenge. I give credit to John Glen in the last Government, who introduced the breathing space approach. It was a good initiative, and I hope that it gets extended even further. One thing that happened in the child poverty strategy is that debt advice will be included in neighbourhood health as an approach to helping people. In the recently published framework, there is no mention of debt advice services to be commissioned. I hope that the Minister can go back to health and think about that.
I think that this House is united that we desperately want fewer children in poverty—ideally, we want no child in poverty but, given those statistics, there almost certainly will be. But let us do our best to make sure that every child has the best opportunity going forward.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on securing the debate and thank her for her tireless work in addressing child poverty. Like many others, I welcomed the publication of the Government’s child poverty strategy and was delighted by the Government’s decision to abolish the two-child limit on universal credit. Like others, I felt that the Government missed the opportunity to deliver some quick wins—measures that would not require legislation yet would make a tangible difference to children’s lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, already mentioned a number of these measures, but I wish to focus on just one: auto-enrolment for free school meals. On the face of it, it is a very modest proposal, yet it would have profound positive consequences for some of the disadvantaged children in the country. Around 250,000 children in England who are eligible for free school meals are not enrolled to receive it. That is approximately one in 10 of all those who should be benefiting from this scheme; in the north-east, it is one in five.
The entitlement exists, but it is not making its full potential impact. There is a substantial body of evidence, including a major cost-benefit analysis conducted by PwC for impacts on urban health, which demonstrated that free school meals improve concentration in the classroom, boost attendance, raise attainment and improve long-term health outcomes. Yet, some of the children most in need of this benefit are missing out. This is because under the present system, families must apply for free school meals. They must navigate forms, eligibility checks and, in many local authorities, repeat the process each time circumstances change. This creates administrative barriers, stigma and confusion, particularly for parents with limited digital access, for those for whom English is an additional language or for families in unstable or temporary accommodation.
I previously spoke in your Lordships’ House about the poverty-shame nexus—a mutually reinforcing relationship between material hardship and the emotional experience of shame. This is particularly relevant as, time and again, researchers have found that shame and stigma are among the biggest barriers that prevent parents from applying for free school meals.
This is not only a question of feeding hungry children, though that alone would be a good enough reason to introduce it. Free school meal eligibility is the gateway to pupil-premium funding, currently worth £1,515 per eligible primary school pupil and £1,075 at secondary level. When five local authorities introduced auto-enrolment in October 2023, they identified more than 2,500 additional eligible children in their first cohorts, with opt-out rates of less than 1%.
The question arises: why, if local authorities have piloted this measure, does it now require government action? Last year, the charity Feeding Britain convened a working group of 29 local authorities to examine this question. I commend its report to the Minister. In brief, however, this approach reaches only those families who already engage with their local authority for other welfare support, which, again, because of stigma, not all do.
Most importantly, the managed migration of families from legacy benefits on to universal credit will, over the next few years, substantially reduce the number of families applying to local authorities for housing benefit and similar payments, so the window of opportunity for local authorities to introduce auto-enrolment is closing. The working group’s proposal, which I commend to the House, is to build automatic registration into universal credit itself, extending the sort of mechanism that already exists for council tax support and for the NHS Healthy Start scheme.
I know that this Government are committed to social mobility, and education is at the heart of achieving this. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why this measure—one which would help direct resources more accurately to schools serving disadvantaged children, with no changes required to the pupil premium framework—was not included in the child poverty strategy?
Lord Kestenbaum (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this vital debate. The Government’s strategy on child poverty should inspire the nation. It has mobilised us all in common cause around what is clearly the fight of our lives: to finally break the link between economic background and life chances, and in so doing, to lift our children out of the bleak, desperate world of crushing poverty, thereby giving them faith in the future.
The causes of 21st-century child poverty have been well documented. There has been much focus, and rightly so, on financial inputs and outputs that are, respectively, plummeting income and rising costs. However, amid the flurry of these high-impact interventions and initiatives that emerge from the child poverty strategy, there remains one of the most potent levers of all at our disposal to pull as vigorously as we can, and urgently so, and that is the role of inspired schools and inspiring teachers.
There is a simple formula for us to consider in this debate. Of all the levers at our disposal, education remains the single most effective way to genuinely attack that toxic link between background and success, and we know that, at the heart of that, are the heroes and heroines of the front line: our teachers. We know that it is teachers who are the most important in-school factor in improving outcomes for children, especially our poorest children.
In that regard, we would do well to reflect on a report published yesterday by Teach First, where I am proud to serve as a trustee. Entitled Class Dismissed, this new policy report shines a light on what has come to be termed “the persistently disadvantaged”—that is, deep poverty. That term is defined in simple ways. Persistently disadvantaged children are those who spend 80% of their school life eligible for free school meals. Often these proxy measures and technical definitions can seem remote, but, to be clear, that is more than 1 million children living in homes where often annual family income does not allow for the covering of the cost of basic essentials throughout the vast majority of a child’s life.
For these children, the lifecycle becomes painfully vicious. The report showed that, by the time they reach GCSE, the poorest children are nearly two years behind their non-disadvantaged peers in learning. Twenty-five per cent of the deeply poor, the persistently disadvantaged, will not be in post-16 education or training. From there, it is a steady decline, with meagre employment opportunities and lower earnings—and so it goes on. These bleak outcomes are not only the catastrophic consequences of child poverty but one of the clearest predictors of whether such poverty recurs in the next generation of children: the ultimate vicious cycle.
Yet we learned something else from the Teach First report that serves to inform this debate. These disastrous life outcomes for the persistently disadvantaged—the deeply poor—are not, and do not have to be, inevitable. We have seen pockets of real breakthrough, where strong school leaders and high-quality teaching can dramatically improve outcomes for our poorest children. These are schools which are not just feeding hungry children, as they do, not just buying them uniforms from their own school budgets, as they do, but vitally, and perhaps above all, creating for the deeply poor, the persistently disadvantaged, real beacons of hope, real aspiration, and a genuine sense—no cliché intended—that the opportunities which these children will pass to their own children will be immeasurably better than the life chances given to them. The cycle can be broken. Teachers, inspired and inspiring, can do that. They are doing it every day in classrooms up and down the country.
The Government have made one thing abundantly clear: they are absolutely determined to break the link between economic background and opportunity, and schools can be at the heart of that national mission. Yet we know from this report, too, and elsewhere, that schools serving the poorest communities find recruitment and retention of teachers exceptionally difficult. If we do not give that tangible attention, we will weaken one of the strongest levers at our disposal, which can lift children out of poverty permanently.
So, with that in mind, I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that placing schools and teachers at the heart of our child poverty strategy gives us a fighting chance of breaking the cycle. It does not have to be an inevitable downward one.
This debate is clearly at times about financial allocation and definitely about policy choices. But, above all, it goes to the very heart of the society we wish to be and, in that sense, it is nothing short of a moral imperative.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing forward this important debate.
Few issues test the conscience more directly than child poverty. Across the UK today, around 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty. In Wales, around 31% of children are living in relative poverty and 26% of children in working households are living in poverty. These are not just statistics; they represent children going without essentials, families under constant pressure, and opportunities limited before life has properly begun.
I speak about this not only as a Member of this House and a campaigner but from personal experience. I grew up in poverty on a council estate in Wales, and during that time I was also a young carer. I know what it means to take on complex responsibility early, to balance care with education and to live with the quiet strain that so often accompanies hardship at home. That experience simply does not pass. It shapes your outlook, your opportunities and your sense of what lies ahead.
Child poverty is not inevitable; it is a result of political choices, and it can be changed by political choices, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That is why I want to focus on the approach being taken by the new Plaid Cymru-led Welsh Government, who have made a clear and deliberate decision to prioritise tackling child poverty. That commitment will soon be reflected in the draft Budget to be laid next week, because, if we are serious about addressing poverty, it must be reflected not only in words but in the allocation of resources.
At the heart of this approach are practical, targeted policies designed to ease pressure on families and give every child the best possible start in life. One such policy proposed is the Cynnal payment, drawing inspiration from the Scottish child payment. We have seen in Scotland that direct financial support can reduce poverty and improve outcomes for children. A similar approach in Wales has the potential to provide real stability and dignity for families who need it most. I ask the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government will support the Welsh Government in the delivery of the Cynnal payment.
Alongside this is a transformative commitment on childcare. Plaid Cymru has announced an initial £55 million investment to expand childcare provision, enabling thousands more two year-olds to access funded childcare. This is the first step towards an ambition at the end of the term of year-round support, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: year-round universal free childcare from nine months, which at full rollout would be the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK.
This matters profoundly. Childcare costs in Wales are among the highest in the UK, forcing many parents, particularly mothers, to reduce working hours or leave the labour market altogether. Expanding affordable childcare is therefore both a social and an economic policy. It supports parents back into work, strengthens household incomes and improves outcomes for children. It is, in short, about breaking the cycles of poverty before they become entrenched.
However, while action in Wales is essential, we must also recognise the limits of devolved powers. Many of the most significant levers, especially welfare, taxation and employment policy, remain His Majesty’s Government’s responsibility, so I shall ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to support the creation of higher-paid, more secure jobs in parts of Wales where low pay remains persistent? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of UK-wide welfare policies on poverty levels in Wales, and what consideration is given to reforms that would better support low-income families? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to work in genuine partnership with the devolved Administrations, so that action taken in all parts of the UK is reinforced and not constrained by decisions made here when certain powers overlap.
Tackling child poverty requires action at every level of government. It demands investment, co-ordination and, above all, political will and prioritisation, but it also demands something more fundamental: that we recognise the lived reality behind the figures and act with the urgency that those lives deserve, because every child in every corner of these isles deserves not just the chance to get by but the chance to thrive.
This must be not a partisan endeavour but a shared mission across this House and beyond. We have a responsibility to work together constructively and with purpose to ensure that no child is left behind. If we truly believe that, we must be willing to match our words with action and resources until no child’s future is defined by the circumstances of their birth.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate. She talked about a “strong start” and my comments come in that context.
This is an important debate that speaks to what it means to be Labour: a determination to lift the most vulnerable children in the most difficult circumstances and to give all children, especially the most disadvantaged, the best possible start in life. The child poverty strategy is a strong and serious piece of work. It recognises the complexity of the challenges facing families and the need for a cross-governmental response, and I welcome its intent. If I may, however, I shall focus on an emerging dimension of child poverty that we cannot afford to overlook: the differing outcomes for boys and girls, even when they experience the same early disadvantage. I think the evidence is becoming clear that child poverty is not a uniform experience. It is shaped not only by low income, poor housing and food insecurity, but by gender, where different developmental patterns, expectations and responses to disadvantage begin to drive very different outcomes.
When we look closely, we see that while poverty harms all children, boys are often more likely to experience its most damaging and long-term consequences. Education provides the clearest examples. Boys from low-income households arrive at school less ready to learn, fall behind early and leave with fewer and lower qualifications than girls facing the same disadvantages. They are also twice as likely to be permanently excluded. This matters. When boys disengage early, the consequences cascade: lower attainment, reduced employment prospects and a far greater risk of long-term disadvantage. Exclusion is not just a disciplinary response; it is too often a poverty pathway.
We already have some insight into where this leads. Alan Milburn’s excellent interim report on young people and work describes the scale of the NEET problem and amplifies how this is not just a labour market issue but a deeper disengagement from education, work and the structures that support adult life. Within that, there is a clear and growing gender dimension. Some boys face a double disadvantage, being both poor and male. I am deeply concerned about this. I worry for the boys and young men whose life chances are constrained by that compounded disadvantage. I worry for their families too, who support them often without the tools to help. I also worry for our society, because the consequences extend beyond the individuals, their lost potential, their growing alienation and the weakening of our social fabric. We are seeing the growing consequences all around us. We must also recognise the role of social media. While it affects all young people, young boys are being drawn towards content that amplifies grievance, promotes damaging models of masculinity and often creates a false sense of belonging where one should not be happening.
This brings me to my central point. If outcomes differ, our response must evolve. A child poverty strategy that treats children as a uniform group risks missing those who are falling furthest behind. Equality of intention does not guarantee equality of outcome. We need a more targeted, evidence-based approach. That means recognising early literacy gaps and providing focused support for boys who fall behind in reading and communication. It means understanding why boys are more likely to be excluded, and intervening earlier, keeping them within the school system that best protects them. It means creating clearer and more engaging pathways into skills, training and employment—routes that connect them with those young men who are currently drifting away from that opportunity. It also means recognising the importance of positive male role models.
For many boys growing up in poverty, consistent male presence in family, school and communities is limited. Where that absence exists, it matters. I grew up without knowing my father, so I know how difficult it is to talk about this subject, but it is incredibly important that we do. Boys benefit from seeing positive, stable examples of adulthood—men who model responsibility, resilience and constructive engagement with work and society. Where else will they learn how to be a man?
This is not about creating division, nor is it about diminishing the progress needed for young girls and young women; it is about recognising where child poverty is deepest and responding with clarity and purpose. A strategy that works for most children but fails the most vulnerable boys is not yet a strategy that works. If we are serious about social justice, which I know we are, we must be serious about these outcomes. I want every boy, however difficult their start in life, to grow up in a country that sees them, nurtures them and helps them flourish. We cannot afford to look away from this. I ask the Minister to consider my thoughts when she responds.
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this important debate; she has spent decades making poverty visible when others preferred not to look. I declare my interest as executive director of Impact on Urban Health, a health equity funder. We fund organisations that work with children, such as Changing Realities, the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children. However, I am speaking today in a personal capacity.
Tackling child poverty and addressing its effects has been at the root of so much of my work over the last two decades. For much of that time, it has felt like trying to stop the tide going out. In my work, I have seen the poor-quality temporary accommodation that families get stuck in, to great expense for local authorities. I have seen the poverty that schools try their best to paper over, because the levels of need are such a barrier to learning.
I have heard stories of how families have unexpectedly found themselves underemployed and on universal credit. The numbers in this strategy bear that out. A child eligible for free school meals is already five months behind by the time they start school. One in four children from the poorest families gets five good GCSEs—the figure is three in four for children from the richest families.
In that context, I welcome this strategy. It is cross-government in design, it was built with families, and it has great policy content. Removing the two-child limit, as other noble Lords have said, is the most effective intervention the Government could have made to tackle child poverty. Extending free school meals to families on universal credit matters too, as do increases in the national living wage and rates of universal credit.
There are two less highlighted parts of this strategy that I want to name, because they point to things the Government are quietly getting right. The first is a plan to draw in private and social investment alongside public spending. Public money will not be enough. The Better Futures Fund has great potential: government paying for social outcomes, not activities, and using that commitment to pull in capital that would otherwise sit on the sidelines. It is already happening in Bristol, helping to finance affordable housing. We need more of these innovative solutions.
The second part is the commitment, repeated in the Child Poverty Strategy, to commence the socio-economic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act. Nearly 16 years on from that Act’s commencement, it is beyond time for this duty to commence. I hope the Government can set a date for its commencement soon.
There are three areas where the strategy can and should go further. The first is binding targets. Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children conducted research, funded by Impact on Urban Health, with 40 practitioners to help inform the strategy. On targets, those practitioners were unanimous. Binding targets matter not because they are magic but because, when there is no well-understood target to hit, it is easier for departments to deprioritise. With the baseline report on child poverty levels due this summer, now is a great moment to change that.
The second area is the benefit cap. The two-child limit removal is welcome, but the cap undermines it. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that around 70,000 families subject to the benefit cap will see little or no gain from the two-child limit removal. The cap bears down on those in deepest poverty, especially sole-parent families, who make up nearly 70% of capped households. These are not people who can easily work more hours to escape it. They are often sole carers, many with young children. For them, the cap is not an incentive but a trap.
I have similar concern that the local housing allowance, which has long not kept up with the cost of housing in several cities and is currently frozen until 2027, will undermine the Government’s child poverty reduction ambitions, given that 1.7 million children living in poverty live in the private rented sector. I had planned to flag a concern about the child poverty unit’s closure and replacement by a team within the DWP, but it would be great if the Minister could clarify whether that will sit more centrally. Where accountability sits determines whether a cross-government strategy holds or quietly fractures. Scotland put its child poverty Act through its Parliament and set up a statutory independent commission to monitor delivery. That difference, if it exists, creates a risk.
This strategy was built in the right way: across government, with families, and taking evidence seriously. I want to see it delivered in the same way. That means targets set this summer, against which any of us can measure progress. It means a co-ordination function with real authority; and it means closing gaps like the benefit cap, the local housing allowance freeze and the socio-economic duty—still to commence—that will otherwise risk making the strategy land well short of what it could achieve.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Babudu, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this very important debate.
I want to focus my remarks on what I know best: health. Child poverty is not simply a social issue; it is a public health crisis. Unless we address it, we will continue to pay the price for decades to come in poorer health, greater inequality and rising demands on our NHS.
As we have already heard, 31% of children in the UK are living in relative poverty after housing costs. In a classroom of 30 children, that is 10 children whose future health is already being shaped not by their talents, aspirations or potential but by the circumstances into which they were born.
Indeed, the impact of poverty on health begins even before birth. As a doctor, I find the evidence compelling. We know that the intrauterine environment plays a profound role in determining future health. The pioneering work of Professor David Barker of Southampton demonstrated that poor nutrition and deprivation during pregnancy can programme the developing foetus in ways that increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and hypertension in adult life. In other words, poverty leaves a biological imprint before a child has even taken their first breath.
In fact, the first chapter of a child’s health story is written before conception, through the physical and metabolic health of parents. Children born into poverty are more likely to be born with low birth weight. They are less likely to survive their first year of life. As they grow, they face higher rates of asthma, chronic illness, developmental delay and poor mental health. Nearly one in five children are not meeting their expected developmental milestones by the age of two. These outcomes are not inevitable. They are preventable, because they are the predicted consequences of deprivation.
What is striking, both from clinical practice and evidence, is how clearly the pathway runs from wealth to health. When families have sufficient resources, children are healthier. When families are poor, children are sicker. Poverty and ill health reinforce one another. It is a vicious cycle.
The mechanisms are well understood. Housing sits at the top of the list. New data reveals that 104 children in England died between April 2019 and December 2024 with temporary accommodation identified as a contributing factor to their ill health or death, and 76 of those children were under the age of one. These are not simply housing statistics; they are the conditions in which children’s brains and bodies are developing.
I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty with their strategy, focusing on economic growth, the expansion of free school meals and breakfast provision, Best Start family hubs, and measures to increase the supply of social housing.
The forthcoming 10-year health plan presents an important opportunity to narrow health inequalities. Community health hubs could become a cornerstone of prevention. But they must be properly staffed, accessible, and equipped not only to diagnose illness but to support well-being, early intervention and family resilience, and they must take the needs of local communities into account.
If we truly wish to build a healthier nation, we must recognise a simple truth: child poverty today becomes adult illness tomorrow. Every child growing up in poverty represents not only a failure of opportunity but a future health inequality waiting to happen. The most effective preventive medicine we can offer is not found in a hospital or clinic, or on a prescription. It is ensuring that every child has enough food to eat, a warm home to live in, and the opportunity to thrive.
Tackling child poverty is not only a moral imperative; it is one of the most powerful health interventions available to us. If today’s child poverty is tomorrow’s adult illness, tackling poverty is one of the most powerful forms of prevention. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to urge the Government to place that principle at the heart of their strategy and to work with DHSC.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the clearly heartfelt remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund.
Child poverty is a scourge on society, and that it should be at such a high level in this country is truly appalling. The Government’s latest strategy to alleviate it is a positive move and shows some welcome joined-up thinking, but, with the exception of the two-child benefit cap being lifted, any real impact will be felt only over time and, however good the intentions, it is implementation that counts—and on that there must be some misgivings.
Currently, all good intentions have to be set in the realistic context that there is a dire shortage of cash, so it is essential that those seeking to address this issue should look beyond government resources to the local community. Take, for instance, the fact that more than one-third of children now start out in the education system unequipped to cope with the basics that are rightly expected. The strong risk is that this disadvantage will dog them throughout their lives. There can be many reasons why a four year-old is still in nappies and barely able to speak, sometimes unaware even of what their own name is, but a lack of cash cannot be the sole explanation. Inadequate parenting may be due to a lack of support and guidance, reliance by harassed parents on screen time as a substitute carer, or sheer despair at having to cope with myriad problems, from poor housing to ill health.
The best family hubs, as they become established, should begin to help those parents, but that will require the parents to engage with them, and they may prove hard to reach or even wary of things that they associate too closely with government. However, more practised and confident parents may be able to provide the back-up and encouragement that some parents need, and the most effective way of getting them together with those who need them is likely to be through the schools. One organisation that is pioneering this approach is the Parenting Circle. Its model is to use professional trainers to equip teachers and a core group of parents to work with those parents in need of support. Here, I must declare an interest: my husband was a chairman of this organisation, so I am very familiar with its work.
One small charity can reach only so many people, but it demonstrates just one way that the community could help achieve results without hefty government investment and intervention. Could the Minister say whether the Government are exploring or will explore such use of volunteers to help in this desperate area? Four year-olds should not be leaving their first year at school still in need of help in basic training. Unless we can improve the start that these children have in life, I am afraid they have little chance of climbing out of the trough that they did not intend starting out in.
That brings me to my next point. Just as damaging as financial poverty—in fact, probably more so—is poverty of aspiration. It is a killer. It numbs people. It is a dreadful affliction. It blights the lives of individuals and the prospects of the society they grow up in. It is a terrible condemnation of this country that so many young people should apparently have so little hope. It is a problem with deep roots—in some areas, it goes back to the loss of the industrial base—but it appears that a breakdown in family structures has contributed to leaving a raft of youngsters without positive role models.
At a secondary school I visited in Kent, the head teacher told me he saw his first priority not as educating the children but as providing them with some sense of stability. What does that say about our society? Government funding, even if it were available in bucketloads, could only make a contribution towards helping provide some of that stability and aspiration. Strong communities can help: there is much more that can be done, and the Government are, at least with their better communities pot, trying to reach them. But churches and business groups—everybody—could do a bit more to help these people. Schools must take care not to exacerbate economic differences. As we have heard, the free school meals stigma can really hurt.
My final point is that all children should have access to sport, dance, drama, art and music, each of which can open the door to new horizons for so many children, and in each of which individuals can flourish whatever their background—as we saw last night.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing it and for her comprehensive introduction. One could say that it left very little else to be said. My noble friend has campaigned on these issues for decades in this House, as an academic and through her work at the Child Poverty Action Group. She is dedicated and focused and has a formidable grasp of this complex area. I pay tribute to her for her life’s work. I know she felt as emotional as I did when, in April this year, the announcement was made ending the two-child benefit limit. I also thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for all she has done, and for her dedication as a member of the Front Bench. With all the competing demands faced by government, I cannot think of a safer pair of hands.
When I was introduced to this House 16 years ago, my maiden speech was on the subject of poverty, so it felt right to take part in this timely debate. The late noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was one of my sponsors. I worked with him on welfare and local government topics month in and month out. He was a modest man with huge ability, and I felt it right to mention him today.
When I was a member of the Low Pay Commission in 1998, we made the first recommendation for a statutory national minimum wage. The pressure was enormous, remember? A million jobs were going to be lost. It taught me two things about poverty. First, in 1997 there were no adequate statistics about women’s income because they did not record those who were paid too little to contribute to national insurance. There were no figures. Secondly, a minimum wage on its own would not help a single woman with more than two children: the figures would have to have been too high and would have been unaffordable.
The Government’s acceptance that poverty is a multifaceted issue is quite right. It involves education and housing, as well as social security and income. They have increased the national living wage and the basic rate of universal credit above inflation. There is support for childcare, the extension of free breakfast clubs and more investment in social and affordable homes. The Government are to be congratulated on all these measures, but unfortunately the beneficiaries do not own newspapers and are not normally influencers on social media, so these quiet measures do not get the credit they deserve.
I cannot forget that for 14 years before the Labour Government came in, poverty and homelessness were on the increase. If a child in poverty started school at the age of five in 2010, they would almost certainly have left education by 2024—a whole school generation deprived of the best opportunities. The excellent briefing sent to us by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists sets out its crucial work in tackling child poverty through helping to support children’s speech, language and communication skills, and ensuring that services are accessible to families living in poverty.
On the issue of accessing local services and support—I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said on this—the Government are launching the Pride in Place programme and Best Start Family Hubs, as well as launching the new crisis and resilience fund and increasing the early years pupil premium, which have already been referred to.
I have a question for my noble friend, having read the briefings from the ChurchWorks commission and Barnardo’s. Given their excellent work in communities to combat poverty, are they given sufficient credit by the Government, and how will the Government work with these organisations to ensure a successful strategy? That point was also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in her contribution. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, we understand that there will be a report in the summer of 2026. I think we are all hoping that the Minister will show a bit of petticoat on the monitoring and evaluation framework, including updated findings from the latest poverty statistics publications. Can she give us an idea of when the summer of 2026 is?
Finally, although I understand the financial limits the Government are facing, if something could be done to raise the benefit cap so that larger families can enjoy the two-child benefit lift, that would be much appreciated.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all the organisations that provided briefings on this crucial subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for the considerable and tireless work she has done in this area over, frankly, years. The impacts of child and family poverty are many. Tackling it is the morally and politically right thing to do for children and their families now and in the future, as well as for our public services and the wider economy. Why is that? Poverty not only blights the lives of children; it can determine their future in a wholly negative way. They do less well at school, they are likely to have much poorer health—as we have heard in detail—and, of course, they often die at a younger age than their better-off peers. Frankly, that is a disgrace in what is, after all, still a rich country.
On education, we know that the figure of 4.5 million children is the equivalent of something like eight to 10 in every class of 30, although child poverty is not equally in evidence in all schools or, indeed, in all areas nationally. Shamefully, as I think we have already heard, seven in 10 children who live in poverty come from a family where at least one person is working—I am sure we will hear more of that later. We know that, even in their early years, children who live in poverty are over 4.5 months behind their better-off peers, and this grows to approaching two years by the time they reach GCSEs, as recorded by the Sutton Trust and Teach First. It is no surprise, then, that four in five teachers report seeing children who are too fatigued and hungry to learn. Four in five teachers have bought food for hungry pupils, paying for this out of their own pockets.
Of course, breakfast clubs are very welcome. The rollout of free school meals to families on universal credit from September 2026 is also very welcome, although I believe that universal free school meals would do even more for us as a society. Particularly welcome is the raising of the two-child limit from April this year. However, even if these elements are in place, over 4 million children will still be living in poverty, even according to government figures.
So the challenge remains enormous. The Government are right to be ambitious about facing and rising to this challenge. Some steps that the Government could and should take include creating a child poverty unit to hold everyone across government to legally binding poverty reduction targets, and—as others have referenced—removing the benefit cap, which the National Education Union calculates would lift 300,000 children out of deep poverty, with minimal effects on work incentives.
In this country we pride ourselves on the fact that state school education is free. However, there is a cost for every child at school. Even with the changes in relation to the cost of school uniforms in England, families still face bills of over £300 a year for a primary school child’s uniform and over £400 a year for a secondary school pupil’s uniform. With other school-related costs—trips; curriculum resources in some subjects often leading to exclusion of the less well-off child; instrumental tuition, again, not being available to poorer children; and materials needed for home study and homework—families can find themselves paying over £1,000 a year per primary school child and approximately £2,300 for a secondary school pupil.
This has been ongoing for a very long time. I know that when I was at the National Union of Teachers, we worked with the Child Poverty Action Group on exactly this. Education is not free. These are not insignificant costs. While schools will seek to adopt a human rights- and poverty-sensitive approach, we all know that there is no spare cash in school budgets to provide any actual help. Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The noble Baroness is making an interesting point, but of course the pupil premium is a source of funding. I wonder whether, based on what she has just been saying, that schools should think more about taking an element of the pupil premium, so that those young children are not excluded.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the intervention. I am sure that the pupil premium is being used as best as it possibly can be in every school. Often schools are having to top up their pupil premium because, frankly, there is not enough money in it, but I welcome the intervention.
Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty and clearly will do as much as we possibly can to monitor what I hope will be the Government’s success in this.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I too join others in congratulating my noble friend Lady Lister on securing this debate. Like others, I express my great gratitude to her for the lifetime of campaigning that she has undertaken on this front and the great successes that she has seen delivered latterly. I thank the Government and, in particular, our Minister for her commitment and the great work that she has done. I say that in the knowledge that there are many other things she would like to do and is still not able to do even in government. The Government have made some important steps forward, but we need more. I will not repeat what others have said about the changes that have been implemented. I was particularly interested in the quality of school meals, and the need to extend those over a wider front, as well as the breakfast clubs. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, made a very powerful speech indeed, particularly from a health angle.
I sometimes wonder whether our definition of poverty is somewhat narrow, and this debate has ranged over a wider front. I too would like to say something more about children’s health and the worrying developments taking place with mental health. We really ought to broaden this debate to think about spiritual poverty as well as material poverty, because this poverty strategy is based primarily on the material rather than veering towards the spiritual. I feel—I guess, I sense—that some of the problems we are facing will take us into new areas. We need, if not new responses, to dust down some of the old responses and make sure that we have better communication with the children.
I became particularly concerned about children’s health after being on the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. We went to Blackpool, which was quite an experience for me. My father told me I was conceived there, even though I am a Yorkshireman, and I had not been back to Blackpool for many years. It was a sorry sight, to some degree—I see people nodding in agreement—compared with what I had known of Blackpool before. We had intensive discussions with the public health officials there, looking particularly at children and the problems with housing: how the old hotels, or rather landladies’ places, have now been converted into residences for people on benefits. The scenario has completely changed compared with what I had seen previously.
Among the children, we found that there was a great difficulty with obesity. The public health officials were worried about obesity and how they could tackle it. I spent some time afterwards looking at the Government’s related policy on weight management and how we tackle people’s growing size. We have been doing this since 2008; the Labour Government introduced it then because they were worried about obesity coming along. I am sorry to say that our friends on the other side did little about it during the 14 years that they were in power. We found that, in spite of weighing and measuring children every year, the problems got worse. We now have a cohort of children in the UK who are probably the most obese in the whole of Europe. This links back to deprivation and poverty issues at home. But we also have a great problem with what we are feeding children at the moment: many of the people we would describe as being in poverty were children who were obese because of their diet—because of the cost of decent food, and so on.
The Government need to look again at why we are doing all this assessing and measuring, and getting all this data, but in fact are not taking many steps to do anything about it. What is the point in it? We get the data, but we do not do anything with it. The reason given to us in Blackpool was a shortage of public health resources: they just did not have the people available. I ask the Minister to explore whether, with the announcement we have made this week about AI and social media—that children will not be able to use technology in the same way as in the past—we are not going to miss a trick. AI, properly monitored and controlled, could possibly provide some assistance to children who have an issue with food, for example, 24 hours a day. They could refer to AI to find out what is good food for them and what is poor food. They could refer to it when they feel lonely—a lot of them felt lonely and neglected, and they were eating in those circumstances. Does the decision we have taken this week conflict with the opportunities to develop new resources, using AI, when we are not able to find the physical resources to meet the implementation of the worthy policy of weight measurement that we introduced back in 2008?
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this important debate. At a time when the cost of living continues to rise and so many families struggle to meet their most basic needs, children often feel these burdens most strongly. Along with voluntary groups and other faith groups, many churches and Church schools are already working to support children most impacted by this crisis. Legislative change is needed but, like other noble Lords, I highlight and recognise the vital role that voluntary groups play in bringing people together, promoting hope and engaging in acts of care—all means of supporting children in poverty.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, food is now the most common essential that low-income households are going without. Children living in poverty report exclusion from social activities and feel embarrassed to invite schoolmates to their home. Without a secure roof over their head or a hot meal on their dinner table, daily life becomes a struggle for survival, one that children are least equipped of all to bear. Child poverty, then, is not just an issue of economics but a crisis of human dignity and a moral challenge to the kind of society we wish to build.
Social stigma around experiences of poverty can cut whole families off from their support networks, yet it is these very community institutions which have such great potential to help lift families out of poverty and to provide a sense of belonging. I draw attention to one charity in my diocese which has served on the front lines of this poverty crisis for several years. Woodford Halse, near Daventry, is a large rural village with higher deprivation levels than its surrounding neighbours. Much of this need is hidden, but the head teacher of the local Church of England primary school became aware that children and families were struggling and began to find ways to help. This led to the forming of the Community Larder, situated within the school playground and providing affordable food to families struggling to make ends meet, along with ensuring that all children had a good breakfast each morning.
Crucially, this enterprise provides dignity to people by offering them choice. Rather than preparing food parcels, quality food is sold at a fraction of supermarket prices, through £5, £10 and £15 shops. The larder operates within a network of community support, receiving referrals from local schools, GP surgeries, health professionals and other agencies. The service, in distributing food, is essential for keeping families afloat, but so too are the personal connections it is able to foster. One service user found himself a single parent after the death of his wife from cancer. Left to care for his two young sons alone, he was struggling with both grief and the practical challenges of feeding his family. As volunteers helped him select fresh food from the larder, they discovered that he had never learned how to use these ingredients to prepare a meal, so they prepared simple recipe cards for him, providing the ingredients to make each meal, and over time, he and his sons began to cook together. This demonstrates that effective community support is about far more than providing bare resources; it is about helping people to rebuild confidence, develop life skills and regain hope during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.
Volunteer groups work hard to bring isolated families back into community life, but they find their efforts stifled by lack of investment in infrastructure. I strongly welcome the Government’s child poverty strategy, especially its acknowledgement of the connection between poverty and place. I ask the Government, recognising current budget restraints, to commit to long-term investment in community institutions. Without this, services such as Woodford Halse Community Larder are less able to play their part in helping to alleviate child poverty at grass roots.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House. I begin by congratulating the Government on taking the historic decision to remove the two-child benefit limit. This is a bold and compassionate measure that will lift almost 500,000 children out of poverty. It is a policy for which many have argued for many years, but it took a Labour Government to deliver it. It demonstrates that poverty is not inevitable; it is a result of a political choice, and it can be reduced through political action. It should rightly be recognised as a significant step forward in the Government’s child poverty strategy. However, while we celebrate this progress, we must also confront the uncomfortable reality that pockets of child poverty remain in some of our communities. Ethnic minority children continue to face disproportionately high levels of poverty. Recent figures show that around 63% of Bangladeshi children and 52% of Pakistani children are growing up below the poverty line, compared with much lower rates among other children.
Children from these communities are also more likely to experience persistent and severe poverty, limiting their opportunity and affecting their health, educational attainment and life chances. These figures should concern us all. They represent not just statistics but children whose talent and aspiration are being constrained by circumstances beyond their control. A truly successful child poverty strategy must address these entrenched inequalities and ensure that every child, regardless of their ethnicity or background, has the opportunity to thrive.
I also wish to draw your Lordships’ attention to asylum-seeking and refugee children, mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Lister. Many of these children have already experienced unimaginable trauma before they arrive on our shores. Yet, having reached safety in the UK, many find themselves living in poverty and uncertainty. Too often, asylum seekers and their families are placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation, living for months or even years without stability. Children are frequently moved from one location to another, disrupting their education, friendships and support network. Many children face delays in accessing school places and other essential services. This is simply unacceptable in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. No child should grow up without a secure place to call home. No child should be denied the stability that is essential for healthy development. No child who has already suffered trauma should have their suffering compounded by poverty and inadequate housing.
The Government have taken an important step by lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but our ambition must go further. We must ensure that children from ethnic minorities, refugee children and asylum-seeking children are not left behind. The measure of our society is how we treat the most vulnerable. In this day and age, no child from any community should be forced into poverty, insecurity or unstable accommodation. It is morally wrong and economically short-sighted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or circumstance, can share in the opportunity and prosperity of our nation.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for securing this debate and for her eloquent opening which, together with the contributions of other noble friends, identifies the appalling and, indeed, rising levels of child poverty in this, one of the richest countries in the world.
No one could disagree with the measures proposed in the government strategy paper and those raised during this debate. However, I will focus on another aspect of the problem, which my noble friend Lady Donaghy has touched on: the problem of low pay. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK Poverty 2026 report points out that 1.2 million children in poverty live in families with no adults in work. That is tragic, but not perhaps surprising among the grisly statistics on poverty. However, 1.7 million children in poverty live in families where at least one adult is in work. Worse still, 1.6 million children live in poverty in families where every adult in the family is in work.
This shows that, unemployment apart, workers do not earn enough to banish poverty. In this country, wages are, quite simply, too low. It must be remembered that, of our population of 67 million, over half—34 million—are in work, yet they do not earn enough to generate the demand that would grow the economy.
The latest ONS figures show that, for full-time workers, median earnings are £39,000 per annum gross and £31,700 net. This equates to a weekly take-home of about £610 per week. When part-timers are taken into account, the gross median falls to £31,000 and £26,000 per annum net. That equates to a weekly take-home of about £500. Since this is a median figure, one half of all employees—that is to say, 17 million—earn less than that figure each week. The median for each of the categories of women, disabled and ethnic minority workers is less still. The median self-employed worker, full or part-time, also earns less than the comparative median employee.
Low wages are the reason why the cost of living tops the concerns of working-class people in this country. The Government’s efforts to cap energy and housing costs have not so far succeeded, and, to a large extent, are caused by events outside UK control. However, wages can be increased. Increases to the national minimum wage are not insignificant, but the national minimum wage is not a minimum wage; it is a minimum hourly rate, and it does not enhance the wages of the great proportion of the workforce who earn something more than the national minimum wage. The value of real wages is much the same today as it was in 2008.
The only way to increase the real value of wages is widespread collective bargaining. That is the reason that the OECD, the IMF and the ILO all now advocate it, and why the EU’s 2022 adequate minimum wages directive requires member states with a level of collective bargaining coverage below 80% of the workforce to produce an action plan to achieve at least that level within five years. This is ironic, because in this country we had a level of collective bargaining coverage in excess of 80% from the end of the Second World War until the 1980s, when the Conservatives started to demolish it. Collective bargaining coverage is now around 25% of the workforce, and its absence for the remaining three-quarters of our workers is the principal explanation for low pay. That absence is also a key component of lack of demand in the economy and a major contributor to government expenditure on subsidising low wages. I recall that 32% of those on universal credit are actually in work.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will reconsider the Government’s opposition during the passage of the Employment Rights Act to a mechanism for the reintroduction of sector-wide collective bargaining across the economy, which I and some of my noble friends will be very happy to discuss with her. Such a measure would be a key component in the strategy for the relief of child poverty.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the debate on this vitally important topic is so far almost indistinguishable from a debate held in this Chamber in April 2024. We have had a depressing litany of figures showing how children living in poverty suffer throughout their lives from disadvantage. In effect, we continue to raise the next generation which may have less hope for the future than perhaps a couple of years ago.
Today, the number of children suffering poverty is above 4 million, as we have heard—although there is a prediction that current mechanisms could reduce that figure by 500,000 by 2030. Research by the Poverty Strategy Commission suggests that £36 billion—a huge sum, but not that huge in the context of reducing poverty—efficiently invested in mechanisms to reduce child poverty could actually eliminate it altogether.
Despite the welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, the expansion of free school meals and investment in family hubs, I fear there are cuts to come. Current national concern about defence expenditure is likely to further stymie any mechanisms to relieve poverty conditions. This is a genuine dilemma that the Government have to face—daily. What are the priorities, where is the money to come from, and, I would add, how can improvements in the allocation of budgets to the various departments be implemented?
It is the latter issue that I feel is the most productive avenue at present. It is widely acknowledged by all political parties and commentators that the Government continue to operate on a silo basis. For whatever reasons, information is not efficiently shared across other government departments, there are contradictory policies which often cancel each out, and there is fierce competition on access to budgets leading to less than collaborative programming. There is also failure to implement fully programmes that focus on reducing childhood poverty due to, among other factors, change of Ministers and/or senior civil servants, overspends, adverse media comment or simply the failure to plan beyond an initial phase.
We also know that any meaningful social or welfare programme works if it is treated as a public health issue; that is, with a commitment from all relevant partners to work together on a clear strategy. That is, as I understand it, why the programme to reduce knife crime in Scotland largely succeeded. It is not so much a question of budgets and funding, important though they are, as agreeing short, medium and long-term plans between, in the case of childhood poverty, the education, health, social welfare, housing and transport departments and civic society and, above all, with leadership. This approach would not cost more but would be much more likely to save considerable sums. Ideas, plans, monitoring and evaluation would not fall in between the gaps that silo departmental structures inevitably create.
This is by no means an original suggestion. The problem, as always, will be to set such a system up and maintain it over a significant period. It is not impossible for many government departments to adopt this approach, but it would be a new way of working.
In my consistent experience, whether talking to humanitarian agencies about the proper delivery of relief assistance or the reorganisation of management in NGOs, the standard answer is “We are already doing it”, and I guess the Minister might tell us what efforts are being made to adopt this public health approach. But so far, it does not appear to be working. I hope the Minister might commit instead to a programme of clear, co-ordinated approaches to what is after all perhaps one of the major ills of our time: children growing up in poverty.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this valuable debate. I welcome the Government’s child poverty strategy, breakfast clubs, free school meals for all children in households on universal credit and the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. However, such help is not permanent. We all remember that the party opposite opposed lifting the cap and the rise in the minimum wage, which would condemn millions more to poverty.
In a functioning democracy, no child should be condemned to live in poverty. The official total is that 13.4 million people, including 4 million children, live in poverty. Some 25.3 million people, including 7.7 million children, live below the minimum income standard. Too many are denied good food, housing and healthcare, and suffer from anxiety and insecurity from an early age. As a result, many do not attain their full educational, physical and mental-health development, or their employment and earnings potential. They are more likely to need support from health, welfare and public services throughout their life. Child poverty, over the life of the people involved, results in a loss of economic output of around £40 billion a year.
A recent study published in the Nature Human Behaviour journal shows that the effects of poverty alter human biology and accelerate ageing from a very young age. It also noted that adults who endured childhood economic deprivation continue to age at a significantly accelerated biological pace later in life, even if they achieve financial security decades after their initial childhood exposures. We now know that childhood poverty is a major cause of a declining healthy life expectancy, and there is a near 20-year gap between those in wealthy and deprived areas.
Millions every year are sacrificed to the gods of fiscal rules, who set absolutely no target for poverty reduction. Child poverty cannot be eradicated without addressing parental poverty, and parental poverty is deepening. In 1975, workers’ share of gross value added was 71.9%. After 50 years of economic growth and rises in the minimum wage, which the party opposite opposed, that has now declined to 59.3%. Since 2008, the average real wage has hardly changed. According to HMRC data, the annual median wage of payrolled employees is £31,524, and their take-home pay is £26,217. Try surviving on that.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that, for a socially acceptable minimum living standard, a couple with two children needs to earn £74,000 a year between them. Even with both parents working, the majority of families cannot hit that standard, and institutionalised poverty remains. Can the Minister say how the Government will increase workers’ share of the wealth created with their brains and brawn? What will they do to increase the median wage?
Trickle-down economics was clearly one of the biggest hoaxes of all time. The tax system hits the poorest the hardest. Wages are taxed at higher rates than capital gains and dividends. Paupers and the super-rich pay council tax at the same rate. Altogether, the poorest 20% of today’s population pays a higher proportion of its income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%. Income tax personal allowances have been frozen at £12,570 a year since April 2021. If increased in line with inflation, the number would stand at £16,048 for 2026-27. As a result, somebody earning £17,000 a year, which is not a lot, will pay £696 in additional income tax this year alone. How is this aiding any fight against poverty? This will not eradicate child poverty or parental poverty. Can the Minister explain whether she thinks this policy is compatible with the Government’s child poverty strategy in any way whatever?
Poverty could be reduced by tackling the cost of living crisis, but there are no curbs on profiteering. In the last three years, the average rental cost has risen by around 28%. Unite scrutinised the accounts of 17,000 companies and found that profit margins since the pandemic had increased by 30% on average. Yes, social security benefits help, but they do not keep pace with inflation and, in any case, they are often measly. So can the Minister somehow persuade the Government to produce a joined-up strategy for reducing child poverty?
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I add my name to the list of those commending my noble friend Lady Lister on bringing this debate? I also welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, because the nature of the issue of child poverty is such that we should be striving for cross-party consensus on it. It is in our national interest. I have said before in a debate in this House that a Labour Government are about nothing if they are not about tackling child poverty. So it is welcome to be able to reflect again on what the Government have achieved so far and to think about what else needs to be done.
It is important to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned at the outset, that, for the first time since 2010, we have a child poverty strategy, which has at its heart the three pillars of boosting family incomes, driving down the cost of essentials and increasing local support. While it does not solve all problems, I was pleased to support the ending of the two-child benefit cap, which came into effect in April. It is a singularly significant measure, which will help us reach that target of lifting over 500,000 children out of poverty. In fact, there is an impressive list of measures, from raising the national minimum wage to the introduction of school breakfast clubs and extending free school meals, which will all play a part in the mission of reducing the inequalities caused by poverty.
I want to mention the Milburn review on young people and work, as the recommendations from that review will massively improve the life chances and outcomes for young people who otherwise risk being left behind.
When we last debated child poverty in the context of lifting the benefits cap, I spoke about two policies that we introduced in Southwark: universal, free healthy school meals for all primary school children, initially as a response to childhood obesity—my noble friend Lord Brooke should note—and free swimming pool and gym use for all residents. Both of those were specifically aimed at breaking down barriers and ensuring that young people have the best start in life.
I also mention, by way of our greatest hits, our Southwark scholarship programme, which each year paid the tuition fees of a dozen academically gifted young people from low-income households, and the Nest, our mental health hub for children and young people, which aimed to ensure that 100% of those who needed mental health support received it in a timely manner—against the then Government’s target of 35%.
All these policies, in their own way, were aimed at reducing inequality and ensuring that a child’s background or poverty did not determine their path in life. But the reality is that these programmes are possible only because of the economic growth that Southwark achieved over that period, which meant that, although we were losing central government funding, we boosted our income by over £500 million over 10 years, through increased council tax and business rates, the new homes bonus and Section 106 contributions, not to mention the 46,000 more Southwark residents who found work. We all know that the greatest measure that any Government can take to tackle poverty and reduce the problems that accompany it is helping people into work. It is the easiest solution, but the greatest challenge.
Above all other measures and actions that this Government take during this Parliament to tackle child poverty, however, I urge them to place economic growth as the absolutely central mission—
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
Sorry, I was not expecting that cheer.
We have spoken about it over the past two years, and we have seen some modest growth, but we have to be honest that it is not enough. We must show renewed urgency in demonstrating that the UK is open for business and is the genuine incubator for growth. If we can do that, we can be confident that this Labour Government are the Government who will end the scourge of child poverty, perhaps for a generation and beyond.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on securing this debate. I am a long-standing fan of the noble Baroness. I worked with her quite a lot when I was a Member of the other place. I have huge admiration for her fearless and courageous advocacy on behalf of, often, children who are otherwise forgotten. I have collaborated with her on many, many issues over many, many years.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today on behalf of the Lib Dem Benches, and to have an opportunity to debate with the Minister, who, I recognise, has very deep knowledge and commitment in this area. This is an issue that I feel very passionately about. It is the reason why I made my maiden speech on the issue of child poverty just a few months ago.
There are a number of us here who have, in government, attempted to tackle child poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, outed herself in her early remarks, and I know she mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. When I made my maiden speech, I spoke about the challenges of wrangling a child-poverty strategy across government as being a cross between cat wrangling and giving birth, and requiring an equally miraculous level of commitment to actually bring that to fruition.
The range of contributions today—highly knowledgeable contributions covering such a wide variety of topics—has brought that to the fore. We have heard many noble Lords speak about the moral imperative to tackle this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, spoke about the role of schools. Language came up, and tone was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The importance of childcare was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Free school meals was an issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and I will return to that in a minute.
A number of noble Lords spoke about how child poverty falls disproportionately on a number of different groups. The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, spoke about ethnic minorities and asylum-seeking families. The issue of families—single-parent families and families that have a disability—was raised by others. The noble Baroness, Lady Paul, spoke passionately about boys and how boys often fare least well. It was a very welcome contribution, I thought, to this debate today.
The noble Lord, Lord Babudu, spoke about the role of private investment, and a number of noble Lords spoke about health from different perspectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke about mental health and obesity; the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, spoke about the impact on ageing. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, spoke about the multifaceted nature of poverty, and she was one of a number of noble Lords who raised the issue of low pay. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, spoke about the cost of education, which is something I want to pick up in a moment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough spoke about rural poverty, which, again, I think is often missed out from this debate, where we focus particularly on urban areas. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, spoke about the need for an integrated approach and integrated programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about the scale of the challenge, and the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, opened his remarks by speaking about the need for some cross-party consensus. I suppose I will kick off there, on the need for cross-party consensus.
I hope the Minister finds me a kind of encourager. I have some areas where I want to say I would like the Government to go further. However, as I said, having had the experience of wrangling a child poverty strategy, I am hugely sympathetic to the challenge involved, so I hope that she will find me an encourager on these issues. I want to begin, like other noble Lords, by acknowledging progress and welcome facets in the child poverty strategy: the tone, for example, as well as involving families who experience poverty. That is hugely important and I want to return to that at the end. I gave my maiden speech in the debate on the Bill to abolish the two-child limit in universal credit, which is hugely welcome, and for which Lib Dems have been arguing for some time. Some 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of that.
However, while the child poverty strategy is a welcome direction, it is not an adequate destination. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that even after the measures in the child poverty strategy, the DWP’s own forecast suggests that 4 million children will still be in poverty in 2029-30. There is some disagreement about the number of children who will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the strategy—the Resolution Foundation suggests that it is probably around 300,000—but, either way, it is not enough to celebrate slowing this rise; the country needs to reverse it. There is a question about what we do from a big-picture perspective, there are areas where I hope we might go further and some other areas where I hope the child poverty strategy might be brought into conversation with wider cross-government work, where the child poverty strategy may be the key to our thinking about what else we need to do as a nation.
It seems to me that the single biggest hole in the strategy is that there are no binding targets. Whatever you might think about Scotland’s delivery, in Scotland the statutory child poverty targets have provided a framework to hold Ministers to account. My first question to the Minister is therefore: why are there no binding targets? Are the Government willing to be held to account on this, and will they think again?
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke about a need for a human rights approach. I would argue that child rights impact assessments would be hugely helpful, for example, in helping us understand what is happening.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the benefit cap. I had long-standing prior form on the benefit cap in making myself distinctly unpopular in government. I was not sure whether you are supposed to admit to when you lose battles in government, but the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, began by speaking about battles that she lost in government, and I think it was pretty on the record that I lost that one. I use this opportunity to urge the Government to think again on the benefit cap; otherwise, the good work that has been done with the reversal of the two-child limit in universal credit risks being undone. At the very least, we could lift the rate and raise it in line with inflation.
I just want to talk about free school meals. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester devoted all his speech to this topic, and it was a very welcome and informed contribution. I very much welcome the expansion of free school meals to all families on universal credit, but, again, underregistration risks leaving people behind. The September expansion is a perfect moment to switch to a national opt-out or auto-enrolment system using data the Government already hold—for example, the warm home discount. So my next question to the Minister is: will they think again and introduce a national auto-enrolment alongside this September’s rollout so that no eligible child slips through the cracks?
The child poverty strategy has some measures around school uniform, but I would argue again that we could go further; we could agree a cap on the cost of school uniform, which would make such a difference to so many families.
Lastly, as I read the child poverty strategy, the thing that occurred to me most of all was how so many of these topics feel very similar to the things that we were trying to address in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and yet we are facing into a very different world. I suppose it left me a little nervous about whether the child poverty strategy is being brought into conversation with the big strategies and challenges that as a country we are facing now, around food security, the impact of global conflict and the impact of climate change. All these are going to fall disproportionately on the poorest families, and my view is that it is their perspective that might hold the key to helping us to understand how we as a nation might tackle those bigger challenges. I urge the Government to use what they have already done in their strategy, bringing in the perspectives of those affected by poverty into conversation with a much wider strategy.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I, also, thank the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for this important debate today. I think we all agree that eliminating child poverty is an important aim. I went into education 25 years ago because I wanted to take forward the education approaches that are most effective with the most disadvantaged children, so I know how much work already goes on in all stages of education to support children in poverty. It was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, recognize this.
I have studied the Government’s child poverty strategy and its publications on deep material poverty. The first thing I notice is how hard it is to measure child poverty. Much effort has gone into the new measure. It gets closer than the relative measure to children’s actual experience. Do they have three meals a day, fresh fruit and vegetables, somewhere to do homework, games, toys, and outdoor equipment? Do they live in decent and warm housing? Can they get around on public transport? Can their families cope with an unexpected bill?
First, the measure suggests that there are just over 2 million children in deep material poverty. That is, of course, a concerning figure, but, startlingly, it correlates poorly with the Government’s preferred poverty measure of having less than 60% of median household income after housing costs. More than 70% of children in families below the 60% line are not in deep material poverty and, conversely, more than 40% of the children in deep material poverty are not in households falling below the 60% threshold. This clearly needs more examination and suggests that it is time to retire that arbitrary 60% number. It is good for political point-scoring, but is not very helpful for actual children and their lives.
We know the main risk factors, which the strategy acknowledges. Work, family structure, family size and geography all matter, and there are some striking ethnic disparities. All this is acknowledged, yet so much is ignored or glossed over in the strategy, and I will follow on from the points made by my noble friend Lady Coffey and several others.
First, I must talk about fatherlessness. I am not denigrating single mothers, most of whom make every effort for their children. Yet it is undeniably the case that, on average, children who do not live with their father have worse life outcomes on many fronts. It was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, touch on this. More than half of children are now born outside marriage. Most have cohabiting parents when they are born, but cohabitation is less stable than marriage, so too few children are growing up with both natural parents, and it is obviously unrealistic to believe that state support, however good, can entirely compensate for a parent-shaped gap in a child’s life. There are countries that have significant incentives for parents to marry and remain in stable unions. We have disincentives in tax, welfare and social housing, so it is worrying that the strategy does not even mention marriage, let alone set out policies to reverse a damaging social trend that is directly responsible for a lot of child poverty.
The strategy skates fairly lightly past at least 500,000 children—although published estimates vary—in families that have no recourse to public funds. Almost certainly, these children make up a hefty slice of the 2.1 million in deep material poverty. Some families will get leave to remain, in which case the full range of benefits and support will become available to them, and some will not and will leave. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, noted, these children’s interests are surely best served by resolving their cases swiftly. It is none the less a puzzlingly large number of children affected.
Linked to this, there is no mention of cultural differences that contribute to making some ethnic groups much heavier users of welfare than others and making their children more likely to be poor. Relatively few women of Somali origin work. Estimates range from 10% to 24% compared with over 70% of white women. Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are also far less likely to be earning. For balance, I point out that Haredi Jewish households are also particularly likely to depend on benefits. The strategy is silent on a real issue of fairness. Is it reasonable to expect families where both parents work to provide for their children to pay taxes to support families where at least one parent may be choosing not to? If not, how will the Government adjust the relevant incentives?
Improving parent skills should be a much bigger piece of the jigsaw. The labour market values mathematical competence, so improving numeracy helps. For many families in poverty from immigrant backgrounds, it would be hard for the adults to earn a decent wage until they speak better English. Many parents who have grown up in countries with more limited education systems will need some good vocational education to help them move beyond insecure casual work. As the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, noted in his excellent speech, a child poverty strategy is ultimately self-defeating if it ushers children of poorer families into adult lives of worklessness and dependency. Making sure that these children move from education into proper jobs and stay in sustained employment is critical.
I do not want to dismiss the Government’s measures, but I think I have shown where the real differences lie between these Benches and the Government. Too many current policies are sticking plasters to treat symptoms, not cures or preventive measures. They do not solve the underlying problems—the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made some important points here. In essence, child poverty arises when a child’s parents cannot or do not earn enough to provide for their child. Of course, there will always be a small proportion of families who, for good reason, will not be able to achieve this, but most could. By definition, anyone over 21 working full-time on the national minimum wage will be earning 60% of national median income. Therefore, there are an awful lot of children in families that do not have the equivalent of even one full-time wage coming in.
If we are serious about eliminating child poverty, we need to focus more on better skills and a growing economy that generates better jobs and higher real wages, plus the kinds of support that help families become more secure and independent—such as the debt advice service mentioned by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the parenting service described by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—I think I was the first person to talk publicly about the problem of children starting school in nappies, almost a decade ago during my time at Ofsted.
Economic growth is the most powerful lever to reduce poverty, but, sadly, the Government’s current policies are increasing the welfare burden while disincentivising work for an increasing proportion of the population—which in turn constrains economic growth and hence the capacity to fund benefits. I warn the Government here. The social contract that underpins the welfare system requires mutual trust and cohesion, which is more than a little frayed, especially in relation to disability-linked benefits for adults and children. The collective willingness to fund a comprehensive welfare system depends on those paying having confidence that all but a small minority will contribute to the system through most of their working lives, that claims will be genuine and that decision-makers will be effective in gatekeeping the system to prevent abuses.
I remind noble Lords that the benefits bill this year will be about £330 billion, which is around £11,000 per household. Since more than half of households are now net recipients of benefits, the annual bill paid by the minority of households who make a net contribution is higher still. We simply cannot afford fraud. So I was not reassured by the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to a recent Written Question asked by my noble friend Lady Coffey about the number of prosecutions for benefits fraud since July 2024. All it said was:
“The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost”.
I will finish by asking the Minister four questions. Will the Government set clear targets for moving families that are dependent on benefits towards independence, including parental employment rates and earnings progression, and report regularly against these? Will the Government set targets for successful labour market entry and continuing employment for all young people who grow up in benefit-dependent households and report regularly against them? Will the Government commit to publishing regular comprehensive information about children and families with no recourse to public funds, including their nationalities, how and when they came to Britain, how they are being housed and helped, at what cost, and how their temporary status is being resolved? And linked to my earlier point, will the Government commit to publishing regular updates on the incidence of benefit fraud, on the perpetrators and on the cost to the taxpayer, together with reporting on the effectiveness of steps that are being taken to deter and minimise fraud?
I will end by thanking everyone who has spoken today for recognising that there is a moral imperative here to do what is right for all our children and, above all, to do what is right for them in the long term, as well as in the short term, so that children live the best lives they can for themselves and as parents in their turn.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, let me add my words of appreciation to my noble friend Lady Lister, who must at this point be blushing from the compliments showered upon her, but they are very well deserved. I am thrilled that she got this debate and introduced it so well. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the great encouragement from around the Chamber, especially from my new encourager on the Lib Dem Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, whom I welcome to the Front Bench. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, to her role on the Front Bench, and I look forward to taking issue with her later.
As we have heard, there are 4 million children in poverty in the UK. That is 700,000 more than there were in 2010. Almost 2 million children are in deep material poverty—a term I will come back to—lacking even the most basic essentials like a warm home or healthy food. We know that growing up in poverty has a devastating impact on children and their prospects. It affects their attainment at school, their future earnings, and their mental and physical health. They are more likely to grow up to become NEETs. Right now, we have more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. That is what happens when funding for services is cut, when wages flatline, and when people are trapped in the system.
As my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum said, this is indeed the fight of our lives. We have to break this link between a child’s background and their future success. I should digress for a moment. In 2000, I was running a charity working with single parents when Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor, hired me to work for him to advise on child poverty and how we tackled that, on Sure Start and on all the work that that Labour Government did. I was hugely proud to be part of that effort, so to be back here now with another child poverty strategy and a Government committed to it is something which I am hugely privileged to be part of. It is the fight of our lives, and we have to intend it or it will not happen.
The consequences of poverty impose heavy costs on the taxpayer through lost productivity and added pressure on public services. That goes to questions of economic growth and economic success—tackling poverty is also vital for our economy, as well as for the lives and opportunities of our children. This Government are correcting course. We want every child to have the chance to fulfil their potential—hence our child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty, the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. We are now focused on delivering the commitments in the strategy, monitoring its impact and the trajectory of poverty to ensure we build momentum and sustain our progress. I shall try to answer the very many questions, and when I fail, I will write and answer the ones I do not get to, with apologies ahead of time.
Let me start with the worries about the Child Poverty Unit, which I hope I can assuage. The unit has moved to the DWP, as the strategy set out that it would do. Many of the officials are the same officials who worked there right the way through. They have retained the same strong relationships that help deliver the strategy inside and outside government. We have some brilliant officials working on this and I really enjoy working with them. We also have the interministerial group chaired jointly by the DWP and the DfE, which met formally for the first time yesterday, involving 13 government departments. We are determined to make sure through this that child poverty remains a priority across government. I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, whether or not I can get all the way with her, that that kind of cross-government working is the only way we are going to make this work. I will read her words of wisdom again carefully when I come to read Hansard, but she pushes us in a really important direction.
My noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Donaghy asked whether I could share any information about the baseline report ahead of time. I regret to say to my noble friend Lady Donaghy that my petticoat must stay firmly where it is. I am sorry that I cannot offer any spoilers at this stage, but it is due out this summer, so they will not have too long to wait.
My noble friend Lord Kestenbaum raised questions about education, which I will come to in a moment. I will touch briefly on targets, raised by my noble friends Lord Babudu and Lady Lister, the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and others. I think the most important thing is that what we are doing is visible. We already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. As well as that, we are going to hold ourselves to account through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements put in place from this year and in future years, so the progress we make is transparent for all—and if we fail to make progress, that too is transparent for all. I think that will make the big difference.
My noble friend Lady Lister asked about migrant children, raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and, in a rather different way, by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. Within the immigration system, the Home Office determines eligibility for benefits, and most migrants with temporary visas cannot access the benefits system. Access to public funds and benefits is usually at the point of settlement, although the Home Office, as has been noted, is consulting on changing the rules on that and will respond in due course. Migrant children who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition have access to initiatives in place across the UK to support disadvantaged children, including free school meals, subject to certain eligibility thresholds, and support for children with special educational needs or disabilities. We are also looking to develop our understanding of that and its impacts for new questions in the Family Resources Survey.
Free school meals were raised by many noble Lords and Baronesses across the debate. Extending free school meals to all children in households on universal credit is a really significant step in tackling child poverty. I recognise the desire always to go further, but let us not just bank this and move on; let us look at this and see what a significant step it is. This expansion will lift around 100,000 children out of poverty and put money back into the pockets of families who need it most. We all know that children who are not hungry are more likely to attend school, to get better results and to improve their long-term life chances. That is one of my answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about who should get them and who should not.
I am afraid I will not be able to do all that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester would like, but I can tell him that the DfE is updating the eligibility checking system, which will make it easier for local authorities and schools to check whether children are eligible for free school meals and to ensure they receive a healthy, nutritious meal during the school day. I take his point about changes in the system, but local authorities are already taking innovative approaches to maximising take-up. For example, Sheffield runs an annual data-matching exercise using pupil records and housing benefit data to identify eligible children, which it can justify under its duty to support eligible children. I will undertake to make sure that the right reverend Prelate’s remarks on this are shared with my colleagues in the Department for Education, because he gave a lot of attention to it. I will make sure it is looked at carefully.
On the matter of free school meals, as a word to my noble friend Lord Brooke, we propose to make changes related to increasing fibre, reducing sugar and further restricting foods higher in fat, sugar and salt in free school meals, in line with the nutritional advice set by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.
The question of employment was raised repeatedly, and it is incredibly important. It is one of the places I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, who mischaracterised the child poverty strategy as being about trying to get people to stay on benefits. I hope I have made clear that growing up in poverty makes children less likely to be in work, get skills and achieve as adults, so our job is to make sure we help lift them out of poverty to give them the best chance. We also want to get parents into work, so our new jobs and careers service will give tailored employment support, taking into account their circumstances, to get them into work.
Although parental employment is high, we are also aware that almost three-quarters of children in poverty live in working households. My noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Sikka raised the question of in-work poverty and low wages. The Government are clear: work should be a route out of poverty. That is why the strategy takes action to support people into work and to improve incomes for working families. We have increased the national living wage, and I should pause to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for all that she did in making sure that we had a national minimum wage in the first place—another achievement of hers but also of a previous Labour Government. We will also look to increase access to affordable childcare so that more parents can take up and progress in employment; I will come back to that if time permits. We are improving universal credit to make sure that families keep more of what they earn, including reducing deductions, and we have increased the basic rate for the first time, but we are also tackling the cost of essentials.
We are doing a lot to invest in childcare. We are investing £82 million in over 600 school-based nurseries, creating 11,000 new places by September next year. For those on universal credit, we are improving the process for claiming support for childcare costs, removing cost caps so parents can get more money if they have more than two children; and there is a lot more out there for supporting families.
I turn to some of the questions that have been asked. The subject of education was raised by a number of colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Kestenbaum and Lady Blower. On the point about inspiring teachers, when my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum said that, I bet that every one of us thought for a moment of an inspiring teacher from our childhoods. I certainly think of Miss Scriven and Mrs Scriven—both in my school but, weirdly, unrelated—both of whom inspired me. I pay tribute to all those who are teaching now and to organisations like Teach First, bringing people into teaching to inspire the children so that we have people there enabling them to have a future.
Child poverty impacts all aspects of education. As I said, children who are hungry or living in unsuitable accommodation struggle to learn, but the fact is that schools also end up diverting energy and time to dealing with hardship rather than just teaching children. Again, getting the child poverty strategy right can help to free that up.
I am advised there are 4,654 more teachers—approximately—in 2025-26 than a year earlier, and our delivery plan was published in February to show that we are setting out to recruit 6,500 teachers in secondary and further education over the course of this Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Nargund made some important points about health inequalities. I cannot respond to all of them, but I will pick them up and talk to my noble friend Lady Merron, who is sitting next to me, about these matters from a health perspective.
In our 10-year health plan, we are expanding mental health support teams to cover all schools by 2029, an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Brooke. We are increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers so that more families can buy the nutritious food they need. We have detailed the rollout of a supervised toothbrushing programme; it is shocking that tooth decay is the most common reason why children are admitted to hospital. Through the 10-year health plan, we are committed to expanding funding for healthy babies to cover all areas over the next decade.
A number of noble Lords asked about homelessness and housing. Homelessness levels are far too high, and we recognise the devastating impact that has on children’s lives, so we are taking action across the system to prevent homelessness and support families who are affected. We are investing £1 billion this year in homelessness and rough sleeping services, alongside further funding for local authorities to prevent families entering temporary accommodation in the first place. We are also making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside measures such as the Renters’ Rights Act to strengthen security for tenants and help protect families from losing their homes.
I was asked about the local housing allowance. The Government had to take difficult decisions at the Autumn Budget and prioritise measures that had the biggest impact on reducing child poverty, such as the removal of the two-child limit. It is difficult, because we already spend around £37 billion a year on housing support, including some £13 billion in the private rented sector. However, we are doing the most important thing to attack the gaps in and levels of rents, which is to address the underlying problem of a lack housing supply. That is why £39 billion is being invested in the Social and Affordable Homes Programme.
We continue to support households that are struggling with housing payments, through the Crisis and Resilience Fund housing payments in England and discretionary housing payments in Scotland and Wales. We also need to address the quality of homes, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Nargund and others. The Government are introducing stronger standards and protection, including Awaab’s law, to tackle serious hazards, putting in new electrical safety regulations and a future decent homes standard.
My noble friend Lady Nargund raised the terrible situation of the death of children linked to temporary accommodation. The death of any child is devastating, and it is imperative that we prevent deaths caused by unsuitable accommodation or gaps in care. So we are taking a cross-government approach to strengthen protections and improve the experience of families in temporary accommodation, including eliminating the use of B&Bs for families except in emergencies. We are acting to prevent harm by introducing proactive health outreach for families, improving data through a new clinical code for children in temporary accommodation and ending the practice of discharging newborns into unsuitable housing.
My noble friend Lord Brooke raised questions around children and obesity. There are complex issues around obesity and poverty, as I know he understands very well. We are taking decisive action on the crisis of childhood obesity. We are restricting the advertising of junk food; we have consulted on proposals to ban the sale of high-caffeine drinks to children; and we have given local councils stronger powers to limit schoolchildren’s access to fast food. Defra is also taking important steps to address the whole issue of food, including developing good food neighbourhoods and working with local authorities to support community-led initiatives such as food clubs, community kitchens and nutrition programmes. I will return to the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough in a moment.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Paul raised the question of boys, and disadvantaged boys in particular. I recently attended an interministerial group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister on the question of men and boys. We were talking about this very issue. The evidence about school attainment and the outcomes for boys is shocking. It will continue to be a focus in how the Government consider groups at particular risk of poverty, and their outcomes in childhood and later life. I will share my noble friend’s comments on this matter with my right honourable friend.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the benefit cap, including my noble friends Lord Babudu and Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. The Government believe that, where possible, it is in the interests of children to be in working households. Being in work substantially reduces the chance of poverty. The poverty rate of children living in households where all adults work is 16%, compared with 60% for children in households where no adults work. The benefit cap limits the total amount of benefits a working-age household can receive. But people who are working and earning at least £881 a month are exempt from the benefit cap, and there is also protection for the most vulnerable, as those in receipt of care or disability benefits are exempt from the cap. I know my noble friend Lady Lister knows that there is a statutory obligation to review the levels of the cap at least once every five years. They were last reviewed in November 2022 and, as such, they will have to be reviewed by November 2027. That will happen at a time the Secretary of State believes appropriate, but by that date.
The question was raised about partnerships and working with voluntary organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, gave a really interesting example. I would be grateful if she would let me have some more information about the charity: I like the sound of what was being described there. The point that she and others made—about the importance of children arriving at school at least ready to learn, or ready to engage with other children—is incredibly important. It is one of the things that I found so important when we developed Sure Start. The question of how to engage families is really important. In the Sure Start days, it was the very universality that reduced the stigma and therefore made it easier to get engagement. You could go along for a dental check-up and while you were there, other things could get picked up. But we are doing really important work with Best Start Family Hubs, which are reaching out, and that will be a way in which we develop this in the future.
We also recognise more broadly the voluntary and charitable work done by so many charities, and we are, for example, establishing the £500 million better futures fund, and the world’s largest social outcomes fund—a point raised by my noble friend Lord John—to support vulnerable children and families, and unlock up to £1 billion in total funding through collaboration with charities.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for describing what was happening at the Woodford Halse Community Larder. I recognise some of that: I visited some community larders, which are wonderful. I loved her point about the importance of dignity. This is about human dignity and attacking poverty is fundamentally about human dignity. On Monday I was invited by another bishop to visit a brilliant charity in Grimsby working with local, very disadvantaged families, supporting children and young people in a brilliant way. I found it inspiring and I was very pleased to hear more about it. I am always interested to hear examples of good practice, so I encourage anyone to let me have them. I am always happy to go and visit projects, so if noble Lords have things they would like me to go and visit, do please get in touch.
We are looking forward to engaging continually as we go forward. We had wonderful engagements with voluntary, community and faith organisations in developing the strategy, and those will carry on. I know that my honourable friend the Minister for Employment was very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for bringing together a multi-faith group to meet her. That is an engagement she looks forward to carrying on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised questions about metrics. I recognise that these are Labour debates, so I thank her for taking the time to come and do this, especially late on a Thursday afternoon. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, raised questions about metrics. First, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that “relative low income” is not some random measure that this Government came up with. It is the internationally recognised measure of poverty which reflects changing living standards over time. The reason we put in more than one measure is to get a rounded view, so we are going to use that. But deep material poverty is a new measure which is based on material deprivation, and together they will help give us a more rounded picture of what poverty looks like in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also raised the issue of debt. The Best Start Family Hubs are designed to be a gateway to the full range of support that families need. Every hub will connect families to debt advice where it is needed, and that is something that can be really important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the question of how we will work with Wales. We are committed to continued collaboration with the devolved Governments to tackle child poverty across the UK. Specifically, we are committed to making sure that the UK-wide strategy complements their efforts and does not detract from their own work on poverty reduction. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness’s colleagues on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Babudu asked about the commencement of the socioeconomic duty. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can thrive, no matter their background, and we will commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies soon.
My noble friend Lord John made some important points about NEETs. We commissioned Alan Milburn’s report; we welcome it, and we are already acting, and are going to act even more strongly, on it. I welcome my noble friend’s points about growth. As a Government, we are completely committed to expanding growth. However, I would also say that growth in itself does not mean that child poverty will improve. We have to be determined to tackle it, and this Government are determined to tackle it wherever we find it, including in ethnic minority families—an important point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Sahota.
I am running out of time, so I simply want to say that this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity, deliver growth and raise living standards. We will invest in children and families because we believe in the value of every person and the contribution that they can make to society. Every pound we spend lifting children out of poverty invests in the future health, education and social security system of this country. We can save children from the consequences of poverty. A good childhood is in all our interests, and we owe it to the children of our country to give them the best possible start in life.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this most important of subjects. It is not only the fight of our lives but a source of, and an opportunity for, real hope for the future. Let us work together to do it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know where to start. It has been a fantastic debate, and I thank all noble Lords. I thank my noble friend, and I echo the very positive things that have been said about her. I cannot do justice to everything that has been said, but I am grateful for the passion, commitment and knowledge that people have brought to the debate. As I say, I cannot do justice to it all, but the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, who I think of as my noble friend, has done a very good job of summarising some of what has been said, as has my noble friend the Minister.
I echo what my noble friend the Minister said about the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I appreciate the fact that she has made the time to attend and contribute, although she will not expect me to agree with much of what she said. On the question of what happened during Covid, I take her point. It had something to do with the extra £20 that was paid on universal credit. From the evidence given to the Covid inquiry, I gather that the noble Baroness herself said that she pushed for an increase in universal credit. I welcome that; it was needed. I very much welcome what the noble Baroness said about debt advice services. She spoke about something that I should have mentioned: the importance of advice services more generally. We think of groups such as the Trussell Trust as providing food banks, but a lot of their work is providing advice. I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester was one of many people who emphasised the importance of education from different perspectives—free school meals, teachers, and so forth—as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Teather, and my noble friends Lord Kestenbaum, Lady Paul, Lady Donaghy, Lady Blower, Lord Brooke and Lord John. Education clearly came up in lots of different ways, so its importance was recognised.
I very much appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, bringing her personal experience to bear. We talk about lived experience, but we forget that there may be people on these Benches who have that lived experience and can bring it to our debates, and that is really important. I thank her too for mentioning the Scottish child payment and what is happening in Wales. Sometimes in England, we do not do enough to listen to what is happening in Wales and Scotland and what we can learn from that. A children’s rights perspective is certainly something that we can learn from experience in Wales.
My noble friend Lord Babudu mentioned the socioeconomic duty—soon. “Soon” is one of those wonderful government words, is it not? What does it mean? Let us hope it means what we would all like it to mean. It is not long until the Summer Recess, so I hope it means before then.
As well as education, a number of noble Lords made important points about health and public health. My noble friends Lady Nargund, Lord Brooke, Lord Sikka and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, all referred to health in different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talked about the politics of poverty of aspiration. A lot of people said, “Yes, yes”, but I absolutely take the point. Children have lost aspiration. They have tried. It is not that they start with a lack of aspiration; it is just drummed out of them. They keep facing these hurdles, which they cannot get across because of all the different factors against them. Sometimes there is a danger that we think of aspiration as a kind of individual thing.
That is probably my main difference with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, because she is coming at it very much from the perspective of individual responsibility, family and so forth, whereas I see poverty as a structural issue: I think it is the structures of society that are contributing to that. So there is a fundamental difference there, but I appreciate her contribution to the debate.
I am glad to say that a number of noble Lords supported what I said about the benefit cap. My noble friend said that it has to be reviewed next year. But, really, between this year and next year, families are suffering. I really hope it is not just the kind of review that looks at this and thinks, “Perhaps we should put it up this year”. What I am asking for is a fundamental review of the policy towards the thresholds, rather than simply the annual review. The annual review does not mean you cannot look at it more frequently than every five years.
A number of noble Lords made the important point about targets. I am glad that a number brought up families with no recourse to public funds from different perspectives. This group is suffering very real poverty.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Donaghy, Lord Hendy and Lord Sikka, brought up the problem of in-work poverty. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and others emphasised the importance of the contribution voluntary groups can make. That, importantly, links in with advice services as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, made an important point about listening. People in poverty may be able to help us think about some of the big challenges we face as a society, and that is forgotten.
What it comes down to is something a number of noble Lords mentioned: we are talking about political choices, and a moral imperative underlies them. A number of people talked about how we are in the fight of our lives—it is not our lives but the lives of children in poverty. As a number of people have said, we must always remember that they lie behind those statistics. More than one noble Lord made the point that we are talking about the kind of society in which we want to live.
I hope that what has been said today, which has been immensely valuable, will be helpful to the child poverty team or unit—whatever it is now called—and to the Government. I quite like this label of being an “encourager”: if the noble Baroness does not mind, I might take that on board and be my noble friend the Minister’s encourager. I am not sure she needs much encouragement, but perhaps she needs support. I hope that what has been said today will give her the support that she and the rest of the Government need. With that, I thank everyone very much for giving up their afternoon and for their immense contribution to the debate.