House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government recognise that energy costs, inflation and global pressures continue to squeeze household budgets. That is why we have taken careful, targeted action through the great British summer savings package which launches on Thursday, cutting VAT on summer activities so that adventure parks, soft play centres, cinemas and theatres will be cheaper, alongside the work we are doing to maintain the triple lock and to lift children out of poverty.
John Lamont
The Chancellor has overseen huge tax rises for those who work hard and do the right thing. Now they have been hit by soaring energy bills—a situation that is even more acute for many of my constituents who rely on heating oil. How does the Chancellor think that squares with the Government’s pledge to cut energy bills?
Rachel Reeves
The measures I took in my Budget last year took £150 off energy bills by getting rid of some levies altogether and moving others to general taxation. If we look at the most recent inflation numbers, inflation in the UK was 2.8% last month, which compares to 3.2% in the eurozone and 4% in the US. Food inflation was at its lowest rate for 17 months.
Josh Newbury
The Chancellor will know that I have raised the need to take action on the costs faced by farmers and families alike, both of which she has done. The great British summer savings scheme will be a brilliant help with the cost of giving kids a great school holiday, particularly the free bus travel for five to 15-year-olds throughout August. Does the Chancellor agree that continuing to look at how we can support affordable bus travel for constituents like mine in Cannock Chase will be very important even beyond the great summer break to come?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, we are investing £3 billion in local bus services to both improve the service for passengers and freeze bus fares until at least March next year. This summer there will be unlimited free travel for children aged between five and 15 in his Cannock Chase constituency and across the country. I also give a special shout-out to my mayor, Tracy Brabin, for the beautiful Weaver Network of electric buses, manufactured in Northern Ireland and Yorkshire, and serving the people of West Yorkshire.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government introduced legislation in the Finance Act 2026 to provide for a new settlement offer for those affected by the loan charge. The Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities, and that is in addition to the proposals put forward by the independent reviewer, Ray McCann.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will be aware that tens of thousands of people continue to suffer because of the loan charge scandal, and that successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have failed those people. They have dithered, delayed and ignored reviews, causing confusion, worsening the financial harm and anxiety for so many people. Surely the Minister must agree that the victims deserve resolution and closure, so that they can move on with their lives?
Dan Tomlinson
I do agree that those who have been affected by the loan charge need to be able to move on with their lives. That is why the Government put forward a generous settlement offer at the last Budget that went further than the proposals set out by the independent reviewer. I would just note that it was a Government that the hon. Gentleman supported for 14 years who introduced the loan charge and did not do enough to reform it for those who were affected by it.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government remain dedicated to raising living standards for people in Falkirk and across the UK by driving economic growth and bearing down on inflation, which I know continues to squeeze household budgets. Measures announced in my Budget last year are already taking effect: raising the national living wage and the national minimum wage; maintaining the triple lock on pensions; and extending free school meals to more families. Our great British summer savings package builds on that, reducing VAT on a whole range of summer attractions, including, I believe, Airthrill in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Euan Stainbank
The cut to VAT for family days out this summer starts along with the summer holidays later this week. This is a Labour Government acting to bring down the cost for families visiting Falkirk’s fantastic tourism, leisure and hospitality attractions. Many families are anxiously looking at the other side of the summer, with energy bills rising as a direct consequence of the illegal Iran war. Does the Chancellor agree that any forthcoming targeted energy bill support must similarly extend to working families?
Rachel Reeves
We timed the great British summer savings so that they start on the first day of the Scottish school holidays and continues to 1 September, when children in England, Wales and Northern Ireland return to school. We hope that the scheme has a big impact on families around the country, alongside the free bus travel in England in August.
We did not start the war in the middle east, we did not join it, and I have been clear about my views on it, but the war is clearly having consequences here at home. We will continue to monitor the situation and take every action necessary to support families.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me another chance to talk about the great British summer savings scheme, which the Chancellor has just talked us through. It is fantastic that it is coming into place in just a couple of days’ time and will run until the end of the summer holidays. It extends across all four nations of the United Kingdon, benefiting businesses in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
Alex Easton
Given Northern Ireland’s unique position in the United Kingdom, sharing an open border with the Republic of Ireland where the VAT rate is 13.5% for the hospitality industry, will the Chancellor look to reduce the rate of VAT for the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland—at minimum for a trial, if not permanently—to maintain price competitiveness, safeguard UK jobs and businesses, and make us more competitive with the Republic of Ireland?
Dan Tomlinson
I understand that the VAT rate in Northern Ireland is different from the rate in Ireland—there are different rates of VAT across Europe. It is important to remember that VAT is a national tax in the UK, at 20% across the country. It is important to have consistency for businesses operating across the UK. Significant cuts to VAT come with significant fiscal costs. For example, halving the rate of VAT on hospitality would cost the Exchequer about £11 billion.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I am very busy today, Mr Speaker, as ever. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that we have already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put in permanently lower multipliers for high street businesses. As part of tax update day, we will be consulting on ways to collect more of the VAT that online sellers dodge by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods. We will put every penny of the additional revenue raised into improving the business rates system for high street businesses.
Claire Young
When I met Chipping Sodbury chamber of commerce recently, business owners told me that the business rates system is broken and unfair, in part because it is based on turnover, not profit. In response to a letter, the Exchequer Secretary promised to bear in mind the points that I had raised ahead of future Budgets. Does he now accept that the business rates system is broken, and that rather than being reformed it should be abolished and replaced with a fairer system?
Dan Tomlinson
We have a tax on profits in the UK, which is corporation tax. In our corporate tax road map, we have committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament, rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. It is important to have a broad tax base, so it is reasonable for business rates to continue to be—as they have been since the late 1980s—set in accordance with an estimate of the rents of properties. I do not think it would be right to change that.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Minister will know that coastal towns, such as Poole, which I represent, rely on small businesses. Poole would not be Poole without its restaurants or ice cream parlours. Polling this week shows strong public support for higher levies on big tech. Could this be a way to raise revenue to cut business rates and support the bricks-and-mortar shops that give life to our high streets?
Dan Tomlinson
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. There are many businesses in rural and coastal communities across the country that we want to see thrive and grow, which is why the Chancellor announced the great British summer savings scheme, which will run until 1 September. On the point about the online giants, we are looking at further ways to raise more revenue by going after those online giants dodging VAT. In the last Budget, the Chancellor changed the multipliers in the business rates system so that the tax rate paid by a small high street business would be 33% lower than that paid by large properties, such as those occupied by online giants.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It was recently reported that the newly elected hon. Member for Makerfield had pledged that he would cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20% if he became Prime Minister. Given that the hon. Member is facing the near certainty of becoming Prime Minister, I ask those on the Front Bench whether the Treasury has started modelling the numbers to deliver on that pledge, and if not, when that work will begin.
Dan Tomlinson
I have to correct the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—I do not think that this hon. Member has a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister any time soon. [Laughter.] It is good that my newly elected right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has taken inspiration from the decision that we made in January to cut business rates for pubs, bars and live music venues by 15% so that we can back the great British pub and other hospitality venues.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Treasury published the Green Book supplementary guidance on wellbeing, which helps officials to assess how their policies and projects affect the wellbeing of citizens, in 2021. In February, this Government published an update to the Green Book that reaffirms the importance of considering wellbeing. Most importantly, my new Green Book will support fairer and more balanced decisions on investment in every part of the country, including outside London and the south-east, across urban, rural and coastal communities, so that projects have a better chance of securing Government funding.
Peter Lamb
I thank the Chancellor for her response. With the constantly growing evidence base behind it, wellbeing economics offers Governments an increasingly sophisticated means of supplementing conventional economics in decision making. It reveals that big-ticket items very often offer little wellbeing benefit to our constituents, while much cheaper interventions can have a dramatic impact. Wellbeing levels have even been shown across Europe to be a better predictor of electoral outcomes than traditional economic measures. Would the Chancellor be willing to meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on wellbeing economics to discuss how wellbeing economics can enhance the work of the Treasury?
Rachel Reeves
I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets my hon. Friend and others to discuss how we can make further enhancements to the Green Book. Something that has held Britain back for too long is that projects outside London and the south-east, including in rural and coastal communities, have missed out on funding because of the way in which the Treasury used to evaluate those projects. I have changed those rules so that we can make investments in all parts of the United Kingdom.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In my constituency, Chess Dynamics, part of Cohort, is a world-leading developer of counter-drone and air defence technology, yet like much of the defence sector, it has been left waiting for clarity on future investment. Given the recent turmoil at the top of the Labour party, can the Minister assure us that the vital defence investment plan will not be pushed back even further and finally give defence manufacturers the go-ahead—
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I am pleased to update the House that I met the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday to talk through the defence investment plan. The Ministry of Defence is producing a defence investment plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new defence investment plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.
Rebecca Smith
The former Defence Secretary has blown apart the defence investment plan, revealing that the Treasury was prepared to offer only a pitiful increase in defence spending—just 0.08% by 2030—despite growing threats across the world. At the same time, the Treasury continues to fork out billions for welfare and the net zero agenda. Innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in defence are effectively locked out of MOD contracts and denied the opportunity to scale their capabilities. As the Chief of the Defence Staff put it,
“the price of peace is increasing”.
Will the Chancellor commit this morning to filling the £28 billion gap in defence investment by 2030 to secure our position on the world stage, or will she stand in the way of the delivery of the DIP that we need?
Rachel Reeves
As I just said, the DIP will be published before the summit. It will involve more money spent more effectively, and it will meet the scale of the challenges we face. Frankly, I will take no lectures from the Conservatives, who left our armed forces, in the words of their former Defence Secretary, “hollowed out”. Our forces hit rock bottom for pay, morale and numbers. The Tories do not like to mention the £12 billion of cuts that they made to defence in their first five years in office. We are turning that around with the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. This Labour Government will continue to invest in defence, with contracts awarded to firms here in Britain to keep our country safe.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight those challenges. Throughout the 10-year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. It is great that we are seeing more investment, but could the Chancellor update the House on what conversations she or her Ministers are having with Governments in Europe and with Canada about the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism for funding and procuring defence across NATO?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As Members will know, this Government are working on plans with our NATO allies for a multilateral defence mechanism. We have already signed a treaty agreement with Finland and the Netherlands, and we are working closely with Scandinavian, Baltic and eastern European countries. The multilateral defence mechanism will enable us to procure jointly and stockpile equipment off the balance sheet, ensuring better value for money for taxpayers and enabling innovative forms of finance to fund our defence. We are also working closely with Canada on the multilateral defence mechanism and the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, which lends to smaller businesses in the supply chain, so that we have one model to help us better fund defence in our country and across Europe.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is good that the Chancellor has had those meetings, but perhaps they have come too late, because when the former Defence Secretary resigned, he said that the Treasury was “unwilling” to provide the resources needed to defend the country against rising threats. The Chancellor has said that national security always comes first, so why this dereliction of duty? Why is she failing to tackle the ever-expanding welfare budget and blocking the defence investment plan from getting the funding needed to meet the threats that we face?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman is literally sitting two places away from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the former welfare Secretary who presided over a record increase in welfare spending.
We have commissioned Alan Milburn to do a review—the first part of which was published recently—to address the problem that we inherited of young people not in employment, education or training and get young people back into work. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We funded that through our difficult decision to reduce overseas development assistance, but that was the right choice. When we set out the defence investment plan ahead of the Ankara NATO summit, the whole House will see the further changes we are making in order to better support defence in an increasingly unstable world.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
UK employment levels are strong by historic and international standards. The hon. Member is right, though, to highlight a structural challenge when it comes to young people being out of work and, for that matter, education. That is why we have committed £2.5 billion over the next three years to the youth guarantee, helping to deliver up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn.
Bradley Thomas
Some 42% of employers have cut back on graduate recruitment, and across Bromsgrove and the villages there has been a 25% increase in youth unemployment over the last two years. With unemployment undoubtedly weighing heavily on the Chancellor’s mind, does she regret the choices she has made and the impact that they are having on young people’s futures?
Torsten Bell
The background to this is that employment is up 920,000 since the election. As I just said, there are structural challenges when it comes to youth unemployment. I gently refer the Tories to the fact that we saw a 250,000 increase in the number of those not in education, employment or training in the last three years that they were in office, and youth apprenticeships saw a 40% fall when they were in office. This Government are getting on with supporting young people. That is why this month will see the introduction of a £3,000 hiring bonus for firms that take on someone aged 18 to 24 who has been looking for work for six months.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
What is the Minister’s assessment of the unemployment issues for graduates? Will he and the Treasury team pledge to consider carefully the evidence that the cross-party Treasury Committee took from thousands of graduates, and come up with a fairer system that equalises plans, so that the year in which graduates enrolled in university does not matter, and graduates pay more or less the same for their graduate loan?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has done significant campaigning on this issue in recent months, and we all know why. The Government obviously inherited the student loan system situation, and we have already acted to cap the interest rate on student loans. We look forward to reading her Committee’s report, and, I am sure, to her ongoing campaigning on this issue.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)
At the Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive package of entrepreneurship tax measures, designed to provide substantially enhanced support for scaling businesses across the UK. That includes doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Overall, the changes to those schemes are forecast to generate about £100 million per year of additional investment in high-growth, scaling companies, thanks to the increased scheme limits in the Budget.
Alan Mak
A recent industry survey revealed that 62% of VCT founders are scaling back growth plans, 45% are cutting headcounts, and 25% are leaving the country. Will the Government reverse the Chancellor’s plans to cut this relief, or will her legacy for Britain’s tech sector be lower growth, fewer jobs and lasting damage?
Rachel Blake
Absolutely not; we have real confidence in the British venture capital sector. In the 2025 Budget, we doubled the investment limits and gross assets threshold for the enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. Those changes are supporting growth and development.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role?
As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?
Rachel Blake
This Chancellor has secured six interest rate cuts. We are creating the conditions for investment in business. Investment in skills and innovation is up; investment in regional infrastructure is up; and whole-economy investment is up by 4.9% since the election. This country is the best place for start-ups and scale-ups, thanks to the economic stability that the Chancellor has been securing.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Effective transport links are vital to the prosperity and wellbeing of people across the country, including in our border communities. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government to deliver a plan for Welsh rail, and we continue to work with devolved Governments to ensure that border communities stay connected.
Matt Bishop
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Forest of Dean sits on the English-Welsh border, and many of my constituents rely on cross-border transport links to access work, education and healthcare. Does she agree that improving connectivity in border communities can play a significant role in driving economic growth? What consideration is the Treasury giving to supporting investment in key cross-border transport infrastructure?
Lucy Rigby
Border communities rely on strong transport links, and my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the interests of his constituency and those in the surrounding area. The Government are delivering for people in all parts of the UK, including investments that will benefit those on both sides of the English-Welsh border. That includes the investment in places like Padeswood, on the Wrexham to Liverpool line, as part of the £445 million of investment allocated for rail enhancements in Wales at the 2025 spending review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The TriLink scheme, which connects north-west England with the south of Scotland and upgrades the west coast main line—the busiest railway line in western Europe—has been deferred by this Government and their predecessors for years. This very likely contributed to the near-fatal derailment at Shap just a few months ago. Does the Minister think that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) believes that the north-west of England exists beyond the M62, and if he does, will he invest in upgrading the railway line, for the good of everyone in England and Scotland?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will speak for himself, but I am confident that his view is that growth extends far beyond the area that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Most importantly, this Government’s approach is to ensure that growth can be generated right across the country, rather than in just a few postcodes.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government are committed to improving transport connectivity right across the north of England, and we know that part of how we can deliver that is by recognising that decisions about local transport are better made locally. That is why we are giving mayors and local leaders the powers and the funding to make decisions locally; through the transport for city regions fund alone, there will be £4.1 billion for Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region between 2027 and 2032, and there will be further devolution through the integrated settlements.
Mrs Blundell
As the Chancellor will know, northern powerhouse has been spoken about since 2014, which is 12 years ago. If we are to get Northern Powerhouse Rail off the ground and delivered, we cannot let valuable land that could create tens of thousands of jobs and boost the northern economy be used as a cheap option. What recent conversations have there been with local leaders regarding the proposed underground station at Manchester Piccadilly?
Rachel Reeves
This Government, for the first time, have backed Northern Powerhouse Rail with actual money in the spending review. The programme will improve connections between key cities—Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York. We have not yet taken a decision on the type of station that we will deliver at Manchester Piccadilly, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s preference for an underground station. I recently met Bev Craig, the leader of the city council, to discuss how the Government can support Manchester’s ambition for an underground station at Manchester Piccadilly.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
We are cutting electricity costs for up to 10,000 businesses through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, and expanding the supercharger scheme. We are also strengthening key supply chains and protecting jobs through the steel strategy, the new £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund, and the £120 million in support for our ceramics sector.
Cat Eccles
I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the electric vehicle targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. What assessment has she made of how the change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain in my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend, and other MPs who speak for constituencies with automotive businesses, for their representations. As she said, we are bringing forward the review of the zero emission vehicle mandate, so it will now take place this year—a year earlier than planned. In that, we will look at a slower phase-in of those targets to bring us closer, for example, to where the EU is. Automotive is the crown jewel of British manufacturing. We must not let targets damage our sector; that would lead to money being paid out to foreign companies, such as those in China, that produce more electric vehicles. That is why we have made the changes, and why we are having the review.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Mid Buckinghamshire is home to a number of businesses that are part of the supply chain for the aerospace and defence industries. Those businesses rely on steel that is categorically not made here in the United Kingdom. If the Department for Business and Trade fails to rectify the cliff edge that is coming on steel tariffs, what will the Treasury do to backfill that and ensure that many businesses, such as those in my constituency, do not become completely unviable?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about making sure that we get the balance right. We are supporting steel made in Britain, which the previous Government neglected; we are backing it through the nationalisation of the steelworks in Scunthorpe and more support for Port Talbot and Sheffield, but I also recognise the challenge that some British companies will face. This is why, for example, as is shown by the work that we are doing with the EU on the upcoming EU-UK summit, we want a steel alliance, to reduce tariffs on steel.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Next week, those swingeing 50% tariffs on steel imports will hit manufacturing businesses across the country, putting thousands of jobs at risk. While they are intended to protect domestic production, industry is warning that many grades simply are not made in the UK in the quantity needed. It is a simple question for the Chancellor: will she guarantee that tariffs will not apply where businesses cannot get steel in the UK?
Rachel Reeves
Our steel strategy protects the UK steel industry, so that more orders can come to British Steel and other steel manufacturers in the UK. We will not allow our steel sector to be undercut by cheap foreign imports.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
At a time of great global uncertainty, it is more important than ever that we deepen ties with our closest allies and biggest trading partners, whose values we share, and whose interests are bound to ours. It is 10 years today since the Brexit referendum, but the economic impact from the deal negotiated by the previous Government is stark. Indeed, recent studies indicate that its impact could be as great as an 8% reduction in GDP. I have worked closely with my counterparts across the EU as part of this Government’s commitment to resetting the UK-EU relationship, most recently at meetings of the G7 in Paris, and meetings with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Riga. They have been clear that they would welcome closer ties, which will be in all our interests. At the upcoming UK-EU summit, we hope to be able to conclude deals on food and agrifood, on linking to the EU emissions trading schemes, and on an ambitious youth mobility scheme.
Rachel Gilmour
Today does indeed mark 10 years since Britain voted to leave the European Union. One of the consequences of Brexit has been to bury my constituents in red tape. My farmers cannot export without doing reams of paperwork, and small businesses are seemingly locked out of European markets. The EU remains the world’s largest trading bloc, and it sits on our doorstep, so will the Chancellor set out a path to an ambitious UK-EU reset—something that my party has called for—including a new customs union that would slash costs for British businesses, open markets for our farmers, and bring down prices for the British consumer? Or will we have to wait for her successor to show that ambition?
Rachel Reeves
I have been working hard in this Labour Government to reset the relationship so damaged by the choices of the Conservatives. That is why we have committed to this second UK-EU summit, after the agreement between President Ursula von der Leyen and our Prime Minister last year to finalise the deal on food to help our farmers, on youth mobility to help our young people, and on emissions trading to help keep the cost of energy down.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given what my right hon. Friend has rightly said about the disastrous deal negotiated by the Conservatives once we left the EU, when the next UK-EU summit does eventually happen, will it not be time— after we have successfully concluded discussions on the priorities of the UK-EU reset—to discuss the opportunity, costs and benefits for more key parts of our economy of rejoining the single market?
Rachel Reeves
I understand why my hon. Friend makes those arguments; we are clearly poorer outside the European Union than we otherwise would have been. We made a manifesto commitment that we would not rejoin the single market or customs union, or return to the free movement of labour. Those red lines stand, but within them there is an awful lot that we can do to improve relations. We are doing just that.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government are committed to easing cost of living pressures for people in Wythenshawe and Sale East, and across the UK. Budget measures are already helping households; we are freezing prescription charges for the second year in a row, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and taking £150 off energy bills, as well as protecting pensioners through the triple lock and lifting half a million children out of poverty.
Mike Kane
My constituents Darren and Nicole shared with me their story of hardship in raising five children on one income. Like me, they are grateful to this Chancellor for ending the two-child benefit cap. Will she consider an independent process for advising the Government on how much universal credit needs to be, if people are to afford everyday items?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the story of Darren and Nicole to this House. I hope that they and their children will benefit from the change I made to the two-child limit for universal credit, as well as from the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to all primary schools, and the introduction of free school meals for all children whose parents are on universal credit, which will start in September and be available at primary, secondary, nursery and further education levels. As the Trussell Trust has said, the decisions I made in my Budget mean that the cruel two-child limit, which drove countless families into hardship and forced them to turn to food banks to survive, will end.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
We have been clear that Heathrow expansion needs to benefit everyone, not just London. The Department for Transport has shown that expansion would deliver UK-wide support for trade, with 40% of the estimated GDP benefits from expansion being outside London and the south-east.
Munira Wilson
When the Chancellor announced her support for Heathrow expansion last year, she claimed that it would deliver 0.43% GDP growth. The Heathrow expansion national policy statement snuck out last week predicts a 90% reduction in that figure to just 0.05% growth; what little growth there might be will largely be sucked out of other parts of the country, such as Birmingham and Manchester. Will she now finally admit that Heathrow expansion is not the grand growth plan she thought it was, and that it will hurt areas outside London the most?
Lucy Rigby
Nothing was snuck out. A third runway at Heathrow means more than 60,000 good local jobs, and more than £40 billion for the British economy. The hon. Lady’s question rather highlights the Lib Dems’ curious approach to growth. When they were in government, they decimated our economy with austerity, and now they oppose all the investment in infrastructure needed for growth. This Government are taking a wholly better approach.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Since I became Chancellor, our economy has grown by 2.3%—the fastest growth among European G7 economies in that period. Over that time, we have progressed our strategy for stronger and more secure growth through fiscal stability by bringing in an additional £120 billion in public investment, by crowding in private investment through the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, because I changed our fiscal rules; and by removing structural barriers to growth, including through big reforms to our planning and pensions systems and through progress on reducing regulatory burdens, particularly on smaller businesses.
John Grady
The long-term strength of the economy depends on long-term investment in the UK. UK growth companies still struggle for capital, while UK savers’ money flows to trackers, which are concentrated on a small number of US stocks. That is bad news for our future. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made brilliant progress on reforming pensions, but can she reassure me that the Treasury is looking at further reforms, to increase the amount of UK savers’ money that is invested in our future?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on the Treasury Committee. On pensions reform, through the Mansion House accord and Sterling 20, we have got pension funds to commit to investing more in British businesses, both through British venture schemes and in British infrastructure. Those changes were secured by the Pension Schemes Act 2026 taken through Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell). That, for the first time ever, requires investment in UK businesses and in infrastructure. We are also making reforms to how our ISA system works so that for people under the age of 65, after investing £12,000 in cash, any additional money has to be invested in stocks and shares, helping start-up and scale-up businesses grow and stay in Britain.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Chancellor has obviously had to make some tough decisions since 2024, but the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants her to go further by aligning the capital gains tax rate to the higher rates of income tax. Did she examine the behavioural effects of such a policy before she made a much more modest increase in her first Budget?
Rachel Reeves
In my two Budgets, I have raised an additional £30 billion through taxes for more wealthy people, whether that is through the changes to the non-dom rules, VAT and business rates on private schools, taxes on private jets, the high-value council tax surcharge or, indeed, the increases in capital gains tax. Combined, that is an extra £30 billion secured for our public services, to stabilise our public finances and get debt down as a share of our economy by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am sorry, but the Chancellor’s recollection of her record is fantasy economics from a fantasy economist. Is it not the case that her true record is poor decision making: with U-turn after U-turn on winter fuel payments, business rates and family farm taxes; tax after tax on jobs, investment and savings; a country more indebted with higher interest rates; and a Chancellor unable to cut welfare and unwilling to fund our defence?
Rachel Reeves
I am incredibly proud of my record as Chancellor of the Exchequer: the fastest growing country in the G7 within the EU, wages rising faster than inflation every single month since I became Chancellor, record investment coming into the United Kingdom, rolling out free breakfast clubs and free school meals, 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, creating the National Wealth Fund and leveraging in private sector investment. Those things are only possible because of the decisions I have made as Chancellor. As a result, for the first time since 2019, Government borrowing was less than 5% of GDP—a far change from the mess I inherited from the Conservatives.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government have the right economic plan—the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of this year, the second fastest rate of growth in the G7 since the election, and inflation lower than forecast, with food inflation at its lowest level for 17 months despite the disruption in the middle east. Wages have risen faster than prices in every single month since I became Chancellor. I am tackling the cost of living challenges with rail fares, prescription charges and fuel duty frozen, and with money off energy bills. Our economic plan is the right one, and I will continue to deliver for the British people.
David Williams
Sometimes we do not say thank you enough, so I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chancellor for listening. She listened to me, my fellow MPs, our pottery workers, our GMB union and especially Sharon Yates by offering a £120 million support and growth package for our ceramics sector. Can the Chancellor now outline how she will ensure that smaller manufacturers benefit from this fantastic new scheme?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for the representation that he and other MPs representing ceramics constituencies have made. It was a real honour for me to meet the impressive force of nature that is Sharon Yates when I visited Dunoon, a ceramics business in Staffordshire, a couple of months ago. I pay tribute to her and the campaigning trade union, GMB, Ceramics UK and all campaigning Labour MPs on their efforts. As a result, they have been heard, and our £120 million package of support for ceramics announced earlier this year will give a positive future for the sector.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
May I remind everybody that we are on topical questions, and lots of Members need to get in? I call the shadow Chancellor.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Given all that is going on, this could be the last time. The legacy of this Chancellor has been the highest taxes on record, a benefits bill spiralling out of control, and unemployment 300,000 higher than it was at the last general election. The right hon. Lady trumpets 2.8% inflation, but that is still well above target, and only last year it was the highest in the G7, to the detriment of millions up and down our country. Under her plans, how much more does she intend to borrow in this Parliament than under the plan she inherited?
Rachel Reeves
Let’s talk about my record: six cuts in interest rates; wages rising faster than inflation; trade deals secured; investment delivered; support for our energy-intensive industries; half a million children lifted out of poverty; record investment in our national health service; more money for local transport infrastructure right around the country; the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war; and an economy that has constantly beaten the forecasts—an economy that is growing, and an economy where inflation has come down. Compared with the disastrous 14 years when the Conservatives were in office, I would take our record any day.
Mr Speaker
May I repeat what I just said? Chancellor, there are lots of Government Members who need to get in. I have to get through this list. You have to help me to help them ask their questions.
Sir Mel Stride
The right hon. Lady cannot bring herself to answer the simple question I asked. I will tell her: she is borrowing one quarter of a trillion pounds more than the plans that she inherited—that is her legacy. We hear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is considering borrowing even more. Does she agree that that would be utterly reckless and that the bond markets will not wear it?
Rachel Reeves
When the Conservatives were in office, in the last Parliament they borrowed more than the G7 average every single year. This year we are borrowing less than the G7 average and have brought down Government borrowing to 4.2% of GDP in the most recent data. We have brought forward our fiscal rules so that they kick in two years earlier, and we are meeting those fiscal rules, to ensure that we have sustainable public finances—a far cry from those that I inherited.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the representation that he makes on behalf of the ceramics industry in Newcastle-under-Lyme. The £120 million funding will be launched in the autumn. We are working with the sector now, and it will be available for firms of all sizes, because it is important that small ceramics manufacturers can benefit, as well as larger ones.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Today is exactly 10 years since the country voted to leave the EU, and thanks to the Conservatives, the post-Brexit red tape has created 2 billion pieces of extra paperwork for British businesses—enough to stretch around the world 20 times. The hit to growth is the equivalent of the Treasury losing out on £90 billion every single year. Surely by now the Labour Government and the Labour party must recognise that if they want to go for growth and raise revenue, they should drop their red lines on Europe.
Rachel Reeves
With all respect, the Liberal Democrats backed that referendum 10 years ago, and they were part of the Government who legislated for it. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party actually sticks to its manifesto commitments.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank my hon. Friend for his strong representation on behalf of his constituency and the important refining industry. I have seen the letter to the Chancellor that has been sent by colleagues and I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Dan Tomlinson
I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that that policy was implemented by his Government—[Interruption.] It was in 2023 that HMRC wrote to businesses that were not paying the VAT, unlike some others that were, and began the enforcement action—it started under his Government. However, I recognise the challenges that these rules are causing, so today I confirm that the Government will soon bring forward a new approach, consisting of either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. The changes will be effective for donations of medicines made on or after today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I have not only visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I went to school there and I am well aware of many of the pubs in Beckenham and Penge. This summer, from this Thursday, the great British summer savings programme will benefit businesses in Beckenham and Penge and around the country. VAT rates on children’s food in restaurants, pubs, cafés and bars will be cut, and children’s entertainment venues in Beckenham and Penge and around the country will also see cuts in VAT.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
In the first quarter of this year we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. Since I became Chancellor, we have had growth of 2.3%, which is the second fastest rate of growth in the G7. We are growing our economy by bringing investment and stability back to the UK, and businesses are following our lead by investing in our country.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
When we were in opposition, I promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are now working in government to deliver exactly that. The Government Property Agency contract that expires in 2028 will come back in house, so people working at around 40 locations across government in London and around the country will find that instead of being employed by an outsourcing company, they will be employed directly by the Government. They will have the same terms and conditions as other civil servants, making a huge difference to them and their families.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In an earlier answer, the Minister ruled out a VAT reduction for hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom. Will he at least meet me, Hospitality Ulster and the Northern Ireland Food to Go Association to discuss the concept of a Northern Ireland-specific pilot?
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The Pride in Place programme provides £5.8 billion of support to 284 neighbourhoods right across the country, including five places in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which she does so much to advocate for. We will set out more details of further funding in the Budget.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In my constituency, we have lost the Scotbeef abattoir and the famous Donald Russell butchers in recent months, both of which were crucial to the agricultural supply chain. Both blamed high energy costs and the increased costs of doing business, such as the huge rises in national insurance under this Government and big business rate rises under the SNP. What steps is the Treasury taking to support, not suffocate, the agricultural supply chain and other crucial elements of the farming sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for the representations she makes on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. This Government are taking every step we can—within the tight fiscal constraints that we inherited from the previous Government—to reform, and invest in, our business rates system so that we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way. I am sure that the Chancellor and colleagues across Government will continue to listen to representations and consider what further changes we can make at the Budget to support businesses.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
Today the Government have responded to the covid counter-fraud commissioner’s recommendations in a report that I commissioned, which confirms that the Conservative Government left the door open to more than £10 billion of pandemic fraud. That is money that could have gone into our NHS and our schools, and we have acted in the last two years to claw it back. Today we set out how we will go even further, launching a powerful new public authorities fraud investigation and enforcement service, with new powers to ensure that we get that money back directly from fraudsters’ bank accounts. Nearly 2,000 directors have been disqualified and 86 criminals have been prosecuted in actions that will bring more money back to the public purse. I want those who have defrauded the taxpayer to know: there is nowhere to hide; we are coming after you; you will pay that money back.
Opposition Day
Defence Spending and Readiness
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 110 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the chaos in Government which means a temporary Prime Minister will be attending the NATO summit; further regrets that at such a dangerous time globally this country is not being properly governed; calls on the Government to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, or at a minimum to act to provide the £28 billion that the Ministry of Defence has asked for primarily by cutting welfare and to publish the Defence Investment Plan immediately to deliver this; agrees with the former Secretary of State for Defence that any Defence Investment Plan which included a rise in defence spending of 0.08% from next year to 2030, with no date for raising that spending to 3% and no path to an increase to 3.5%, would fall short of what is required, particularly as intelligence assessments note there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030; further calls on the Government to ensure that the Defence Investment Plan prepares the UK for future conflicts; and also calls on the Government not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill which is unfit for purpose as it fails to protect veterans who risked their lives to protect this country.
It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. Before I commence my speech, I wish to respond to the point of order made by the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry yesterday—not least as neither myself nor the Leader of the Opposition were able to respond to his point of order because we were not given advance notice of it. That may not be mandatory, but surely it would have been in the spirit of proceedings, given that it related to the urgent question to the Secretary of State for Defence tabled by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday.
As a reminder, last Monday’s urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition concerned the extremely serious situation regarding the previous week’s resignations of the two most senior Defence Ministers at the time. In her questions, my right hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State was not responding, given the severity of the circumstances. The DRI Minister said at the time:
“The Defence Secretary is currently with His Majesty the King”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.]
That point was repeated a little later in good faith by you, Mr Speaker, in response to a question from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In the DRI Minister’s point of order yesterday, he admitted that that was not true.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not have that. Do we understand each other? I am not being funny; you are a shadow Minister, Dr Mullan—I expect better.
James Cartlidge
The DRI Minister admitted in his point of order yesterday that what he said last Monday was not true. He said that the Secretary of State
“arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 71.]
That begs the question: why did the Secretary of State not respond? To quote chapter 21, paragraph 20 of “Erskine May”, His Majesty
“cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.”
Given this, not only should a Minister of the Crown surely desist from raising the monarch in the Chamber in such a context; it is particularly inappropriate to do so when the facts prayed in aid are not correct.
Mr Speaker, this is cowboy stuff—very sloppy, very disrespectful to this House—and it is not the first time. The Armed Forces Minister, in her previous role as Veterans Minister, also had to correct the record from the Dispatch Box after saying at oral questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was “not a details man” and that the Prime Minister had not worked with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner. In fact, as she admitted at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did indeed work with that traitor to the British Army, who tried to have our soldiers put away for war crimes on the basis of fabricated evidence. Finally, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), had to correct the record after he justified not giving me prior sight of the strategic defence review because I had supposedly not allowed him prior sight of the defence Command Paper refresh when I was a Minister. Petty as this was, it was also—again—wholly untrue.
This is not acceptable; Ministers must tell the truth from the Dispatch Box. I said that I had the greatest respect for the new Secretary of State, and I meant it. I hope he will ensure that his Ministers show—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am a little bit worried about using the language of “truth” and “facts”. In fairness, both the Minister in question and myself were told that the Secretary of State was down at Windsor last Monday. We did not know what time he was coming back; we were not told—none of us. I want us to be careful when talking about “truth” and “facts”, because I really do worry about how we attack each other in this House. In all the cases that the hon. Member has highlighted so far, the record has been corrected. This debate is about defence spending, and I am not quite sure how going back in history fits into that. Hopefully, we will get to the topic of the debate soon.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I informed your office about this issue earlier, because we feel it is very important.
Mr Speaker
Telling my office is one thing; unfortunately, my office has not had time to tell me.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have made the point and I hope Ministers are listening.
It is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise—
Mr Speaker
Order. To finish off our discussion, what I was offended by on the day in question was the calling of a Member who served in the armed forces—a gallant officer of this House—a coward. I did not think that was appropriate and I am sure that all of us will regret such comments against each other.
James Cartlidge
Noted, Mr Speaker.
As I was saying, it is particularly special to be debating defence today, on the second day of Armed Forces Week. In Armed Forces Week, we recognise the extraordinary commitment made by our brave servicemen and women, past and present, to keep this country safe, and I pay tribute to all serving today, to their families and to our veterans.
The last time I spoke in an Opposition day debate on defence was in March, on the subject of the long-delayed defence investment plan. Since then, we have still had no defence investment plan. Instead, we have had chaos: the resignation of the Secretary of State for Defence; the resignation of the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and yesterday, the resignation of the Prime Minister himself. These resignations are not unconnected. On the contrary, for a Prime Minister who thought that national security was his strong suit, those resignations from the Ministry of Defence were fatal for his career, and they have a common thread—namely, Labour’s massive strategic mistake of prioritising an ever bigger welfare state over properly funding defence, despite war in Europe and the middle east. As the previous Defence Secretary said, he simply could not put his name to a defence investment plan with a financial settlement that “falls well short” and would
“make the country less safe”.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case. Does he share my concern that, during last week’s urgent question, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry and the Secretary of State could not commit to delivering the capital ship programme that has already been set out? I am hearing rumours that the new Type 83 destroyers were being mothballed in plans six months ago. At a time when defence is so critical, does that concern my hon. Friend?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who served in the Navy, was a Defence Minister and speaks with expertise, has made an extremely serious and important point. This is why we want to see the defence investment plan. We have been waiting for it for months, and we have been promised it repeatedly from the Dispatch Box. We need to see the details, whether they relate to the Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force.
Of course, the previous Secretary of State knew that this was a problem. Let us just remind ourselves of what else he said. He said that he was being
“forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations”.
That is a staggering indictment. The Prime Minister was seriously considering a financial settlement for defence that would, in the words of the man responsible for defence in this Government until less than two weeks ago, make Britain “less safe”. But the former Defence Secretary he was not alone in that warning. Last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued a stark message of his own when he said:
“We’ll have to dial back our activities; our exercise, operational activity, if the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase”.
That is the stark reality. If the financial offer stays the same at a time of war and the most profound threats to our nation since the cold war, defence will have to be cut and our country made less safe. Last year the Government cut £2.6 billion from defence, and they are cutting £3.5 billion this year. How much more is to come, when our country needs the complete opposite?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Ankara is going to be extremely interesting this year, especially at a time when characters like Foreign Minister Sikorski are pointing out that Poland will be spending 4.8% of its GDP on defence while we spend £4.5 billion on cycle tracks? Mr Sikorski has pointed out that that is indicative of the priorities of this Government, and, as a committed Anglophile, fears that it is indicative of this country retreating into the shadows. It is difficult to avoid that conclusion, isn’t it?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend—who also served in the Navy and as a Minister—speaks with great expertise. He is absolutely right to remind us that the problems with the defence investment plan relate to our international prestige and how our allies see us, and they are worried. Poland is a close ally of the United Kingdom. I am proud of the strength of our relationship, and I think that we should all listen to what our allies are saying about the need for more funding. However, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: why? Why would the Government have to cut defence?
James Cartlidge
I will come to that question when I have taken this intervention.
Dr Arthur
Of course, this is not a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending; it is a debate about how much we increase it by. The hon. Gentleman has talked about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What did our allies think when his Government were cutting defence? Can he tell us?
James Cartlidge
That is a nice try, but the question that the hon. Gentleman needs to answer is this: if things are so good, why did both the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces resign?
James Cartlidge
I will give way to my right hon. Friend in a minute, especially as I am coming to an area of policy that she knows only too well. As I was saying, we ask ourselves: why would the Government have to cut defence? And the answer is: because they will not cut welfare. With that, I give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Esther McVey
Can my right hon. Friend clarify the financial offer that the Prime Minister made for the defence investment plan? Can he confirm that it was only 0.08% of GDP, which was £10 billion in real cash terms, not the £13 billion on offer? That was what prompted the Defence Secretary to resign, because it was not enough to keep our nation safe.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is literally on the money. That is exactly right. It was a derisory increase to 2.68%, when the 2.6% figure already includes elements such as the intelligence budget, which have been used to inflate it.
I was speaking about welfare—
James Cartlidge
I will in a bit, but first I want to make an important personal point. I did not have the privilege of serving in the armed forces, but I did have the privilege of being Defence Procurement Minister, and I hope that what I did before entering Parliament helped a little in that role. I ran a small business; I employed people—and I will never forget the time when I offered pay rises and extra hours to my staff, and they turned me down. Why? Because the cripplingly expensive tax credit system that we inherited from Labour created a massive disincentive against work. The country was literally paying billions to put a ceiling on people’s aspiration, but I was brought up to believe that we should smash the ceilings that hold people back from success, so that instead of trapping them in dependency, we set them free to make the most of their talents.
Luke Akehurst
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that welfare is only part of the story when it comes to where we might need to find the money? It would provide valuable revenue resource, but much of what we are talking about is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I will suggest where I might like to find the money, but I should like to know now which capital budgets the Opposition would look at in order to increase capital spending.
James Cartlidge
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which he asked it. He is being very open and is asking the question: where are we going to get the money? We have been debating that. We think welfare is incredibly important, but it is not just about the quantum; getting people into work instead of on welfare would make us a more resilient country. He asks about capital. We have said—people may disagree, but it is a clear commitment—that we would take £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund that will currently be going to net zero, and ringfence it for defence. That is our priority, given the world we are facing.
Dr Mullan
The challenge we have at the minute is that not only do we have a shadow Opposition, but we have a shadow Government—a whole set of Ministers who will soon be in place. We have someone who is potentially about to become Prime Minister, but we know almost absolutely nothing about his priorities on defence, on the strategic challenges or on welfare. Does it concern my hon. Friend that we are going to get somebody new, when we know very little about his position on these incredibly important issues?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because what this all creates is massive uncertainty. Defence is a massive industry in this country. That uncertainty is damaging for our defence businesses and dual-use companies right across the nation, which employ thousands and thousands of people, so we need far more certainty, whoever is going to be Prime Minister.
I was talking about welfare reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reformed the system of tax credits through the introduction of universal credit. Before the pandemic, we saved billions of pounds from welfare, all in the face—as my colleagues will remember—of unending and total opposition to any reduction in welfare dependency from the Labour party. But Labour Members cannot go on like that, setting their face against welfare reform. It must be obvious that, in the national interest, we have to reform welfare.
Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, knows that we need to cut welfare to fund defence. Lord Robertson, the former Defence Secretary, knows it too, saying that we cannot keep Britain safe with an “ever-expanding welfare Budget.” That is why the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister last week to offer our support, in the national interest, to cut welfare and fund defence. Last week, I repeated that offer to the Secretary of State during his statement on Monday. He did not answer, so I wrote to him last week with the same offer, and I hope he will accept. I hope he will now confirm that he wants to put politics to one side and work with us to make the difficult decisions, so that the defence investment plan can finally be funded and published.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend. Dither and delay have been the theme all the way—we have been waiting for months. I have stood up at every single oral questions and asked the Government when they will publish the defence investment plan. It feels like they have replied hundreds of times, “We’re working flat out,” and we still do not have it.
Can the Minister tell us if the DIP will definitely be published before the NATO summit in Ankara? In particular, can he tell us who is deciding the timetable for publication of the defence investment plan? Is it the acting Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)? It was reported today by the political editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, that there is now an argument between the two about when to publish the defence investment plan—they are working flat out, having this discussion. Mr Swinford said on X:
“The first conflict of the transition period: Sir Keir Starmer is planning to push ahead with announcing the Defence Investment Plan despite Andy Burnham wanting it delayed until he is in office.”
It is a simple question: who is in charge of defence in the United Kingdom at a time of war on two fronts? Is it the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Member for Makerfield?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Is not the real risk here that the defence investment plan, which the Government promised, will now be treated like a political football? The end result will be that defence supply chains in this country, and those of our international allies, will see that we are not worth doing business with.
James Cartlidge
As loath as I am to talk about political footballs, given that our football team is in action tonight, it is nevertheless pretty obvious: whether it is football, rugby or a tug of war, we already have a massive argument between the heart of Government and the shadow Government over who is in charge. At a time when we face serious threats, that is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to hold the Government to account, because the plan is massively delayed. He is surely aware that all of us here, including those from my party, who spent time in government in the last few years, know that ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have been complacent as a country about the scale of the threat we face. Do not all parties need to recognise that? We have the smallest Army since Napoleonic times. We have 8,000 drones in stock, while Ukraine is using 8,000 drones a day. Is it not time that we worked together across the parties to make sure we defend our country in the way we all need to in the years to come?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, to be fair, I have always said that we do need to work together in the national interest. I have said repeatedly that spending on defence fell under successive Governments since the fall of the Berlin wall. That must be blindingly obvious. There are decisions that Labour made, that we made and that the Lib Dems made us make in the coalition—for example, about the nuclear submarines—so everyone has some culpability in this record.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cartlidge
I am responding to that intervention, if hon. Members will allow me. The key issue is what we do now to fund defence. I am going to take one more intervention, and then make some progress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservatives for what they are bringing forward today. Warfare is changing, and the shadow Minister knows that. As an example of how warfare is changing, the papers today are talking about warfare that could be done by artificial intelligence, with maybe some 10,000 drones. The Minister for the Armed Forces who resigned mentioned that in his personal statement in Parliament last week. When it comes to deciding the defence strategy, does the shadow Minister agree that we must look at new technology and at how wars are going to be fought? They will be different, but we need to be on the winning side, so is it not time we did that?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Member’s interventions are always at the cutting edge, and he was spot on there. It is not just about the funding. As he says, with warfare changing so fast, we need to prioritise capability.
Put simply, the defence investment plan must be genuinely transformative, so it is incredibly worrying that, once he finally got to see the defence investment plan, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces resigned not long afterwards, stating that the plan was
“not built for the threat we face.”
This country led the way in supplying Ukraine with cutting-edge drone tech produced by UK small and medium-sized enterprises. I cannot emphasise enough that we were a leader.
When we consider the progress we were making in supplying drones that were so effective on the battlefront in the spring of 2024 and in bringing forward extraordinary counter-drone capability such as DragonFire, it was another strategic blunder by Labour to put procurement on hold while we waited for the strategic defence review, and now while we are still waiting for the defence investment plan. With war changing so fast, we cannot afford to waste two years paralysing procurement.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking about the future of warfare, and this issue was very much raised when we attended Space-Comm earlier this year: how the delay in the DIP is affecting our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does he agree that this is an important point, and that the Government should set a space strategy, as the previous Government did in 2022?
James Cartlidge
That is exactly why we have announced a policy of a sovereign defence fund, with £2 billion extra per year for drones, AI and tech, alongside £11 billion, as I have said, from the National Wealth Fund—repurposed from net zero to defence—to fund our sovereign industrial base, so that it can scale up and meet the level of output we will require to be war-ready.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised air defence. Does he regret the cuts made to air defence under the last Government, when funding for defence reduced so dramatically, and does he welcome the investment this Government are making in air defence, learning the lessons we are now seeing in Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about. What investment in air defence? We procured Rapid Sentry. What does he think is being used on our bases in the middle east right now to defeat drones? It is the stuff we procured when we were in government. Who procured DragonFire laser? I did, and it is going to be the most cutting-edge air defence. I procured the radio frequency directed-energy weapon, which could also be incredibly cutting edge in frying—literally frying—entire swarms of drones. This is where we need to be at the cutting edge. We invested in it; this Government specialise in dither and delay.
As important as drones and tech are, our most important capability remains the people who serve. While it is critical that the Government rapidly embrace the uncrewed revolution right across our armed forces, we must also back our people. That is why, when we were in government, we increased pay for junior ranks by 9.7% in 2023, and I took the decision to buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes when I was a Minister.
On housing, I want to ask Ministers a very important question that they did not answer yesterday. Until very recently, they have consistently repeated a pledge to invest £9 billion in military accommodation over the next 10 years. With rumours that this funding will be cut, as reported in the press, yesterday the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked if this commitment stood. Will the Minister say in her speech whether that is the case—yes or no?
In Armed Forces Week, I must of course pay tribute to those who serve in our reserves. Back in 2023, we also increased the bounty for reserves personnel by 5.8%, and with the threats we face, I believe we must continue to strengthen our reserves.
Finally, we agree wholeheartedly with what the previous Minister for the Armed Forces said in his resignation statement about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. He said that
“the IRA failed to achieve its political ends through the use of terrorist tactics, and we must be exceptionally careful that we do not help them achieve those ends through other means.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 733.]
Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State for Defence—a veteran of Operation Banner himself—agrees that, whoever is the next Prime Minister, a top priority must be to scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and back our veterans?
To conclude, assuming that the right hon. Member for Makerfield becomes Prime Minister in the coming weeks, he will have many items in his in-tray, but the first duty of any Government is defence of the realm. Given that Labour’s own Secretary of State for Defence until a few days ago resigned, saying that Labour’s defence investment plan would make the country “less safe”, it must be obvious that this is the top item for the new Prime Minister’s attention. If the new Prime Minister is to succeed, the quantum of cash on the table will need to be far more substantial, given the threats we face, and that means finding the money without increasing our national debt or taxes. Instead, to make our country stronger and more resilient, we are offering to work in the national interest to cut welfare and fund defence.
In Armed Forces Week, we all agree that the men and women who serve our country are second to none, so I ask Ministers again: are they prepared to work together with us to find the cash to fund defence, so that we can give our brave personnel the tools to do the job and keep this country safe?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“looks forward to the publication of the Government’s Defence Investment Plan; recognises the Government’s commitment to providing the resources the UK’s military needs; welcomes that the Government has provided the biggest uplift to defence spending since the Cold War; supports the Prime Minister’s commitment to hitting 2.6% of GDP on defence spending in 2027, and 3.5% by 2035; further recognises that taking such decisions is never easy and will mean significant reallocations of funding from across Government departments because strong public finances are also part of what keeps the UK safe; endorses investment in the capabilities that the UK’s armed forces need, after they were hollowed out by the previous Government; and further endorses the signing of more than 1,400 contracts since July 2024, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies.”
On 5 May 2013, I joined the British Army as Officer Cadet Jones, joining the mighty 29 Platoon Alamein Company at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I was joining an Army with a full-time strength of just under 100,000 personnel. Operation Herrick in Afghanistan was still ongoing, although soon to draw to a close, and ISIS was on the offensive. It had been several years since the invasion of Georgia by Russia, but perhaps that would prove to be a one-off. The Army’s main platforms—apart from those procured for Afghanistan, such as the light role Foxhound—were Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT, the combat vehicle reconnaissance tracked. Those were all ageing platforms, including some bought before I was born.
In 2015, now Lieutenant Jones, I was posted to Germany, serving with the indomitable 44 MFMI Company. I was now part of an Army of a strength of just 82,000. Operation Shader had been launched to counter ISIS to great effect. Herrick had ended and been replaced by the more limited Operation Toral. I was attached to the 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade, which was still made up of Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT.
Crucially, by then Russia had launched its first operation in its evil assault on Ukraine and had annexed Crimea in 2014. It was clear then what Russia’s ambitions were, and its tactics of little green men showed that warfare was already changing. Most importantly, this clearly showed that, once again, war was on the doorstep of Europe. How useful, hon. Members may think, to have an armoured infantry brigade based in Germany, with a railhead connecting to the whole network of Europe, and able to move armour quickly and at short notice, as a sign of our commitment to defence. Alas, however, the decision had been made in Westminster, and I watched as, instead of readying for the new threat, our bases closed down around me and our troops moved back to the UK.
When, as Captain Jones, I left in 2020, troop numbers had dropped to the mid-70,000s. The main Army platforms were still the same as when I had joined, but troop numbers were down, morale was down and our footprint was down.
Alex Ballinger
I recognise similar circumstances at that time when I served, which was for a shorter period than my hon. Friend, but does she recognise the massive impact on morale of the successive real-terms pay cuts that the Conservatives gave our brave armed forces during that period?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I do recognise it, and also the wider impacts of the state of the housing that I, like my hon. Friend, had to live in. I also recognise the relentless pressure on our fantastic people, who were being asked to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road—a story that was repeated across many of our public services.
Paul Holmes
The Minister mentions the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrongly, but she seems to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her that that was because of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape we faced at the time and that our allies were doing the same? At the time, the Labour Opposition did not oppose it and did not criticise it. Is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an observation?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am criticising the decision makers for that decision and, on reflection, I think that others would agree with me.
All of this occurred under Conservative Prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a Conservative Government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
We have talked about the changes after 2014. Might we also look back to what was referenced earlier, under the 2010 coalition Government, where the blame seemed to very suddenly shift to the Liberal Democrats? It was a joint decision to delay what was happening with our submarines. I will take no arguments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), because it was his party that helped to damage Barrow-in-Furness. If they had not, with Conservative Members under the coalition Government, made the commitment to pause, we would have our boats in the water now and our submariners would not be spending 200 days at sea.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those who were responsible for the defence of this country and the decisions they made.
Dr Murrison
I am fascinated by the Minister’s remarks about the withdrawal of troops after the cold war, many of them to Salisbury plain in and around my constituency where they continued to train for current operations. Is she seriously saying that she would recreate the British Army of the Rhine? Is that Government policy—for this Government, or for the Government to come? If so, how is she going to fund it?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s trying to conjure up me saying something that I have not said—I do appreciate that. He will be aware that I was talking about decisions made in the mid-2010s and I am critical of those decisions. He will also know that being able to undo something is not the same as never having done it. I hope he will appreciate that I am sincere in what I am saying there.
The Conservative Government attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement, short-sighted cuts, shameful negligence and refusal to adapt to new threats, and members of the current shadow team played key roles in that record of failure.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I, too, served with 20th Armoured Brigade and was deployed in operations from Germany over to the Balkans. She talks about mismanagement. She is in a position where, unless more funding comes forward, the Government are about to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the second world war. How does she square that circle?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am proud of what we have already achieved in government on defence. We have raised defence spending, despite the record of previous Governments. I am in a position to argue every day for our armed forces to get what they need to have, and I will continue to do so.
The Labour Government were elected in places such as Aldershot, Portsmouth and Plymouth to fix the Conservatives’ mess, and we have begun to do so. Recruitment is up, retention is up and morale is up. Personnel have received three above-inflation pay rises, and there has been real action to improve housing, enabling our armed forces to focus on national security.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am going to make some progress.
RAF pilots recently flew over 3,000 hours of defensive missions, intercepting drones and missiles to protect our people and our allies in the middle east. The ground-based air defence crews protected UK and allied bases under fire, shooting down more than 100 drones. Our Royal Navy and Royal Marines expertly intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel, and they work around the clock to protect our underwater infrastructure.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am going to make a little bit of progress. I think I have been quite generous.
From the High North to the far east, as our world becomes more dangerous, demands on defence grow. As usual, our armed forces are responding with incredible professionalism and effect. Our forces continue to deliver vast amounts of military equipment to Ukraine, including our largest ever numbers of drones, and they are ready to lead the multinational force to bolster Ukraine’s defences in the event of a ceasefire. In the middle east, we have HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay deployed, along with autonomous mine-hunting equipment, to play our part in a multinational mission to secure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz and bring down prices for families across the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Minister for giving way. If everything is so great, why has Lord Robertson described the Government’s situation as one of “corrosive complacency”?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am proud of the record we have achieved so far in Government. I think we all recognise that there is more to do and we are working hard to do that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is giving a really passionate speech and talking about her personal experience of being in the armed forces. It is important that the Conservative party hear again the figures she quoted in respect of the number of armed forces personnel at the start of her time in the forces and the number at the time she left, and the difference in the amount of officers. Will she also talk about what the Labour Government are doing to support our armed forces personnel and to increase morale, which is hugely important?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the importance of our armed forces personnel. I am very proud to be able to point to the improvements we have made in recruitment, retention and morale, which show that we are being effective in delivering for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.
The motion before us may claim otherwise, but the facts are that the work being done by our armed forces on multiple deployments speaks for itself. Every hour of every day, our armed forces are out there across the world serving their country, serving UK interests, and protecting our freedoms and prosperity. It is business as usual for them, and it is business as usual across defence.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister talks up the effect that our armed forces deliver in various different theatres, but they are doing so on a shoestring. While the DIP is delayed, apprentices will not start this August in Scotland or this September in England. Investment by primes will not happen this financial year because of the delayed DIP. More important than that, our allies look at the United Kingdom and see an investment plan that does not exist and a Government in disarray. More important than that, those who would seek to do us harm look at the UK now and see a country that either does not know how to, or cannot afford to, defend itself. Is she proud of that legacy?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is on the hon. Gentleman as well. He has questions to ask about his party’s support for defence—for example on its refusal to fund the welding school that would have brought us vital skills.
The Defence Secretary is working through the DIP line by line, so that our personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear that he will get the DIP right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I think I have been generous. I am going to keep going—thank you.
Unlike the suggestion in today’s motion, the DIP has not halted this Government’s investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces. Since the election, we have signed over 1,400 major defence contracts, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies as we deliver on our commitment to back British.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I have given way enough times; I will keep going.
The Opposition want to use the wider situation in Westminster for political grandstanding—it is all they can do and it is all they know how to do—but we are rebuilding our armed forces for our age of big data, AI and autonomy, and have reclaimed our position on the world stage. We have committed to an uplift in defence spending. We have delivered the biggest export deals for decades and fuelled defence as an engine for growth, benefiting communities across the UK. That is a record to be proud of, and one that we will build on as we build warfighting readiness.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will keep going. Rather than debate the issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government from the party that gave us five different Prime Ministers and five different Defence Secretaries in 10 years—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.
Louise Sandher-Jones
We have a plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030 from a party whose manifesto committed to spending just 2.5% by that date, and calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a former Government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted, underfitted and unsuited. They left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes delayed or over budget.
It is a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland, from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful—it protected nobody. We have had many debates on the issue that the Government are reflecting on. I have set out my position many times, and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress the Bill in due course. As I have said before, I am mindful of the responsibility to get it right.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that matter?
Louise Sandher-Jones
No, I am going to finish. Armed Forces Week is a moment to give thanks. But the best thanks a Government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these Benches, but our full backing. There are more officer-cadets, lieutenants, and Captain Joneses serving today—we are a big family. I say to them that the Conservative Government failed me; this Labour Government will deliver for them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week, and as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it has been the honour of a lifetime to be a member for the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to get to know friends and colleagues across the House on that programme. There is truly no better way to understand the challenges and opportunities of our armed forces than through participating in that scheme. I encourage all Members to consider it.
In that spirit, I also encourage Members to engage with the defence showcase currently being held in Speaker’s Court. I had the privilege to speak to the bomb disposal unit based in Aldershot today, who do incredible work in hugely dangerous circumstances.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment because Britain needs a serious defence policy for a dangerous age. That sentiment is shared across this House, even if we sometimes disagree about how to get there. I will be clear about our position on the Conservative motion, because parts of it identify genuine and real problems. Britain does, undoubtedly, need to restore its military capability. Recruitment, retention and morale must be rebuilt. Service personnel and veterans deserve dignity, from suitable housing to mental health support.
Recognising a problem, however, is different from offering a credible solution. We cannot support a motion that asks this House to forget—or at least fail to properly acknowledge—who hollowed out our armed forces in the first place. The motion talks of rebuilding the Army, after the Conservatives cut troops by 10,000. It proposes to pay for new commitments by punishing struggling families and targeting the two-child benefit cap, sacrificing human security for strategic security without doing the hard work to genuinely move people into the workplace.
The motion fails to meet the central strategic reality facing Britain: Europe is rearming, the United States is less reliable than it once was, and Britain must be at the heart of European defence co-operation.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that—not many people do! I remind him that his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches also marched through the Lobby and made the savings in the armed forces budget when they were in Government. His party policy is £20 billion of so-called defence bonds. Can the hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he would intend to fund that—it is borrowing, is it not? Would that not make the economic situation in this country a whole lot worse at this troubling time?
Dr Pinkerton
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) acknowledged, parties across this House sought to leverage too much from the so-called peace dividend. While my hon. Friend and I have acknowledged that, will the hon. Member’s party do the same? On the question of defence investment bonds, it is about engaging the wider public and private finance institutions in common participation and the recognition that we need to invest more in defence. It is borrowing, but it is money that can be injected into the defence economy instantaneously, whereas the proposals from the official Opposition will take years to filter through, because cuts to welfare are not instant.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful that the hon. Member is entering into the semi-consensual spirit that we have seen from some. I recognised in my speech that spending had fallen under successive Governments. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), it is important to point out that the Lib Dem position is to raise £20 billion extra through war bonds, but that is not their only policy; their other policy is for international aid to rise to 0.7%. Where is the money going to come from for that? Is it aid bonds, or other borrowing—how will they fund that massive black hole?
Dr Pinkerton
I do not believe that there is a black hole, because international aid is not a zero-sum game. We cannot have defence and security in the modern world unless we are tackling the very challenges that drive contemporary conflict at source. International aid is a fundamental part—
James Cartlidge
The money is not free—where is the money going to come from?
Dr Pinkerton
The money is there. If we do not spend it up front, we end up spending it further down the line in not only treasure but blood.
Dr Pinkerton
I am going to make some progress.
The Liberal Democrat amendment recognises the reality that I have outlined on Europe, the United States, and Britain’s role at the heart of European defence. It speaks of the scale of the threat, the urgency of investment, and the need for deeper, pragmatic co-operation with European allies. The threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since the end of the cold war.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Defence Committee has just come back from Norway. It worries me that some defence programmes may be withdrawn in the DIP. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence programmes set out in the defence investment plan are important for not only our national security but maintaining and deepening the UK’s relationships with our allies and partners?
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend has asked me to speculate on elements of the DIP that I have not seen; he has the privilege of the insights he has gained from his recent visit. I simply point out that investment in the kind of structures and networks that he talks about pays multiple dividends in defence co-operation and long-standing and sustainable defence diplomacy. At a time when the threats facing the United Kingdom are the greatest since they have been since the end of the cold war, that is particularly important.
Vladimir Putin continues his brutal invasion of Ukraine, while expanding hybrid war, sabotage and disinformation across the United Kingdom and Europe. At the same time, Donald Trump’s wavering commitment to European security casts doubt on NATO’s collective defence. That is the world in which this debate takes place: one that is more fragmented and unstable, and in which Britain cannot afford delay, drift or self-deception.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
So far, the debate has been about how much funding should be found for defence. We should also think about the resignation speech by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who said last week that the DIP, which he has seen, does not strike the right balance between high-end sophistication and low-end mass. He said that
“the defence investment plan does not strike that balance”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 732.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the balance between sophistication and mass?
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend speaks from a position of authority from his personal experience and his role in Committees in this House. I defer, as always, to his superior insights on the matter, and would not differ on anything he has suggested.
Britain’s European allies share our values and commitment to collective defence. We cannot be a spectator while Europe rebuilds its defences; instead, we should shape and lead that effort.
On the Conservatives’ watch, our Army fell to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, while the Navy’s surface fleet fell to its smallest size since the English civil war. We saw crises of recruitment, retention and morale and a failure to look after our service personnel and veterans properly, with shoddy housing and one of the worst privatisation deals in British political history.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, I know that women make up only 11% of the regular forces. We cannot talk about defence readiness while failing to recruit and retain half the population. Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence investment plan must include a concrete plan to reach the women in defence charter’s 30% target by 2030?
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend puts her finger on an incredibly important point that is intrinsic to the publication of the DIP. We should never ignore the experiences of women in our armed forces, who perform brave service every day.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I want to turn to legacy. Our motion calls on the Government to drop the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which the Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, voted against on Second Reading. That Bill has now famously been described by the outgoing Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), as “unfit for purpose”. Is the hon. Gentleman’s party, like us, still opposed to the Bill, and does that also apply to his colleagues in the House of Lords?
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and, if I may say so, my friend; he has supported me in debates in the past—for his intervention. We are opposed to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which delivers neither justice for victims nor protection for veterans. I will talk a little more about that as I conclude my speech—in fact, I will move on now to talk about the issue of legacy.
Dr Pinkerton
The right hon. Gentleman clearly knew exactly the structure that I would adopt today.
This is where the consensus briefly ends. I contend that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike. It removed legal avenues for justice, eroded public trust and, through its conditional amnesty, established a shameful equivalence between British service personnel and members of the IRA. Key provisions were found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, which matters because a country that asks its armed forces to serve with honour must legislate with honour, too. The ECHR is too often characterised as a threat to those who serve, but in truth it helps to protect service personnel, families and veterans who seek accountability when the state has failed in its duty, and withdrawing from it would remove a vital safeguard and route to justice for victims and families, such as those in the Snatch Land Rover case.
This is where the consensus returns. The Liberal Democrats are firmly on the side of veterans, which is why we voted against the carry-over motion for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. As drafted, the Bill lacks the safeguards that veterans deserve, including protection against repeated investigations without genuinely new evidence. The Government’s Bill should be human rights compliant and rooted in transparency and independent oversight, upholding victim’s rights while importantly ensuring that no process is used to discredit those who serve with honour and integrity.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given what he is saying about Northern Ireland, would he support a private Member’s Bill that would set out in law that there should be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, new and compelling evidence has come to light? If so, I can only recommend that he come to the Chamber on 4 September, when my Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill will have its Second Reading.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my near neighbour and friend—for his intervention. The private Member’s Bill that he describes sounds entirely consistent with the argument that I am making today. I shall take the opportunity to study the precise wording of the Bill before fully committing to it, but it certainly sounds consistent with my argument today, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and I have engaged extensively with veterans associations. The amendments we will propose reflect their concerns by calling for enhanced oversight and the protection of veterans’ rights.
At a time of acute threat, our military needs urgent restoration, but Labour has previously moved too slowly to undo the damage. The delay to the defence investment plan has created uncertainty for our armed forces, our industry and our allies. I note that His Majesty’s Opposition failed yesterday to back our new clause 22 to the Armed Forces Bill, which would have required a report into the damage done to British business by the delay to the DIP. That was a missed opportunity.
Luke Akehurst
As he comes to his conclusion, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity to express his specific regret for the role that the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition Government in slowing down the nuclear continuous at-sea deterrent programme; indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it with Biggles-type aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers, which would have put us in a very dangerous position. As it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it, and one of the reasons why there is such difficulty in the MOD budget now is that we are catching up on that essential spending on the continuous at-sea deterrent.
Dr Pinkerton
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I in my role as spokesperson today have acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the past. Frankly, I think that those mistakes need to be shared across the House, because they are shared across this House.
Defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized businesses have told me plainly that investment decisions are being delayed, expansion is on hold and contracts are being lost overseas. Ministers must publish the defence investment plan immediately to reassure partners and provide a road map for regenerating our armed forces after years of mismanagement.
At a time when Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—to our armed forces, to industry, to our allies and, most dangerously, to our adversaries. The resignations of the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister were a clarion warning from those who have scrutinised the numbers that they were left wanting.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The Liberal Democrats are famously known for their love of bicycling. Does he agree that it would be a good idea for the Government to drop their plan to spend £4.5 billion over five years on creating cycleways and rededicate that money to defence?
Dr Pinkerton
The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. The United Kingdom is a modern 21st-century European nation. I had a very pleasant cycle to and from Fulham this morning on a Lime bike using our cycleways. Frankly, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other—I am perfectly happy for the Government to spend money on both cycleways and defence. It is a very strange equivalence that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not in his place today, which is disappointing and shows a failure to engage with issues affecting our armed forces and defence. I would implore him to urge the Treasury to unlock the funding that we need as urgently as possible.
Strength in this moment will be measured by investment, industrial renewal and the courage to deepen defence relationships with our European allies. That is why our amendment calls for the defence investment plan to be published urgently, alongside a plan to issue £20 billion of defence bonds, which would help to rebuild our armed forces, unlock investments, strengthen our industrial base and give Britain’s businesses the confidence that they need to expand and hire. However, the investment cannot stop there. The Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest and convene cross-party talks in the spirit of collaboration across this House, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has talked about today—only then can we have responsible and sustainable defence spending.
Britain must lead, and Britain must lead in Europe. Our European allies share our values, our geography and our commitment to collective defence. They are partners with whom we share intelligence, defend our sea lanes, protect our skies, secure our infrastructure and confront the same threats. Britain should now be leading European defence. That is why we have proposed a growth and defence partnership with the European Union. This is not about building an alternative to NATO, but ensuring that Europe carries more of the burden of collective defence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are eager for me to conclude, so I will. We must never forget the people who serve our nation in our armed forces. The Government were right to accept the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that the decent homes standard be applied to service family accommodation, but it must now be extended to single living accommodation, too.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that Britain needs the defence investment plan to be published now. Defence spending must reach 3% of GDP by 2030. A £20 billion defence bonds programme should rebuild capability and industry, and could do so quickly. Northern Ireland needs a fair, lawful and trusted legacy framework, including protections for our UK veterans, who served with honour. Our armed forces deserve the highest standards, so the decent homes standard must be extended to single living accommodation. Britain needs a new growth and defence partnership with Europe that places us at the heart of defence co-operation.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is both gracious with his time and entertaining to listen to. I thank him for that.
I begin by thanking all armed forces personnel who are protecting our country at the moment. Importantly, this debate is taking place in Armed Forces Week; I give credit to the Opposition—this once at least—for bringing forward this debate today, though I am not sure that we have quite reached the level of consensus across the House that we might hope for on defence.
Mr Francois
Perhaps we can achieve some consensus on this: yet again, we are debating defence, our armed forces, and the people who keep us safe, but the plastic patriots of Reform cannot be bothered to turn up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who wrap themselves in the flag should at least turn up to debate the future of the people whose job it is to defend it?
Graeme Downie
I was slightly concerned that I was going to have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage, but I absolutely agree with him. Any politician who wraps themselves in a flag, without there being any substance to their reason for doing so, is not worthy of leading any constituency or party—and certainly not any country.
As I have mentioned previously in the House, I grew up in Berlin from 1987 to 1990, and I was there when the Berlin wall came down. That gives me an unusual insight for someone of my age. I grew up hearing Russian artillery one mile away, and seeing Russian helicopters testing and firing. I was there when Rudolf Hess died, and I saw the various security measures in place. That makes me unusual among people who are my age or younger, most of whom have not seen what a cold war threat is. Most have been used to a safe world, and have not seen the necessity of increased defence spending, unless they have a member of the armed forces in their family, or have served in the armed forces themselves. The majority of people in this country who are my age or younger do not know what a threat from Russia, or indeed any other country, looks like.
I have said before that I believe that the UK is already in a conflict with Russia. Not only that, but we are a frontline nation and should always consider ourselves as such, whether we are talking about our RAF jets taking off from Lossiemouth or Coningsby to defend our airspace, or our Royal Navy ships and Royal Air Force aircraft in the High North protecting our subsea cables from Russian threats. This country is in conflict with Russia, and Russia considers itself to be in conflict with us. We must always respond accordingly. The attacks extend into cyber-space. Every day we see thousands of attacks, whether on private businesses or on our defence and energy infrastructure. The threats are there. We also see misinformation peddled online that seeks to undermine our democracy. This country is in conflict with Russia. In order to respond effectively to that, the public need to understand the direct implications for them. They must recognise that a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover has consequences for our economy. A cyber-attack on Marks & Spencer has consequences for people’s ability to buy a jumper, and for the staff working there as well, but these attacks also have a direct impact on our economy and society every single day.
It is always slightly daunting to be in the Chamber for debates like these—there are Members present who have served in the military, and who know far more than I do—but I believe that there is a conversation that we must have across this House. We must, wherever possible, draw lines between the threats that we face, and the detailed military programmes that we talk about, and what they mean for the day-to-day lives of people in this country. Otherwise, those people will not grant any Government the licence to increase defence spending and capability in the way that Members from across this House want.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman always speaks on defence matters. He has a unique passion for them, which I very much respect and admire, as a result of his upbringing near the Berlin wall. It has just been reported by the BBC that No. 10 has said that no new major policy or spending decisions will be made until the new Prime Minister has been appointed. If that is the case, how can the defence investment plan be delivered before the NATO summit? Does he agree that that question now has to be answered?
Graeme Downie
That is not something I want to be drawn on in the Chamber. I have not seen the news report, and I believe that the answer to that question would have to come from the Government.
As well as making sure that we are speaking to the public about the things that matter to them, we must broaden out the conversation. When we talk about national security and defence readiness, we are not only referring to Ministry of Defence budgets; we should also be talking about what it means for energy security, food security and everything else that makes our country safe—from economic security to delivering the skills and apprenticeships that we need for the future. We must engage the public on why this subject matters to them. If we say that we must spend more on protecting our North sea or national grid infrastructure, we must also say that if we do not, it will put up household energy bills by even more and cause blackouts—those are the consequences. When it comes to, say, energy infrastructure, we must always be clear that some things cost money. If we want a more energy-secure, resilient nation, people will be asked to pay more, in one way or another. That is the nature of defending our nation properly and effectively.
I am very proud of the steps that this Government have taken to prepare our armed forces for the future, having been left a hollowed-out armed forces when they took over. The Conservatives have talked about parties across the House not spending on defence since the end of the cold war, and to a point I agree with what they are saying, but the threats were there in 2014 and beyond, and there was no mass drive from any party in government to increase in defence spending. The warning signs were there already. It is this Government who have had to pick up the mantle, move forward and make the kind of changes that we need. We have awarded 1,400 major defence contracts since July 2024. In Scotland, we have a £10 billion frigate deal with Norway that will secure jobs on the Clyde. We have been pressing for the £8 billion Typhoon deal with Turkey, and for the upgrading of Typhoon jets.
We must look after our people as well, so I am very proud that this Government are updating recruitment policies, and making sure that we have better recruitment and retention. As the Minister mentioned, recruitment is up and pay is increasing. We are turning around the decade of decline under the Conservatives; there has been a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024—the largest on record—and new recruits are receiving a pay boost of 35%.
Jim Shannon
I see the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), in his place. We need to ensure that our veterans are looked after. Many have mental health issues, and I regularly come across people who are affected by what they have seen during their service. It has affected them physically, emotionally and mentally. When it comes to the spend that is necessary, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a commitment to ensuring that those veterans who have served and are suffering are looked after?
Graeme Downie
The hon. Gentleman always picks out the issues that really matter to our people. The Ministry of Defence’s Op Courage does exactly the kind of work that he is talking about. I am sure that Members from across the House see correspondence on that in their constituency mailbag all the time. We must make sure that we are properly protecting our veterans. Not only is it important because of our responsibility to them, but it is how we ensure that we have effective recruitment and retention in the future. We must be a nation that looks after our serving soldiers.
I have mentioned that I believe we are already in a conflict with Russia. I praise the focus of, and work done by, the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), on the joint expeditionary force in the High North. We are a frontline nation, and our frontline is in the North sea—the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. We need to tackle the threats we face there. We have a partnership with Norway on the Type 26 frigates; that is exactly the type of capability that we must focus on, as well as focusing on the other work done with joint expeditionary force nations.
I want to ensure that the debate about defence in the House, and about budgets, does not become focused solely on a number. We must not think that just because we have hit a particular number by a particular date, our country is safe. It is not. The country is safe when we have the right capabilities in each domain to fight against the threats that we face, be it in the air, on land, at sea, in cyber-space or in any other domain. In our discussions, we must focus on capability. If we have the correct capabilities to defend our nation, we will have spent the amount of money we should spend to defend our nation. I believe that amount is higher than what we are spending at the moment, but the discussion must stay on capability, and should not be about spending money for its own sake. The Government are doing a good job on defence procurement, and on turning issues over to ensure that is not the case, but I urge hon. Members from across the House to please keep that point in mind when we discuss defence spending.
When it comes to defence spending, I hope that we will continue to focus on consensus, where possible, and protecting our nation. I end by again thanking those serving in the armed forces, and all those veterans who served in the past.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who was speaking a great deal of sense? He mentioned the threat that we face in the High North. He might be interested to know that the Defence Committee was in Norway last week. We went up to the Arctic circle, to the Combined Air Operations Centre at Bodø, where we were told an extraordinary story. When the forces there were doing a security exercise, they put a baddie on the roof of a sangar near the air base’s gate, and took a dog round to find the baddie. The dog did not want to know about the bloke they had put on the roof of the sangar; he would not stop indicating an issue with the sangar itself. He kept on indicating, “There’s something there.” They thought, “Oh blimey, we’d better go and get the keys.” They got the keys and found a Chinese spy, who had been in there for a week. He was arrested and is doing time in prison in Norway—pre-trial, I believe, on remand. That brings home exactly what the hon. Member said: we are talking about real threats and real enemies, and in that case, they were are literally at the gate.
I joined the Army in 1986, and it generously paid for me to go to university to study theology and philosophy—that was very broad-minded of it at the time. I went back to Sandhurst to confirm my commission in 1989. That was a significant moment. I was on college guard, polishing my boots, as I watched the Berlin wall fall. I did not really understand that the geopolitical glue that had helped keep the world safe for the last 40 years was coming unstuck, or what the implications might be for Officer Cadet Jopp, but the implications were certainly there. Those bonds, which had kept the cold war in stasis, did indeed start to melt, and that meant that I had a very busy military career.
I went to war when the Conservatives were in power, and when Labour was in power. I have had poor equipment. Both sides of the House have been responsible for part of what happened following 1989, as we started to manage decline. Do not get me wrong: I am so proud of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those I led. I buried men from my regiment, and I try not to forget to always pay tribute to them and what they did; it enabled me to stand here and be their voice today. Essentially, from the end of the cold war, successive Governments started to take risks. This ticking time bomb has been passed on from Government to Government. Bad luck, Labour: it has gone off on this Government’s watch; that is the fact of it. Essentially, a very big lie has been told to the British public; they have been told that we can have the defence we want at the price that we are prepared to pay for it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he recall that at the end of the cold war a paper was written by Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History?”? Does he agree that on the basis of that, everybody believed somehow that no longer would there be war, no longer would there be pressure and no longer would we need armed forces? That was such a mistake, as has been documented, which has affected everything since.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend and fellow Scots Guardsman makes a good point. The zeitgeist throughout that period of time was to say, “Look, wars are a thing of the past. We can take risk against defence.” That risk has rarely crystallised, so people have been tempted to take more and more risk.
We have also seen it in the hypothecation of defence spending. I get an Army pension, which contributes to the 2% of GDP being spent on defence. The last time I checked—despite the Minister for the Armed Forces having threatened to mobilise me more than once—my pension was not making a huge contribution to our ability to face down a resurgent Russia.
Everyone was taking risk and passing on that risk to one another. Now, I am afraid, that risk has crystallised in that we do face real enemies, and those enemies are very close. We do have to rearm—I should declare an interest as a founder of the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament—but unfortunately our record on that is not great. The numbers were run the other day and of the 32 NATO members recorded we came 31st for rearmament. The only trouble is, in 32nd is Iceland, which does not have any armed forces. That is not a great record for going over to Europe and trying to convince our European and NATO allies that we are pulling our weight.
One or two other things happened in that period of time. First, the MOD got pretty bloated, in particular in procurement. It is deeply unhelpful that we are now on our third Procurement Minister in less than 22 months, which makes it look like we are not taking it seriously. Equally, it shows no consistency in the building of approach. When the Government came in, they appointed the national armaments director, who will be the second-highest paid civil servant in the country. I hope that he is a massive success. I tried to set up the national armaments director up for success before his appointment by asking two Procurement Ministers whether the director would be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement. One of them said not only would he be given the ability to tear up the book but that they would hold him to account for doing so. I said, “The last thing anyone on the Defence Committee wants is for the national armaments director to come in front of us, after being in post a year, to say, ‘Well, we did want to change things, but I wasn’t really allowed to.’” The way is set fair: the national armaments director can rip up that book.
When the Defence Committee went to Ukraine last year, we were briefed on its procurement structure, which is extraordinary. Ukraine has put together an Amazon-like marketplace with 1,700 sovereign Ukrainian defence companies as suppliers and the customers being the fighting brigades, who simply write a requirement for a new bit of kit. For example, let us say that the Russians have got a new screen so the brigades cannot fly their fibre optically guided munition right into the Russians’ command post and have it blow up on the general’s desk. The brigade simply writes up that requirement, saying “I need a pre-charge of some sort to burst through that screen so I can fly my fibre optic guided missile in and get the baddies.” That gets put out to industry, which churns the problem; the record, from flash to bang—from requirement to kit delivery—is five days. That is what can be achieved.
Hon. Members must look at what is being bypassed to achieve that level of agility: the whole of the military chain of command above brigade level, bypassed; the Ministry of Defence, bypassed; the Treasury, bypassed; and equally, all the regulators, bypassed. That should give the national armaments director a sense of where we have to go to generate the relevance.
I think I heard the Armed Forces Minister—I cannot remember whether it was the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) or the current one—say the other day that it is rather tricky buying drones, because as soon as we have them they go out of date, so we will not buy any. That is pretty defeatist. We should redo the way in which we are thinking about things so that our land forces in Estonia have drones.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
On my comments on drones, there is a requirement to bring drones into the system so that training tactics, procedures, doctrine and concepts can be taught. The point was about drones going out of date within six weeks. The innovation the hon. Gentleman just talked about was changing so fast that if we were to buy en masse, the drones would be out of date over time. The right context is that there is a requirement to teach and train our armed forces to interoperate with drones.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the former Minister for his intervention. There is a huge challenge to us, in that we have to turn our ploughshares into swords rather than the other way round. We need industry that is sufficiently flexible to flick the switch and turn the lawn mower factory into the drone factory in double-quick time.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. For many people this would have been an obscure argument some years ago, but I genuinely think that how we procure drones is one of the most critical questions for the country. Does he agree that we need to think about SMEs as mission partners and that rather than thinking about the hardware, we effectively buy a service—a learning—from them? That way, the thing we buy is not the capability but the cultural change towards constant iteration, which is how we survive in a war such as the one we see in Ukraine.
Lincoln Jopp
The other group that has been bypassed, and which I did not mention, is the 18 prime contractors. This is direct to the SMEs. I am afraid that the model that we have developed since the end of the cold war has seen the 18 primes getting rich off defence pounds and SMEs getting legged over. The national armaments director should look seriously at the way in which that is done, in order to capture the innovative nature of SMEs that are doing some wonderful stuff. Ironically, they are not selling that to the MOD; it is all going overseas.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar about showing honesty about the threat, I agree that we must be very clear about the threat and express it outside this place at every opportunity. The Prime Minister of Norway talks about defence about once a week in all his radio and television interviews. We met Norway’s joint forces commander, and even he goes on once a week and talks about the threat. Okay, Norway is nearer Russia, and it has a small land border and a very large sea border with Russia. The strategic defence review mentioned starting a national conversation; it seems to be a conversation of one line. If we are to get the investment that defence needs, we need to talk much more openly.
One other thing that happened during the cold war, I am afraid, is that the MOD became much more secretive. The Defence Committee always used to get things such as the major projects review and the equipment plan to see how the pounds were being spent. We do not get those any more. Similarly, James Heappey came to give evidence to the Committee on the Afghan data breach, but he got quite lyrical and started to say that he felt uneasy that, as Minister for the Armed Forces, he was getting lots of documents that said, “You can’t tell Parliament this” and “You can’t tell Parliament that”, because it was all highly classified. He claims that he wanted to be able to tell Parliament more but was constrained from so doing by the classification system. The Defence Committee used to do its own redaction. It used to get the full threat picture and was grown up enough to redact and not release secrets to the public. That would be a much healthier way of doing things as we go forward.
I turn finally to the moral component of fighting power. We have talked a lot about the physical component, and the moral is to the physical as three to one. We know that is true because Napoleon said it, and he was brilliant. I have had conversations with both former and current Ministers about the undermining of the moral component of fighting power with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. That is why, when I came tenth in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, I took the opportunity to attempt to put in law that there should be no further investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, there is new, compelling evidence.
The Bill comes to the House of Commons on 4 September and I very much hope that I can get cross-party support for it. I fear deeply for the stain on the moral component through the constant hounding of our veterans; indeed, I declare an interest as I spent three-and-a-half years of my life in uniform trying to bring peace to that place. I was not shot and blown up there but somewhere else. When the children of the schools in my constituency hear that I have been shot, they all look at me and say, “Where?” I always say, “On the roof of the Mammy Yoko hotel in Freetown.” [Laughter.]
The moral component must be reinforced; it does not need resourcing. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Defence was only prepared to accept the job because he had some deal over Northern Ireland veterans. I look forward to finding out whether that is indeed the case, because our veterans need protecting from those prosecutions.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I give my thanks and gratitude, alongside those of hon. and right hon. Members, to those who serve and have served. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about putting politics to one side, but everything is a political choice. Decisions are based on ideology, priorities and one’s belief of what is the right course of action. I accept that my contribution to the debate will be an isolated one, but it is based on my personal ideology, priorities and beliefs.
The bare minimum in any debate should be honesty. It is therefore important that, straight away, we address with honesty that any movement from the self-imposed strait jacket of the fiscal rules through an increase in defence spending will have to mean a cut to other areas. The Opposition has framed this debate specifically with welfare as the target. With that in mind, I will talk a little about welfare.
Just under a fortnight ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I organised an evidence-gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food UK Commission, which has toured the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. In Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations that provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others. Those organisations laid out the stark reality: the reason that people are in that situation is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation all the way through the Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards. And let us not forget the Liberal Democrats’ part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society—that of the in-work poor. In 2010, 30,000 people used food banks. More than 3 million people use food banks today.
It was not as if the Conservative Government of the day were investing in defence—quite the opposite. During those austerity years, the state gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut, until we were left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it; they will never escape poverty. Does no one here in this Chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage and a real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable but are all, in all honesty, so low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on?
For heaven’s sake, we are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of our children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality, and communities that have been asset-stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, let us acknowledge that all those things are killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending. It is about creating a healthy, well-educated nation and about people having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it is always about political choices and about priorities, and I make no apology for those being mine.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a tremendous privilege to take part in this debate. It has to be clear to us on both sides of the House that this is the most critical debate that we will be involved with. This is the most critical thing that we face but it often escapes our notice, and I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for centring on the very thing that is important. I say gently to those on the Government Benches that it is very easy to go around the whole time saying, “Well, of course, you did this and we didn’t.” The truth is, we can go right back and see how much previous Governments failed with regard to defence.
I was serving in the late 1970s when the Labour Government were in terrible difficulty. They were slashing the budgets, and military personnel from the captain and senior sergeant ranks were leaving the Army in droves. I remember having one depressed conversation after another—helped by a certain amount of Scottish water. [Laughter.]
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. [Laughter.]
In those conversations, we decided that there was clearly no future for us in the Army. Now, I did stay on a bit longer, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it is difficult to fill those posts. That is the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If we do not have a cadre of middle-ranking and senior non-commissioned officers, we do not have an Army. We just have a lot of orders from the top down but are unable to do them.
What we speak about today is critical, because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully and strongly and will support them in every way. That is why it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on these Benches, without question, not only for his past but for his present. I know what it is like to resign when you disagree with the Government—I have done it a few times myself—but the reality is that he will never regret it. The thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us or the debates that we have here and away; it is the people out there who put us here. If we do not plan to speak up, even when our own side does not want us to, we are not worthy of being in this place. I therefore congratulate him, not because I am in a party political game but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the Government face. All the Ministers on the Front Bench know that, as does he. The question is: what will we do about it?
I want to start by talking about Northern Ireland, and I shall be here on 4 September, cheering my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne on with his private Member’s Bill. We cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who have served—veterans who are now often in their late 70s and 80s—and who find themselves persecuted. I say to the Defence Ministers that this really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which was overly persuaded by Sinn Féin that they could somehow change what had happened and come out as victors. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak said in his resignation speech, they lost; they lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, and of all those who did not see another day and who died in the service of their country.
More importantly, we forget that walking down the streets in your own country armed and trying to protect civilians against aggression is quite different from anything else that the armed forces were trained to do. In doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. The trouble with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is that it does not deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do in risking their lives to protect the British public on the streets of the United Kingdom. We therefore have to understand that the legislation that the Government have brought forward is wrong. That does not mean to say that what the Conservative Government brought through was fantastic. It was not. There were many flaws and failings in it, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing: it stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to an end and who see themselves being dragged through the courts all over again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. I hope that we will be able to drag this point out again on 4 September and make it very clear that if we in this House do not stand by those whom we order to go to war or to bear arms for the sake of the country, who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away or to make them. I have disagreed with my own Government many times, but I say gently to this Government: think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through when Ministers know full well that it is wrong; they need to defend those soldiers, despite the rows that might take place in Cabinet or among Ministers.
Mr Francois
Does my right hon. Friend recall he and I and others having multiple meetings in the Northern Ireland Office when we were Back Benchers, going through the detail of the Bill—almost line by line on occasions—and trying to defend the interests of veterans, and bit by bit overcoming the resistance of civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office? Does he recall how difficult that was, and does he still believe, like me, that it was worth it?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do; it was difficult and we stuck to the task. We were not very popular at the time, but that has been a constant in my life. [Laughter.] I think you only know you are successful when you are not popular, and we were not popular on that. What we were trying to get was not perfect, but it was better than what we now have, and that is the key. At the heart of it was the aim of protecting those who have been sent, bearing arms, to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice they made.
Sir Julian Lewis
Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes, that is quite correct, and my right hon. Friend is exactly right to make the point now.
We really must understand that, if the first priority of Government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those they send to fight to protect the realm. If we cannot defend them, we are not worthy of being here. I say gently to Ministers that the House would support them if they went back to the Government and said about the Northern Ireland position, “This is quite wrong. It is unbalanced and deeply unfair.” I hope that they will do just that.
The real reason that I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. As I have been saying for some considerable time, we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in not since the cold war—at least we arrived at the cold war knowing what we had to do; Governments co-operated, NATO was fairly newly formed, we were full of the attitude that we would defend one another no matter what, and we were armed and ready—but since the 1930s. I am not in the business of saying that this Government are responsible; all Governments bear responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as it was in the 1930s.
My father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated fighter pilot, with five gallantry medals; he commanded in the war and fought all the way through. He said that he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlous situation of being close to losing the war because they did not see the danger and did not want to be involved in spending more on defence. That was the point he made, and it has resonated with me forever.
I happen to believe that we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre, but North Korea, Iran and Russia are there, and others, like Myanmar, are developing. More totalitarian states are coming to fruition around the world, and they now outnumber democratic states in the United Nations. The axis has shifted. Over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready—even today we are not—but we have simply failed to recognise that they have made themselves ready. One naval shipyard in China now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. I am told that China now has 130 times the capacity of America to build naval vessels. It is no good looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels any more either. The difference between now and what happened in 1937, 1938 and 1939 is that we then had major industry here—an industry that could build tanks and aircraft, had brilliant aircraft designers, and could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in that situation today.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. My father said that the biggest mistake in the late ’30s was that we had our head in the sand. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time—[Interruption.] Sorry. When the Labour Government left office in 2010, they were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. If we had kept spending that, £90 billion more would have been invested in defence by now. Does he accept that that is the case, and that what happened is a great shame?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
All these things are a great shame when we look back at the past, but no matter how much we fight the issues of the past, we always lose, because we cannot alter them. What we have to do is learn the lessons of the past. By the end, the previous Government had learned the lessons, were committed to spending more, and were spending more and doing more. The sad part is that the new Government have come in and there are differences, but I am not going to focus on that. We learn from our past and from our mistakes. If we do not do that, we are determined to repeat all those mistakes. This time, it may be too late for us to correct them.
This should not be a debate at each other, but a coming together of this House to require that this Government finance defence at the necessary level. I am one of a number of hon. Members who are old enough to remember that, when we finally faced the threat of the Soviet Union, which increased the number of medium-range missiles threatening targets in Europe, we stepped up. Spending went to 5%. That was tough, but we did it. All of NATO did it. No one was lagging. Germany stepped up, even though there were massive crowds on the street saying no. We saw off that threat, because the Soviet Union realised that we were ready.
The Government should appeal across the House for support for a higher level of spending. Three per cent in this Parliament should be de minimis. It is not enough: we should be at 3% before the end of this Parliament, with a commitment to rise at least to 4% or 5%. Other countries in Europe would in the past have looked to us for leadership in a crisis like this, but they are finding that they cannot do so, because we are behind them on spending and in the determination to defend NATO and our home countries. If we want to lead, we have to show the way through our financial commitments.
I therefore urge the Government, this evening and beyond, to hear what the Ministers who sadly resigned from the Government have said to them, and to hear what the House in general terms wants. We are ready to commit that spending, we will work to find the savings and we will give support to those who are dedicated to defence. What we must never do is forget the lessons of the past and be unready for the greatest threat since that faced by those brave men and women who died for us to have freedom back in the 1930s and 1940s. It would be a shame if we forgot why they died.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave an incredibly authoritative speech. I also commend the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who spoke powerfully. I have not served, but whenever I speak on this subject, I say that this House is richer because of the service of people on both sides, including the former Minister for the Armed Forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and our exceptional Minister for the Armed Forces.
It is Armed Forces Week, so I thank everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve. I particularly thank Stuart Mendelson, who set up an initiative in Hertfordshire called the Muster Point. It has a simple premise: to bring veterans together to meet, to socialise and to build networks and connections. He has had great success in doing that in Stevenage, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), and we are in the process of extending it to Welwyn Hatfield. I want to put on the record my thanks to Stuart.
This is also the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Chamber since the Prime Minister announced his resignation. It is a moment of regret for me, and I want to put on the record my thanks to him for all his service to my party and the country, and also for the fact that when he leaves office, most likely in a few weeks’ time, defence spending will be higher than it was at any point during the terms of the five previous Prime Ministers.
The tone of the House has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), but I will re-inject a bit of politics, because I think it is important on Opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party matches its record in office.
I want to go back to 2014, to the moment when Crimea was annexed by Putin—the moment, as people on all sides of politics would agree, when we should have realised the depth of the threats that we faced in Europe. At that time, defence spending was 2.2%. I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Defence spending in that eight-year period fell to just under 2.1%. I am afraid that when the Conservative party was in office, it did not heed those warnings.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those defence figures, but when his party came into office in 1997, defence spending was 3% of GDP and when it left it was 2.5%. I absolutely take his point, but is it not absolutely applicable to his party and Government, too?
Andrew Lewin
I am pleased that the hon. Member takes my point, but I am saying that the circumstances had changed. [Interruption.] I will make the point: that is why I intentionally picked those two dates—2014, the annexation of Crimea, and 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and our failure to act was a decisive moment in history.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I would point out that under the last Government we were the third highest spenders on defence in NATO. The rest of Europe was also not taking defence as seriously. We had all enjoyed the peace dividend and nobody was spending money on defence like they should have. We continued to maintain our presence in NATO though, yet now we are the 12th biggest spenders in NATO. To that extent, is it not the hon. Member’s Government who are not matching their own rhetoric?
Andrew Lewin
Is the hon. Member therefore excusing the lack of investment between 2014 and 2022? That is what I am not sure of, because there are Opposition Members who have been clear and consistent—they did not serve in the Conservative Government and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate that he was not here at that time—neither was I—but I do not know if that was his position.
Andrew Lewin
I will make a bit of progress and then I will let other people in.
This might really upset some Opposition Members, so they should brace themselves: this is also the 10-year anniversary of Brexit. It is the case that most Opposition Members present supported Brexit, and I raise it in the context of public spending choices, because it has now been emphatically proven that the decision to leave the European Union has cost our economy tens of billions of pounds. The estimate ranges between 4% and 6% of GDP, which equates to nearly £100 billion. In a scenario where we had remained members of the European Union and had a stronger economy, whoever was making the choices on defence would have been in a far better place to invest.
Wendy Morton
Absolutely not. I stand here not as a Brexiteer, but as somebody who was a reluctant remainer. I voted for remain partly because of the security of our country, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no way that I regret that decision. I am a pragmatic Brexiteer—like most of our country—but it is no good him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other; the decision about the defence investment plan falls on his Government. If it is such a good idea, what has stopped them—I notice the Government Benches are empty—just getting on and delivering it for the sake of our country?
Andrew Lewin
I am pleased that we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Let me fast-forward to 2024, because that was an important moment for the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Member talks about 2014 and the invasion, and he is quite right. I was in Cabinet at the time, and one of the points that I and some others raised was what our position was over this. But the EU got this badly wrong because the President of France and Mrs Merkel headed over, on their own decision, to set up a negotiation that left Russia in control of Crimea, forgetting all the original support and our promises to Ukraine. They were reducing spending and did not want to go to war, and so they sacrificed Ukraine in the process.
Andrew Lewin
I am not sure that I would agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I am also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I am saying that we had a period of history after Crimea where much of the west was not investing sufficiently in defence, and it is also the case that the Conservative party was in government at that point in time.
The point about 2024 is an important one—we had an important general election for the country. We hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence, so I looked back at their record and their manifesto. What was their offer to the country on the eve of the general election? It was a big cut in national insurance—a cut that would have cost £10 billion a year. Again, when faced with the decision, two years into the Ukraine war, “Are you going to prioritise defence spending?”, that was not the choice they made, was it?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Member talks about the Ukraine war. It has to be remembered that only one European country stood by Ukraine at the outset of that invasion. Our Secretary of State for Defence and the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson took the decision to arm Ukraine against the advice of the Foreign Office. Does he seriously think that any other recent Prime Minister in this country would have defied the advice of the Foreign Office? Can he tell us which other European country had the strength to stand by Ukraine and keep them in the war so that Russia did not get to Kyiv?
Andrew Lewin
But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, so we were united as a House on that. I agree with the hon. Member that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgment, but he had the full support of our Prime Minister today.
Andrew Lewin
I will make some progress and talk about the record of this Government. [Interruption.] I know Opposition Members are enjoying it.
It is important that we reflect on the progress and the investment we have made. The aid-to-defence spending switch was not a policy that was universally welcomed on this side of the House, but I believe it was a necessary decision and the right decision to make. We have the Type 26 frigate deal, the Typhoon deal with Turkey, 13 new sites for munitions and factories, which are so important for our rearmament, and the armed forces pay rise—the most generous and urgently overdue pay rise for 20 years, which again was delivered by this Government.
We have had some authoritative interventions about the changing nature of warfare, and I have much to learn from other colleagues. It is to be applauded that this Government are investing in drone warfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has been a champion for investing in drone factories in his constituency. In just the last week, we have learned about the development of long-range missiles that the UK and Ukraine are working on together without the need for US components. That is a significant and welcome step forward.
While I admire many people on the Opposition side of the House, I regret to have to say that at every opportunity to increase investment in defence spending, the last Government did not take that option. I am afraid that the enduring image that has been left with the public is of the last Conservative Prime Minister leaving the beaches on D-Day early. It was a picture that told a thousand words.
In politics, parties need to be judged by their record, not just their rhetoric.
Andrew Lewin
I am going to come to a conclusion.
I recognise that this Government have lots more work to do, but under this Prime Minister’s watch, defence spending is up—it is higher than at any point in the last 14 years or under the last five Conservative Prime Ministers—and whoever is the next leader of the Labour party will have my support in increasing it further.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
We are facing dangerous and uncertain times, in a world that has dramatically changed in just a couple of years. To set the record straight following the discussions across the House, it is worth pointing out that Europe is on a path of rearmament. In 2025 the European Union launched its rearmament plan, ReArm Europe, with the goal of upping spending across Europe by 2030. As many of my hon. and gallant Friends have pointed out, we are at the bottom of the pile now on rearmament. Even just a few years back, we were at the top of the pile for NATO spending and our defence capability. How have we fallen so dramatically in comparison with our European neighbours? Earlier this year Germany launched its modern-day comprehensive military concept—the first for a very long time—with the goal of building the strongest conventional army in Europe.
Things have radically changed in but a few years. How have we gone from being at the top of the pile in terms of our NATO contributions to being at the bottom? It is because of political choices, dithering and delay from this Government—a Government who think nothing of spending £330 billion a year on welfare benefits but cannot muster the courage to face down their Back Benchers to put our brave armed servicemen and women first; a Government who think our veterans are fair game for their Islington-dining-set lawyer friends and not deserving of our enduring thanks and protection from relentless lawfare.
To govern is to choose. This Government chose an extra £18 billion of welfare spending this year—an extra £18 billion on showing Britain that work does not pay. That is £18 billion that could have secured 250,000 extra soldiers, according to a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have been spent on 200 fighter jets, according to the CSJ report. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have built 15 warships. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. When Labour Back Benchers want action on welfare, nothing stands in this Government’s way, but when our country needs to show our enemies we are investing to protect our country and our future, we get weakness and delay.
We may have lost the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, but the same Government with no sense of putting our country first remains. I say to the Government: stop the lawfare on our veterans now. Make the tough decisions on welfare that we on the Opposition Benches will support. Put a defence investment plan forward now that will make our enemies think twice.
We are saying goodbye to a Prime Minister without a backbone. He has left our country weaker, poorer and less safe. But the country cannot wait for Labour’s internal indulgence. It is time for the investment in our armed forces that the moment demands—investment that transcends party and puts our country first. It is about Britain and our role in an unsafe and dangerous world. It is time to act and give our armed forces the investment they need.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case once again for a sustained uplift in defence spending, as I have done at every opportunity in this place. I feel quite humbled to follow the gallant Members who have spoken: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.
As I did yesterday in our debate on the Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—who I am disappointed has left the Chamber, so he cannot hear me saying nice things about him for the second time—for their steadfast commitment to equipping our country to deal with the emerging threats from hostile actors who wish to attack our democracy, our freedom and our way of life.
It is my firm belief, as I have said directly to the Prime Minister, that when a Defence Secretary tells us that the funding envelope on defence
“would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe”,
the Government have a duty to listen and act. I commend the new Defence Secretary; the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey); the promoted Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones); and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for stepping up to serve or continuing to serve our country in these challenging circumstances. The new Secretary of State and Veterans Minister are gallant colleagues who, before coming into politics, served our great country in the military, and I can think of no one more appropriate to be making the case within Government for increased prioritisation of defence.
We have heard some slightly confusing messages during the day—none of them definitive—about the timing of the publication of the DIP, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referenced this. I am aware that the Chancellor was still talking in Treasury questions about the DIP being published before the NATO summit in Ankara, and the Paymaster General gave an interview in which he indicated that it would be before Ankara. I think there is a very strong argument for sticking to that deadline, because we ought to be able to tell our partners at the NATO summit what we have committed. I also think there is an argument for publishing it under the current Prime Minister, because this needs to be seen as an issue of continuity: it does not matter if we have a change of party leader and national leadership, because we are still committed to this.
I urge the current Prime Minister, of whom I am a great supporter, to cement his legacy as someone who, despite what was said earlier, has consistently taken difficult political decisions because they are in the national interest, and he has paid a huge political price for some of those decisions. I would like him to secure the necessary uplift in defence spending before he leaves office, to keep this country safe. I am sure that history will be kinder to the outgoing Prime Minister than opinion polls and political commentary have been, especially if, decades from now, we can look back to the final days of his leadership as the moment that the UK faced up to the real and dangerous threats it faces and appropriately responded with the money required to counter those threats.
I know that it behoves Members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from. I understand the political point the Opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding. I know that we cannot afford an ever-growing welfare bill and that that is not good for the people who are not in work but could be. I was proud to support the proposed welfare reforms last year, which would not have cut the total benefit package but reduced the increase by about £5 billion over the course of the Parliament. That would have been a useful contribution to the revenue side of any gap in defence funding. The issue with this argument, however, is that that only covers revenue spending and does not free up capital expenditure for new equipment. Reducing the welfare bill therefore cannot be the only answer to the funding requirements of the DIP.
It is not as if the Government are not already taking politically painful decisions to ensure that we fulfil our first duty, as set out in the manifesto I was elected on: ensuring the safety of the nation. On top of the difficult decision to halve overseas aid spending to fund an uplift in defence spending, which I know was felt deeply on the Government Benches, everything that one is led to believe about the DIP negotiations indicates that every Department has already been asked to accept a 1% cut—known as a “haircut”—to its capital budget. I am fully aware that this would slow projects down that Members across the House and our constituents in the country care about, from transport infrastructure programmes to new hospitals to rebuilding schools; I can think of projects I have argued for in the House that I would have to accept will arrive slower because of that 1% change. However, if we heed the former Secretary of State’s calls and go further, as is clearly required, we must look to the Departments with the greatest capital budgets for any additional uplift.
I would argue that additional capital funding, as has already been mentioned, could still come from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Programmes that are being rolled out by that Department are important. Although we could be forgiven for forgetting during this week’s heatwave, my North Durham constituency has a cold microclimate and lots of badly insulated homes, so cutting capital programmes such as those that address home insulation would harm my constituents. Similarly, investment in carbon capture and storage means that new jobs in the North sea would come on tap later, although I am in favour of the proposed new oil and gas fields—that is as near to rebelliousness as anyone will ever see me in the House, but we are in “freedom hall” in between Administrations. However, when compared with the immediate need to keep our country safe, it is hard to see why those projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit that they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the near future.
Given the long lead times in defence procurement, any month that we go without spending the money needed on equipment could translate to a month in just a few years’ time when our brave men and women on the frontline do not have the weapons and ammunition they need to protect themselves and the country. In the final weeks of his premiership, I urge the Prime Minister to look again at whether additional funding could be found for the MOD’s capital budget from the source that I have mentioned, or from other sources.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me set out just how pressing the threats that we face really are. Developments across the Atlantic have made it abundantly clear—
Alison Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate has sadly lacked some praise for the Prime Minister and the Government for their investment in defence, including the new submarine reactors that have been made in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North?
Luke Akehurst
I will come to the achievements that this Government have already made in a minute—I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to get on with that—but let me talk about the threat first.
The era when taxpayers in Missouri or Virginia paid for the defence of Europe is long gone. Europe and the UK must fund our own defence. Although we can currently be optimistic about the progress of our gallant allies in Ukraine, it remains possible that the war will end in a harsh peace treaty for Ukraine that could leave it with borders that are not realistically defensible from a third Russian invasion and constrain the size of its military, removing the largest and most battle-hardened anti-Russian force from a future conflict.
From that point, the clock starts to tick on Russia’s ability to launch a new war of aggression against another of its western neighbours, perhaps this time a NATO ally, like Finland or the Baltic states. Within two years of peace, Russia could rearm to exactly the same level of defensive capability it had when it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this time having learned lessons from that experience. It could choose to engineer a scenario to test whether NATO will hold, perhaps taking Narva on the Estonian border, which is largely Russian speaking, in an attempt to break the alliance politically. The only way that we can stop this is by developing an effective deterrence, conventional as well as our existing nuclear deterrent.
While we possess a strategic nuclear deterrent, we lack almost every rung on the escalatory level below a global thermonuclear war, which would end humanity and civilisation as we know it. The F-35A programme, which I believe will be in the DIP, is an important additional nuclear rung, but we also need many more rungs of conventional capability. I have consistently argued, including in my 2024 Westminster Hall debate, that we need additional air and missile defence to counter the threat of Russian missile and drone attacks coming at us from the High North, as well as defences against grey zone conflict. That is especially urgent when the last Government reduced spending on ground-based air defence by 70% in their final years in office. And we need to deter by investing in long-range strike missiles, which I know is part of the SDR and will be in the DIP as well. The only way we can avoid a conflict is by ensuring our enemies—in this case, the proximate threat is Russia—know that we are prepared for one.
This is not just about hard power through military personnel and equipment. It also involves the political resolve of the British people and the politicians that they elect. Without a strong military, our way of life could be ripped away from us in an instant. Without a fair and good society worth defending, there will not be the public and political will to fight. Russia will know these weaknesses and will prey on them. Russia could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility.
I appreciate that I have taken quite a lot of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see you indicating that I should wind up. Let us compare and contrast the Labour and Tory record. Under the Tories, armed forces personnel saw a real-terms pay cut in nine out of 14 years, but under Labour, they have received a third consecutive above-inflation pay rise, bringing the cumulative increase since 2024 above 10%. Under the Tories, armed forces housing was left in disarray, with a record 13,000 complaints a year, but Labour is setting up a defence housing service, and bringing homes into public ownership to address the unacceptable state that they are in. Under the Tories, the armed forces fell in size by 25,000 people to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, but under Labour, recruitment is up, and over 100 outdated recruitment policies have been scrapped.
As a result of 14 years of underfunding, and the previous Government’s dereliction of their duty to protect our nation and make the necessary tough political choices, our armed forces’ presence in Estonia is down to fewer than 10 Challenger 2 tanks. We know about the shortage of ships, because we struggled to find even one Type 45 at a moment of extreme crisis. My message to the Opposition is: let us have more of the thoughtful contributions of their Back Benchers, rather than some of the rhetoric that we have heard from their Front Benchers. I recognise the progress that the Labour Government have already made, and I urge them to get to the 3% spending target. I can say that as a Back Bencher, but I know that Ministers cannot talk about percentages of GDP with such freedom. However, they should know that there is Back-Bench support for getting to 3% by the end of this Parliament.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). He speaks with passion on defence, and he clearly wants to increase our defence presence.
I have listened to the debate and I am sounding an alarm. I grew up in a military family; both my parents were in the military. I left school and joined the military, and my brother served in the military. I spent my entire career in security and defence, and since coming to Parliament, everything I have done, outside traditional constituency engagements, is about backing security and defence. I am delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It has been brilliant to spend a year immersed in the best strategic command course in the world.
I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we are in a very serious situation, but rhetoric, or party political lines, are overtaking that, and we are missing the fact that we need to rearm to face the current situation. In 2024-25, there were 54 to 55 conflicts around the world—those figures might be adjusted, depending on the source. That is the largest number of conflicts in any one year since the second world war. If we believe that we can stop a major conflict, why can we not stop minor conflicts? There is complete instability, and the whole geopolitical situation has changed. Discussions that we are having now would have seemed impossible—beyond the realms of fantasy—five or even three years ago. We need to put that in perspective and really think about it.
When Government Members start to talk about “14 years of hollowed-out defence”, they make an illiterate defence argument. They are taking a moment in time and comparing peace with war. We need to look at the situation over the past 100 years and learn from history. At the end of the second world war, Clement Attlee demobilised the military, because that was the right thing to do, as we did not need 5 million soldiers. Similarly, at the fall of the Berlin wall, the majority of the world de-armed and reduced the scale of their defence spending. However, the situation has changed.
In 2022, defence spending was 2.22% of GDP, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, not 2.1% as the hon. Member for North Durham said. There is no denying that the whole world has changed since 2014, or even since 2022, and we are in the most volatile situation. The debate is about whether we should measure from the end of the cold war or the end of the second world war. I firmly believe that we should measure from the end of the second world war. I believe that we will see a global conflict in the coming years, but we are not prepared to defend our nation. I believe that, at this stage, we cannot meet our article 3 NATO commitment to defend the nation for the period of time expected.
Everybody talks about article 5, but there are three things that every Defence Minister and politician must look at when we speak about defence: readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is there. We talk about numbers, but are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? Do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We are not looking at the expeditionary side of warfare that we have seen in the middle east in recent years; we are looking at how we fit on the world stage, and how we prepare for a global conflict, while hoping that it never happens. We have to look at those three areas, but there is always a debate. Are we are ready enough? Should we spend more money on lethality, or should we look at survivability? The most important of those areas is readiness, but I am not saying that the other areas are not important. We have to be ready. If we are not, we cannot go to war.
In 1999, after I got married—I celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary on Friday—I said to my wife, “See you in six months,” and deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there were no Army barracks. We found derelict, flea-ridden accommodation—blokes were covered in flea bites—and we moved into houses that had been abandoned, as people were still being ethnically cleansed. We did not have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you could see. We adapted. The readiness came from what Field Marshal Slim described in the Burma conflict as spiritual morale. You can take equipment away from soldiers and break everything, but if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can get through everything. We are burning out that morale in the military over time, bit by bit.
Let me go back to when I was on the Defence Committee, from 2020 to the middle of 2022. My name is on many reports that absolutely destroyed the Government of the time. That gave me many difficult conversations with the Whips, but calling out the Government was the right thing to do, because we were not able to procure equipment. We were not ready and able to prepare for the world as it was at the time.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has recently said that we will have to cut operational services and training capability. Those are big issues, but he has also touched on something that most people do not mention: the resource spending. We have resource departmental expenditure limit spending and capital departmental expenditure limit spending. CDEL buys the ships, tanks, planes and big items, but they have to be run, and we have to pay our troops, so we have to look at the resources around that. Resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment, but it is nowhere near enough—the balance is off. We are looking at big projects. It is great to be looking at issues such as how we fund new submarines and the Type 83, but will the global combat air programme be crewed or uncrewed? That is another debate; I have some good views on that that I would love to share another time.
At the moment, the debate is about what war we are preparing to fight. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has mentioned that the DIP did not fund enough preparation for wars that we may be fighting in the future. It is always hard to predict the future of warfare. It is easy to take lessons from Ukraine, and just think that that is what warfare will be, and while we should take those lessons, we need adapt and prepare, moving forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) mentioned the 18 defence primes. On the scalability of technology, I believe a disruptive model is coming, or is needed, in the defence industry. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with NATO, discussing nanotechnology—even though I left school as a lad with no GCSEs, and joined the armed forces as a rifleman. Time has moved on.
Stuart Anderson
No.
Let us look at how technology and innovation are moving forward. In some ways, we need to think differently. We need an understanding of how we prepare for different warfares. It is not a matter of nanotechnology on the one side and aircraft carriers on the other; there is a bit in the middle. We should look at the scalability of new technology, as artificial intelligence develops and quantum computing comes online. The battle space will be completely different, and we have to move into that space. People often say that the nature of warfare is changing, but it is not. The nature of warfare is brutal, and will always be, but the character of warfare is changing, and we have to be prepared for that.
Let me go back to my point about readiness, lethality and survivability. All the things that happened on our watch, on Labour’s watch before us, and on Labour’s watch now, are chipping away at the spiritual morale of troops. I have a son who is a serving soldier, and I am watching that happen bit by bit. He is told, “That exercise is cancelled because we cannot afford it,” “You have to do extra time on deployment because we cannot rotate you through,” and “We are not going to order equipment, because the DIP is not ready.” All those things chip away at spiritual morale.
There is one issue that we are dealing with that cuts to the heart of every veteran. I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week—I will be watching football tonight with serving personnel, and spending time with veterans and colleagues—and I have heard at first hand what they are saying. I served for 18 months on Op Banner during the troubles, and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is cutting through. Regardless of the political debate here, serving soldiers believe that they will not be protected by the Government when they go on operations. We can argue the issue, and go back and forth on it, but that is what is landing, and what they believe. A change to what we have in place would be a betrayal to our veterans. It would remove spiritual morale—that British fighting spirit that I have spoken about. It would make us not ready, not lethal and unable to survive. Unless the DIP comes forward with the correct funding for the correct defence products, we will be in a serious situation, and I do not believe that we are ready for what is coming over the horizon.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Corona muralis—I wager that few people in this Chamber, if any, have heard that term. Perhaps the odd classicist will have heard it. It was one of ancient Rome’s most coveted military decorations. According to Aulus Gellius, it was a golden crown, shaped like a city wall, awarded for bravery, much like the Victoria Cross. It was awarded to Roman soldiers for being the first up the ladder and on to the enemy castle walls during a siege. Whoever received it found fame, and the accolade could be leveraged as a political stepping stone. Survival might be unlikely, but the prospect of personal and political glory could motivate men to embark on a suicide mission, convinced that they would fare better against impossible odds than those who had tried and failed before them. In “The History of Rome”, Livy wrote:
“The men dashed on in the face of wounds and missiles, and neither walls nor armed men standing on them can restrain them from vying with one another in the attempt to climb”.
With that, I welcome the Defence Ministers to their new roles, and wish them luck in the forthcoming reshuffle.
The new Defence Secretary tells us that he is working around the clock. That is another idiom to add to a lexicon that includes “flat out”, “at pace” and “laser-focused”—the perennial favourite. This Government’s failure to invest in defence, particularly given the high horse that they rode in on, while waxing lyrical about “hollowing out”, is farcical, given that we have already seen two experienced Defence Ministers quit. We now see two more take up the colours—both decorated former officers with an MBE, and each with an MBE for their service. Coronae murales all round.
The defence investment plan has entered the zeitgeist, but our duty in this House is to hold the Government to account. We can talk about top-level budgets and use exciting buzzwords, but unless we are actually talking about what is in the plan, that capability is largely irrelevant. The defence investment plan is not funded properly; it is not even close to being funded properly. An additional £10 billion, plus £3.5 billion of loose change that the Government found down the back of the sofa, will not touch the sides. The new Defence Secretary will need to make damaging and difficult cuts. Much of that will not be truly realised until the publication of the ’26-27 Ministry of Defence accounts at the end of next year—by which point he may be long gone.
There are projects that sit under the major projects portfolio, specifically Dreadnoughts and GCAP. The defence nuclear enterprise takes up 18% of the entire defence budget. To put that in context, it means that we are last in NATO for our spending on conventional forces. We spend less, proportionally, than North Macedonia and Luxembourg. We need to be mindful of the spiralling cost of Dreadnought. If we couple that with the cost of upgrading the Astraea warhead, and of the AUKUS commitment, we see that we are locked into a huge proportion of the available budget being spent on submarines alone. Last week, the Royal United Services Institute wrote that it anticipates the DNE may hit 25% of the budget within the period covered by this defence investment plan. Meanwhile, its aerial contemporary, GCAP, continues to be a costly endeavour—so costly, in fact, that despite the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry informing me last week that a new funding deal for Edgewing had been agreed, my sources at the MOD tell me that the deal is not the multi-year settlement that is needed. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the duration of the new funding deal.
With the demise of the future combat air system, GCAP and F-47 are the only NATO sixth-generation programmes left in town, yet the RAF is struggling to find the money for the platform, has apparently rowed back on committing to pillar 2, and is in danger of being superseded by events. The new uncrewed fighters currently in development are a fraction of the cost, and will be many iterations developed by the time we see the first Tempest. It will take something special to ensure GCAP is not a relic before it even leaves the drawing board.
Last year, the previous Chief of the Air Staff—now Chief of the Defence Staff—made clear that there were
“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term”,
despite the combat air strategy being about to undergo a refresh. What the RAF has planned now is what we will have through to 2040. We have taken delivery of 48 F-35B jets thus far, and the programme of record states that we are committed to 138. Does anyone genuinely believe that the defence investment plan will lay out the pathway to buying another 90, if we have only bought half that number since 2012 in order to fulfil a purpose—being carrier deployable—that now makes little strategic sense? For reference, the US has budgeted for 85 this year alone, at a cost of $21.4 billion.
Analysis by the US Government Accountability Office has shown that the full mission-capable rate of the F-35 is a lamentable 25%. Our own Public Accounts Committee reported in March that
“The UK F-35 fleet achieved approximately one third of the MoD’s target”
for the time it was able to fly all its required missions in 2024, and achieved only two fifths of the level of availability of the global F-35B fleet.
Lincoln Jopp
I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has yet had the opportunity to go down to Speaker’s Court and meet the armed forces representatives there. I met the very improbably titled Fungus 1, who is an F-35 pilot, and I was appalled to hear that he had spent nine years in training and has only just done three months on the frontline. As well as all the other things we are giving Defence Ministers to think about, surely pilot training has to be one of them, if we are going to be ready.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. The UK military flying training system is on its uppers. I do not necessarily hold this Government responsible for that—there are longer-term issues with the flying training system. I believe the average length of time it takes pilots to qualify is somewhere in the region of six years; most of the pilots who are now hitting the frontline have spent as long in training as I spent in my entire military career, by which point I had done numerous operational tours. Significant work needs to be done in that area, and there are questions to be asked of the company that we have outsourced flying training to, as well as about the Hawk jets—which I will not cover in this debate. The Minister knows that that topic is a hobby horse of mine; I will not speak about it today, but he realises that there is a sense of urgency there.
Mr Francois
When I served on the Defence Committee, just before the election, we went to RAF Marham and spoke to two F-35 pilots. We asked them how long it had taken since they first walked through the door of a recruiting office for them to be allowed to fly the F-35. One said he had been lucky, and it had been six years; the other said he had been unlucky, and it had been 10 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the MFTS programme requires fundamental reform?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I do—we need to get more pilots through the door, and I have asked numerous questions about our ratio of pilots to aircraft. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to divulge that information, but I would suggest that currently, it is not as good as it could be.
The joint programme office that should fix the F-35 is undergoing a global support solution reset that will cost an additional $13.7 billion. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether any of that figure will be paid for by us in the UK. As a result, there is no timeline for completing technology refresh 3, which 72% of our F-35Bs still require, and no timeline for the completion of the block 4 upgrade. Talk of the 12 F-35As for the NATO nuclear mission—which the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned—has gone suspiciously quiet, with rumours that they will be cut, and that is before we talk about the four-year lead times for low rate initial production material required to build them. Crucially, though, there is currently no more money allocated to the F-35 Lightning programme. The departmental budget laid out in the integrated review defence Command Paper back in 2021 only included the procurement of the 48 we now have; all new funding for the F-35 will need to be outlined in the defence investment plan.
That brings us on to drones. We know that the RAF is committed to having the Tempest as a manned platform, but by the time it comes into service, the US will be a decade deep into its collaborative combat aircraft programme. It has just awarded General Atomics and Anduril sizeable contracts for the FQ-42A Dark Merlin and FQ-44A Fury uncrewed fighter jets. The Secretary of the Air Force has stated that the US plans to
“procure over 150 combat capable CCA by the end of the decade.”
The US has budgeted $1 billion for CCA procurement, $822 million for modifications, and another $1.4 billion for research and development. How much of the £10 billion of additional funds available for our entire defence budget do we think we are planning to spend? When the defence investment plan is published, we will need to look closely at investment in those projects that should deliver drones.
How does this all tie together? I have spoken briefly about Project ASGARD before—the Chief of the General Staff, speaking at the RUSI land warfare conference earlier, talked about the need to be able to strike Russia within 30 minutes—but whether or not this is properly resourced in the DIP will be instrumental to our fortunes. We need to move past our current squeamishness and invest properly in both Project ASGARD and its RAF cousin, Project BOYD. I was fortunate enough to visit a demonstration of ASGARD during Exercise Arrcade Strike last month, which gave a glimpse of how the next war might be fought. My takeaway, however, was how desperately it will need to be invested in. We risk being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to an integrated anti-access/area denial and integrated air and missile defence solution. The reluctance of our senior leaders to move from an in-the-loop and on-the-loop approach to the kill chain to an on-the-loop and out-of-the-loop posture concerns me—it is better to have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me last week that the MOD is looking at machine vision for lock-on in the terminal phase of one-way effectors, but we must move further and faster.
For all the talk of defence investment in exquisite capabilities, nobody is suggesting that we increase the mass of the Army significantly. That is before we consider that every single vehicle platform the Army operates, except for Foxhound, is due to go out of service by 2030. Our ability to field an armoured division is at best optimistic; in reality, it is laughable. My own background is in armoured infantry, as is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and were we to try and field an armoured battlegroup—let alone a division—I would be interested to see what form it would take.
At the front of any armoured push is formation reconnaissance. That role should by now be delivered by Ajax. My views on Ajax are well documented, as I delivered a debate on the topic in Westminster Hall earlier this year, but what progress has been made since then? In the wake of Exercise Titan Storm, the Government commissioned an independent expert panel review. The results of that review have been submitted via a final report, but the Minister appears hesitant to publish the outcome. I would be grateful if he published those findings for scrutiny in the House now that the review has concluded. In his summing up, could the Minister outline when the House will receive an update on that review’s findings?
We know that the first phase of bringing Ajax up to speed will require the restarting of trials with the current version of Ajax, but the Minister has also informed me that the current platform requires a number of upgrades outside the scope of work in upgrading from capability drop 3 to capability drop 4, including improvements to the electrical power generation system, the crew compartment heating and the air filtration system. Although those sound like gremlins that need to be worked through on any new platform, can he tell me which of those modifications, if any, will mitigate the injuries sustained by service personnel on Exercise Titan Storm?
Ajax must be a success—we cannot afford to be stuck with a platform that no other country is willing to buy. The reputational damage to the platform is in danger of being baked in if the Government do not get the fix right first time. All 589 hulls have been built, and the factory will have no further work once those vehicles are assembled and rolled out. What work will the General Dynamics facility in Merthyr Tydfil then have to do? When I raised that question with the Government, they stated that it is an issue for General Dynamics. There is a reason the Government did not include that facility within the scope of the defence growth deal for Wales. Put simply, the Government cannot afford for Ajax to fail, neither from a defence exports perspective—and there are currently no pending orders—nor from a capability perspective. The Government know this, having made no assessment of any potential replacement platforms such as the Combat Vehicle 90, so when will we finally see Ajax realise its potential?
Sadly, though, that is not the only issue. Behind Ajax should be Challenger 3, but Challenger 3 remains in the demonstration phase and, based on reports in The Telegraph last week, is now beset by problems. The turret power traverse gearbox is potentially proving to be a problem that may push back delivery of the tank by years—to put that in layman’s terms, that is the part that makes the turret rotate. The Government have now said that this is not the case, but it is concerning that they are yet to declare the planning assumption for service entry for the new tank, despite all 148 remaining Challenger 2 tanks being in scope for upgrade and conversion.
The Government have also previously told me that they are continuing to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3. What export opportunities? We have 148 main battle tanks; how many are we planning to sell, and who would buy them? We have no plans to replace them. I would be interested to understand the full scope of the Army’s heavy armour automotive improvement programme. In January, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry told me:
“Manufacturing will begin once the tank’s performance is proven, rather than being tied to a specific deadline.”
By when does he anticipate the tank’s performance will be assessed to have made the grade? Meanwhile, our allies look elsewhere to rearm. With both the Franco-German main ground combat system to replace the Leclerc and Leopard 2 respectively and other fledgling initiatives, what is the future of armour? “Behind the tanks” Warrior is due to go out of service next year, currently with no realistic replacement. Warrior is due to be replaced by a mixture of Boxer and the Ajax-derived Ares, but neither looks set to be ready in time. More concerningly, the Government’s position appears to have shifted once again, with the Minister telling me last week:
“Under current plans, Boxer is initially being fielded as a supporting capability to Armoured Units within 3rd (UK) Division, before being fielded to Mechanised Infantry Units between 2030-2035.”
Warrior goes out of service next year, so what is filling this capability gap? We have not yet seen an order for the Patria 6x6 as part of the common armoured vehicle system. The Government told me recently that they were continuing to monitor the market for potential future platforms, but the defence investment plan is supposedly to be published next week, so why have these decisions not already been made?
From a Royal Navy perspective, it is no secret that the hybrid Navy concept is the direction in which they are sailing. The commitment of the Royal Marines to the High North and potential investment in a joint commando craft or littoral strike craft would illustrate a longer-term commitment to that force posture, but the hybrid Navy concept means that the Type 83 is dead in the water. The decision to gift Type 26 build slots to the Royal Norwegian Navy kicks the can down the road when it comes to the sticky issue of when we need to pay for the new ships, with just eight to be built for us and a further five for the Norwegians. Given our significant commitment to global operations in comparison with the commitment of the Norwegians, do we really think that just three more ships will cover our global commitments?
This has been a whistlestop tour through just some of the myriad capabilities that will need to be detailed in the defence investment plan within the next week or so. [Laughter.] I left a lot out! Members are chuckling, but I could have gone on for another hour.
We need to spend more on defence. We need to resource our military to meet the threats that we face, not the ones that we would like to. If this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Defence Secretary will not find the funding required by cutting the welfare budget or changing the fiscal rules, they should make way for someone who will—but perhaps that will happen sooner rather than later.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This debate has been characterised by so many powerful speeches that I think it would be invidious to pick out any of them. I congratulate everyone who has contributed, particularly the Government Back Benchers who have evidently come to the debate espousing the principle that the best defence is attack. Some of their speeches have been so combative that it is hard to believe that only recently they lost their Secretary of State for Defence, their Minister for the Armed Forces, and even their Prime Minister. If morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, those Government Back Benchers are doing extremely well.
By happy coincidence, I had a letter published in today's edition of The Times, which I had submitted before I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say that it is a happy coincidence because I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are worried about the ticking clock, and one requirement for a letter to be published in that esteemed newspaper is for practically all the argument to be compressed into no more than 150 words. These are the slightly fewer than 150 words that I chose:
“An erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe at greater risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The prime minister’s valedictory boast of securing ‘the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War’ should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing even the 3 per cent of GDP—under current MoD calculation criteria—still being spent when the Conservatives were defeated in 1997, years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s—again applying today’s criteria—defence received between 4.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs, in blood as well as in treasure, of full-scale war between Russia and the West.”
That was the letter, and I will now briefly pick a couple of aspects of it on which to expand. The first is the use of the word “deterrence”. I am perturbed about the sense of inevitability that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. However, the question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia; it is also down to what we do—the preparations that we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable. So we have to do our bit.
The other aspect of that letter on which I would briefly like to comment is the opening point—the point about the isolationist White House. No one knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by President Donald J. Trump has spread throughout the rest of the American political system, but if when he is eventually replaced that virus reappears in his successor, the future for peace in Europe will indeed be imperilled, because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked, from day one they would be at war with the United States of America.
What Donald Trump has done is cause that guarantee to be undermined. I do not know why he does it. I do not know what the nature is of what I described in that letter as his “disturbing relationship” with the killer in the Kremlin. All I know is that Europe will not be safe until again we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. In the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between east and west, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the cold war—the times when it was thought that civilisation could perish—and we will get back to a situation in which people can then think about what it is nice to pay for in order to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society.
Let me end with a famous quote from another Healey who was a Defence Secretary, Denis Healey. He said, memorably, that if we do not have adequate defence, we do not have all the aspects of a society that we wish to cherish; we do not have schools, we do not have hospitals, we do not have houses—what we have is “a heap of cinders”. So let us invest what we can while we can, let us get our priorities right, and let us restore the guarantee of the transatlantic relationship, which kept the peace and prevented a third world war.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As my colleagues on the Conservative Benches have already noted, today and previously, the defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and as a fundamental part of that duty, any Government must provide the people who volunteer to keep our country safe—at great personal risk—with the tools they need and the support they deserve. Our country is not kept safe by people in this place or by bureaucrats in Whitehall offices. It is kept safe by brave men and women who put their lives on the line because they believe in this country and want to protect it. They suspend their family lives, they risk their own lives, and they operate in incredibly difficult conditions, because they think that this country is worth suffering for—and even dying for. They do this of their own free will, and certainly not for any great sums of money.
We are incredibly fortunate that anybody puts themselves forward to serve, and even more fortunate that over the years this country has produced many thousands of courageous, professional and dutiful people who have preserved the freedom of this country and, at times, the world. The very least that the British Government can do is to treat these people—our armed forces personnel—fairly, to honour the implicit promise that their service will be repaid with respect and protection, and to make sure that when orders are issued from on high, the people charged with carrying out those orders are not punished for doing so.
Since the last election, we have seen this Government do exactly the opposite. Their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is a direct betrayal of that promise, and it will see veterans dragged through the courts and hounded by endless inquiries, decades after their service. Those who served in Northern Ireland did so at incredible personal risk. They operated under intensely challenging conditions, the likes of which most of us in this place—save for some gallant Members—will never be forced to withstand. They did all this to keep our country safe from murderous psychopaths who wanted to undermine our democracy and tear our country apart through the use of terrorist violence, the assassination of police officers and the murder of innocent civilians.
Over the course of their service, the vast majority of those who served in our security forces did so with incredible professionalism. They behaved according to rules of engagement that did not constrain their terrorist enemies. They followed orders and procedures designed to protect innocent life. When those standards were not met, people were held responsible. Again, no such internal scrutiny took place within the terrorist organisations that they fought. Indeed, under the terms of the Belfast agreement and subsequent legislation, IRA terrorists were given immunity from prosecution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) set out earlier. Many were released from prison before their sentences had been served, despite having carried out terrorist attacks that killed civilians.
That charity and forgiveness stands in stark contrast to the treatment in the opposite direction. Many of those who served have been hounded for decades by vexatious legal claims. They include people who served in our armed forces and those who served in the police in Northern Ireland, which was then called the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Typically, these challenges have been politically motivated and brought by people linked to the Irish republican movement, often to furnish the republican narrative that our security forces behaved unlawfully throughout the troubles. Such challenges are usually launched not on the basis of new evidence, but because of the retrospective application of human rights laws that were never designed to govern counter-terrorist combat.
On the morning of 3 June 1991, three members of the IRA drove a stolen car into a small village in County Tyrone. It was their intention to murder a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, a regiment of the British Army made up of local recruits from Northern Ireland. On reaching the village, the car stopped. One of the men got out and pointed an assault rifle at the person he believed to be their target, but who was in fact a member of the Special Air Service in disguise. Believing that the decoy’s life was in immediate danger, other SAS soldiers, hidden on the first floor of a nearby hotel, opened fire on the IRA men. All three were killed. Investigation at the scene showed that two of those men, Lawrence McNally and Michael Ryan, were armed with assault rifles. The third man, Tony Doris, was not armed, which the SAS soldiers who carried out the ambush could not have known. The three IRA men who were killed that day set out to murder a part-time soldier, and the actions of the SAS were designed to prevent that murder from happening. Fortunately, they succeeded.
That operation took place before I was even born, yet until earlier this year, the soldiers who took part in it were still being subjected to legal harassment for their actions that day. More than three decades later, lawyers with no specialist knowledge of military operations were asked to rule on whether those soldiers had behaved in accordance with human rights law, which was not designed for combat. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal determined that the SAS had acted lawfully, but other veterans have not been so lucky.
This Government’s troubles Bill will mean more cases like that one, with more veterans dragged through the courts, hounded in the press, and forced to testify at countless inquests and inquiries. It will scrap the protections put in place by the previous Government and open the doors to a whole new wave of politically motivated prosecutions. The Government say that this is necessary because of our obligations under the European Court of Human Rights, but if protecting our veterans from vexatious prosecution is not compatible with ECHR membership, what better case can there be for leaving the ECHR altogether?
Earlier this week, we heard that we would be rid of this Prime Minister, who has repeatedly let down those currently serving in our armed forces by refusing to provide them with the material support they need, as well as those who have served previously, through the disastrous Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I hope that his exit foreshadows the exit of the Attorney General and the Northern Ireland Secretary, both of whom have been responsible for advancing and defending the Bill. They have been warned repeatedly about what an awful signal it sends to those who are currently serving. Why would anybody risk their lives if their own Government might throw them under the bus decades later? I only hope that the chaos in Government will provide the new Defence Ministers— whenever they arrive—with an excuse to drop the Bill for good, and that they will instead support the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), which I am honoured to support.
Our Northern Ireland veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to keep us safe. It is not a lot to ask that we protect them from this nightmare in return.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I encourage all Members of the House to undertake their placement on that scheme, if they can.
The Prime Minister has been generating some sympathy with the dignified way in which he is choosing to leave office, and I add my voice to those who have stated that we are fortunate to live in a country with a political system that values leaders who put their country and the dignity of their office before personal gain. The Prime Minister is many things, and I disagree with him profusely, but first and foremost he is a gentleman who won a mandate, and everybody across this House should respect that and wish him well going forward.
Others who have shown personal strength of character and commitment to public office include the former Secretary of State of Defence—the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I know that both of them took their decision to resign seriously and with the intense reflection that it deserves. I also understand that their resignations came as a great surprise to the Prime Minister and No. 10, as they were expected to stay loyal, keep calm and carry on. Well, for those of us on the Opposition Benches, it was no surprise whatsoever.
We do not know exactly what was said in Cabinet, let alone in the private discussions between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor, and nor should we. But from what we have seen and what has been reported about the complete fiasco around the defence investment plan, and about the failure to plan and meet the expectations that the public and our allies around the world have of us, it is no wonder that the Defence Secretary felt that he was unable to work under those conditions any longer. For six months—a quarter of the time the Prime Minister has been in office—he could not make a decision.
Since January, it has been clear to the Government that there is a gargantuan shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget. The paltry sum that the Treasury deemed suitable to shower on the MOD was barely enough to replace a few helmets, let alone build a next-generation fighting force that can deliver on the priorities outlined in the strategic defence review. Let us be clear: the indecision may be based on process—the Prime Minister’s favourite wall to hide behind—and, yes, there must be a process to prioritise, delegate and decide, but his indecision will cost lives if and when this country faces a crisis that requires a military response. The question remains: why did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not see this coming? The answer, of course, is that they did. They saw the threat of being exposed as weak on defence, and they chose to do nothing.
I respect the Minister for the Armed Forces and thank her for her past service, but she has added to this. She has spent a lot of time criticising the last Government—quite rightly, because she is a Minister of the Crown—but she now sits in the Department, and she stands at the Dispatch Box saying that all is now well and that she is proud of the process she is putting forward, when one of the Ministers she served alongside in the Department has resigned, as has the Secretary of State, who said that things were not going in the right direction. I think she needs to look at their speeches again.
There are few things more damning for the leader of a country to be accused of than being incapable of protecting the people they were elected to govern. That is not a party political point, but a point that has been made by the former Defence Secretary and the former Minister for the Armed Forces and one increasingly made across the defence sector, including by the Labour man, Lord Robertson, who wrote the strategic defence review in the first place. I sometimes wonder if Labour Members are deaf, because all these Labour voices are telling the Government that their strategic defence review, the lack of a defence investment plan and the lack of funding going into our armed forces are damning, but the Ministers at the Dispatch Box do not seem to hear.
Mr Francois
I have great respect for Lord Robertson, an accomplished former Defence Secretary and a former Secretary-General of NATO, who joined the Labour party in 1961. He is a Labour lifer, and when even he accuses the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency”, does that not prove how utterly out of touch this Government now are?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces is absolutely correct. I think we can add somebody else, and that is the former Defence Secretary. He is known not as a party political man, but as a deep statesman. He is known as a Minister on whom Prime Ministers from across the Labour party could rely. When we reach the stage of a former Labour statesman who wrote the SDR and the recently serving Secretary of State saying the Government are not listening to them, I think the country at large needs to listen, and so do Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box.
If I may, I will briefly mention specific points on the DIP and resilience. On the DIP, I know that the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench accept that the defence of the realm is the most important duty of any Government, and while I wish them success, I just think that this Government are falling short. There is no clearer sign of that than the lack of a defence investment plan, which they have promised. It has been much touted by this Government, but it is delayed by the latest drama. It is likely to be delayed again, which will spread uncertainty in our defence sector, including defence businesses in my constituency of Hamble Valley. Most importantly, it will spread uncertainty among our allies internationally.
The elephant in the room is that the Ministers sitting here today may not be in their jobs in three weeks’ time. I do not wish that to happen—I believe they are good Ministers—but that is the nature of the job we are in, or that they are in. Again, that will add to the uncertainty faced by businesses in the defence sector that are looking to the Government for the investment they were promised two and a half years ago.
In Hamble Valley, we have a thriving defence sector. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has been there: he kindly came down to a roundtable in the constituency. We have companies such as Domo Tactical Communications, Kraken, Safran, Saab and Windracers, but the constant feedback I get is that, without a defence investment plan, they do not know what they are supposed to do or where to invest. If the Minister and the new Secretary of State do not do this very quickly, those companies will suffer, and the United Kingdom as a whole will suffer. The figure of £13 billion is not the £18 billion identified by the National Security Adviser as needed just to maintain the status quo, which means that the United Kingdom will lose its credibility on the international stage.
My final point is about resilience. Last week, I was in Finland with the European Leadership Network. With Finnish MPs, we were looking at some of the defence co-operation in the NATO framework in which the United Kingdom, Israel and Finland play their part. I have to say that I was left shocked by the comparison between Finland’s resilience and preparedness and the United Kingdom’s. Hon. Members may challenge me—I know that some went to Norway last week—and point to the fact that Finland has a population of 5 million and a 1,500 mile border with Russia, whereas we have 70 million people on an island, but I think a lot of comparisons can be made. Very early on in the school system and when young people are growing up, defence resilience and preparedness are embedded in them, as it is in civil society and Government Departments.
As a former special adviser at the Cabinet Office, I know we have such documents, but what we urgently need to do—that is why this is in our motion—is not just look at international resilience and defence spending in order to attack, but make our population ready and willing to play their part in defending the homeland. The population in the Nordic countries have been polled about whether they would go to war if there was a threat. In Finland the figure is in the high 80s, but in the United Kingdom it is in the high teens, which worries me. Personally, I am a bit sceptical about how low it is here, because I believe our population would defend this country.
I am looking for answers from Ministers about how they plan—whether through the national curriculum or by reversing the cuts they have made to cadet forces in our schools—to very quickly embed in people from a very young age and entering civil society a sense that they are prepared to defend this country should that be needed.
Mr Francois
I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. The Finns have what they call a total defence concept, which is that in the event of an attack from Russia—they have much experience of that, historically—it is not just the armed forces who resist, but the whole of society. They have planned that for decades. We had something a bit like that during the cold war, but the Finns take it to a greater degree. Having been there, does he agree that we could learn a great deal from Finland?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely do. The story was that if any Russian crossed the Finland border, the first thing they would hear from a Finn is “Hands up!”, and that if the Russians went into Finland, there would be a sniper’s rifle in every window. I am not saying that we need to do that—that was slightly tongue in cheek—but there is that resilience there. As a House, we have to accept that nobody under the age of 50 really remembers an adversarial cold war or the mentality of needing to be prepared to defend the country should there be an imminent and unprovoked attack. That is what we need to get back to, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the SDR will look at that.
We are living in unparalleled times. Public warnings have come from the Chief of the Defence Staff and from two Ministers who have resigned. A Prime Minister is now going and, I have to say, the ministerial team have not taken any notice of those warnings and are still carrying on without giving the money our armed forces need. We are paralysed: we are paralysed in this House and the Government are paralysed about putting in the much-needed money that the professionals are asking for. I hope that in three weeks’ time, when we get a new Prime Minister, that will be unlocked and it will change. Call me a cynic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure it will.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
This debate comes at a very apt time. It is Armed Forces Week, when we show our support for our armed forces community, whether serving personnel and their families, veterans or cadets. I look forward to going to Brackley’s Armed Forces Day celebration this Saturday. I put on record my thanks to all the Royal British Legion branches that do so much across our constituencies, with a particular call-out to Tony McCawley, who organises veterans breakfasts in the Brackley branch on the first Saturday morning of the month: thank you for indulging me once a month.
Defence of the realm is the ultimate insurance policy: we invest now to protect our serving personnel and our people. If we fail to prepare, we prepare to fail. What the former Secretary of State says—that the Treasury is “unwilling” to commit the resources we need to defend the nation—is concerning. Given that the Prime Minister was unable to do that, what will the new Prime Minister—whoever that ends up being—do to move the dial and change that? That question lingers with us all, because it is really important.
Assuming that we do see the DIP published before the NATO summit, I hope that it will be honoured. It may be media speculation, but there are questions about whether the DIP should even be delayed by the forthcoming Prime Minister and whether they would want to meet the spending requirements. That is something we are all very concerned about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) has just said, many businesses are being affected by the DIP not being published. One of my businesses, EKA, has been told that there will be no new orders until the DIP is published. That is really kiboshing businesses, no matter what the Government say. We talk about “corrosive complacency”, but we are now in enforced limbo and it could go on for months. We do not have the time for that.
Let me turn to the readiness part of this debate. One element of that is the preparedness of the NHS for any armed conflict. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about us being in a situation that is more akin to the 1930s, and spoke about some of the risks. When we were fighting in the second world war, we did not have an NHS—it was formed afterwards. If we were to go into full-scale outright war now, there will be huge questions, because the NHS has never had to deal with that. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, has warned that the NHS is not ready for the casualties of full-scale war. We have approximately 14,000 medical regulars and reservists who work in the NHS. If we were to go into full-scale war, they would need to be deployed and we would therefore be faced with a gap.
The Government acknowledged in the SDR that there needs to be greater integration between defence and health to try to fix that, but the reality is that the Government still have no concrete plan for how the NHS would cope. As I said, we will have a gap in capability. If we see major returns of casualties, how will the NHS cope? When we had a recent incident, with only about eight soldiers returned, it overwhelmed the capacity of a particular hospital. That would have an impact on waiting lists and could potentially lead to the rationing of services, so what would it mean for civilians in the long term?
Those are all points we have to be prepared for. I call on the Government to turn their attention to them. Although the SDR acknowledges the issue, nothing has come from that, and we must be prepared. I ask the Government, in their own famous phrase, to work at pace. Please, work at pace and make sure we are ready for conflict.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
In February 2025, the now outgoing Prime Minister told this House that Labour defence investment would deliver
“a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.” —[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 634.]
In the many months that we have waited for the overdue defence investment plan, all that has been delivered is evidence of a Government lengthy on announcements and short on deliver for the security of our country. This has been at arguably the most globally turbulent time since the cold war and the second world war—a time when our defence industry needed certainty and support from the Government.
The 2025 strategic defence review set out that Labour’s defence investment plan would be completed in autumn 2025. Repeated pushbacks have real impacts on defence acquisition, expenditure and military capability. Labour has weakened our defence industry, leaving our armed forces in need of modernisation and transformation to ensure their readiness for modern warfare. However, as has been rightly highlighted by the Chief of the Defence Staff:
“recent circumstances…suggest the opposite. Further delay to the Defence Investment Plan, long promised ‘in the autumn’, risks sending damaging signals to adversaries.”
Our adversaries will not wait for a Government capable of bolstering our defence, and the Labour party should not be allowed to get away with this.
Even more concerning, when we finally receive the defence investment plan, it will confirm the intention to spend only 2.68% of GDP on defence and intelligence by 2027—an offer to uplift by only 0.08% of GDP to address a £28 billion blackhole in the MOD’s defence budget. To quote the then Labour Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), that
“falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.”
It will increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe.
A plan pushed back five times that does not address the problem it was designed to address is not a plan at all. It shows a corrosive complacency, characteristic of this Government’s failure to make the tough decisions they need to for our country. The Conservatives have always highlighted how serious this is, and we have taken the position that defence spending must increase to 3% by the end of this Parliament—a position recently backed by the former Defence Secretary.
Conservatives called for Labour to repurpose funding from the official development assistance budget for defence, and Labour followed our advice. We are now calling on Labour to go further and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament—doing this by reducing the welfare bill, not through more taxes and borrowing—growing the regular Army, and creating a sovereign defence fund that would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industry.
This morning, the Chancellor told the House that the defence investment plan will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country, but we cannot defend against today’s adversaries with inadequate policies from this Government. Like many others in the House, I urge the Government to get on with it. We can no longer defend our nation with soundbites.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a privilege to sum up this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in Armed Forces Week, when the nation pays particular attention and gives thanks to our armed forces, their families, veterans and cadets, for all that they do to ensure the security of this nation and its people.
This debate has a historical aspect, too. A week tomorrow is the 110th anniversary of the first day of the Somme, the fateful occasion on which the British Army suffered some 60,000 casualties, killed and wounded—the greatest loss our Army has ever suffered in a single day. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten. Indeed, we must not forget the sacrifice of those who died in subsequent conflicts, up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his emotive poem, “The Soldier”, the war poet Rupert Brooke famously said:
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.
Those fields are still there, as are the cemeteries, lovingly and respectfully tended by the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. In Armed Forces Week, we pay tribute to their highly professional efforts, too.
We still live in an extremely dangerous world. Across the House we stand four-square with the noble people of Ukraine, who have been fighting against Russian aggression not just for four years, since the full-scale invasion in 2022, but for 12 years, since the original Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas—a period longer than the first and second world wars combined.
I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who has just rejoined us, that it was a Conservative Government who, in 2014—after that first invasion, when the Ukrainians realised what was coming—began the programme known as Operation Orbital to train the Ukrainian armed forces to resist the full-scale invasion that they knew was coming. Had it not been for that programme—had it not been for the soldier’s instinct of Ben Wallace and the determination of Boris Johnson to equip and train the Ukrainians to resist the Russian invasion—the Russians would be having supper in Kyiv this evening. Perhaps, despite his incredibly partisan speech, the hon. Gentleman could give us some credit for that.
Mr Francois
No. [Laughter.]
In February of this year, along with some 20 Members from this House—the largest ever parliamentary delegation to Ukraine as far as I am aware—I visited Odesa, Chernobyl and Kyiv. On 24 February, we were privileged to take part in the commemoration in Maidan Square to mark the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion. It is, in effect, Ukraine’s equivalent of Remembrance Sunday, and it was extremely poignant to be part of it. They lay lanterns with a candle at their memorial in much the same way as we lay wreaths in Britain. The principle is exactly the same: it is to remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom and democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting for our values and, ultimately, for our freedom too. We absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their brave struggle, which we all hope that they will one day win.
In order to help them, we need armed forces that can fight too. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) reminded us in his resignation letter, we need to plan for the next war and not the last. With that in mind, I would like to ask Ministers some questions on programmatics this afternoon. Having been in government for nearly two years now, Labour has to begin to take responsibility for something. I have three very specific questions for the Minister on military capability.
First, where are we on the much delayed E-7 Wedgetail programme? When, if ever, will this vitally needed eye in the sky enter Royal Air Force service? When, if ever, will Boeing actually make it work properly?
Secondly, turning to the Army, there are media reports that it will cost an additional £1 billion—above the £5.5 billion already allocated—to fix the Ajax programme and bring it fully into service. Is that true? If it is, can we be assured that General Dynamics will pick up the bill, per its current £5.5 billion firm-price contract, and that not a single extra penny will fall on the British taxpayer? Incidentally, where are we on the Morpheus tactical communication system?
Thirdly, how can it be that our entire fleet of Astute-class nuclear attack submarines are currently laid up for maintenance? The new Secretary of State chided me last week for discussing submarine movements on the floor of the House. I did no such thing. I was, in fact, discussing the total absence of submarine movements. Given the First Sea Lord’s increasingly, and rightly, dire warnings about Russian naval activity in the English channel and the North sea, perhaps the Minister could tell us how we are supposed to credibly deter Russia when not a single one of our £1.5 billion attack submarines is currently at sea?
That brings me to the question of what has happened to the defence investment plan. The three well-respected authors of Labour’s much-vaunted strategic defence review were adamant when it was published, over a year ago now, that the price of implementing the measures in the SDR would be to spend 3% of GDP on defence. The detail of how that would be afforded and the actual programmatics were to be provided subsequently in the defence investment plan.
We were faithfully promised the plan in the autumn. Then we were absolutely promised it by Christmas. Then we were definitely going to get it early in the new year. Now we are in the middle of June and still do not have the DIP. Ministers tell us that they have been working flat out. Well, they are now comatose.
The new Armed Forces Minister assured the House last night that it would be published by the time of the Ankara summit in July, yet The Times reported this morning that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is minded to delay the publication of the DIP because he wants to take these decisions himself. Presumably whoever his new Chancellor turns out to be—we all pray that there will be one—will have something to say about that too. Can the Armed Forces Minister commit absolutely that after crying wolf so many times, the Government are going to stick to the timetable and publish the DIP within the next fortnight, prior to Ankara? Or is it going to slip yet again? She laughs, but this is not funny. This is about the defence of the United Kingdom. Do Ministers not realise that what little credibility they have left is rapidly disappearing?
Indeed, after Cabinet this morning, and even during the course of this debate, the BBC has reported:
“No new major policies or spending decisions until new PM appointed, No 10 says”.
Where does that leave the defence investment plan? Who is in charge of the clattering train? Who actually runs this country? Is it the current Prime Minister or the next one?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and I mentioned a number of businesses that are not growing—and I know that the shadow Secretary of State went to Kraken yesterday. Businesses are trying to get orders and grow, but are holding off because they do not have the defence investment plan. This lack of action is costing jobs, is it not?
Mr Francois
Absolutely; industry is exasperated, from BAE Systems down to the smallest defence suppliers in the land. When we were in government, we published—with one year’s exception, I think—a detailed equipment plan every year so that industry could plan accordingly. That is what the DIP is meant to be, but still we do not have it.
Labour Ministers tell us and their own Back Benchers again and again that they are increasing defence spending to the greatest extent since the end of the cold war. That is literally untrue. The Defence Secretary told the world in his resignation letter that Labour’s spending plans envisage going from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030. That is a 0.08% increase over four years. How is that the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war? Help me out, someone over there.
It gets worse. Labour is also seeking £3.5 billion of in-year, self-inflicted, Treasury-driven cuts to the operational and readiness spending of our armed forces. That means fewer ships at sea, fewer planes in the air and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain—and the Russian and Chinese embassies must be laughing themselves silly. If Members will not take it from me, take it from the Chief of the Defence Staff—the professional head of the armed forces—who warned just a few days ago that if Labour continues on its financial path and does not fund the DIP properly, he will have no option but to cut back on readiness and training, which is exactly the activity that is meant to deter a potential aggressor in the first place.
The blunt truth—as a Brit, I take no joy in saying it—is that this Government are the laughing stock of NATO. Indeed, in NATO’s own readiness index, the United Kingdom ranks 31st out of 32 NATO countries, with the only one below us Iceland by virtue of having no armed forces to ready. As the Government disintegrate before our eyes, we can only hope that their successors are both competent and courageous and actually believe in defending this country, which clearly this collapsing Administration do not.
Another area that we want to press Ministers hard on is the fate of their benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described it as “not fit for purpose”, spoke powerfully in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister in defence of Northern Ireland veterans. He mentioned his battle in government, where he
“set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.”
He went on:
“We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it’s done. We are failing on both.”
Nine former four-star officers have told the world that the troubles Bill represents a “direct threat to national security.” A group of former SAS commanders who were at the sharp end of the battle against republican terrorism told us:
“Today every British soldier deployed must consider not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them… Make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”
We absolutely cannot allow this situation to continue against those who defended the rule of law. Those who served in Operation Banner stood effectively as piggy-in-the-middle for decades between two warring communities. Over 700 of them were killed and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries. They and their comrades are now to be pursued through the courts via lawfare, actively aided and abetted by a Government who for months have promised multiple times to produce amendments to the Bill to protect veterans and, just as with the DIP, we have seen nothing of substance on which the House can rely, with no amendments and no letters of comfort for them, either.
It is a matter of record that a number of those regiments who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner came from the north-west of England, including from in and around the Manchester area. I think of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and its antecedent regiments, including the King’s Regiment, which traditionally recruited from Liverpool and Manchester—they did many tours of Northern Ireland. I therefore ask, in all seriousness, what is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Makerfield towards the benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
If the new Prime Minister seeks some kind of reset for the Labour party, A good place to start would be to drop this dreadful piece of legislation, which threatens to put our soldiers in the dock solely to the advantage of those who sought to kill them. In lieu of that, he could agree to back the Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill, the excellent new private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), which will have its Second Reading on 4 September and which in essence seeks to curtail any further investigations, inquests or inquiries against our Op Banner veterans unless compelling new evidence as certified by a UK Supreme Court Justice is produced. Some of us on these Benches have literally spent years seeking to defend those who defended us; let us hope that the new Prime Minister will agree.
There has been consensus on one point this afternoon—I heard it again and again—which is that the first duty of Government above all others is the defence of the realm, yet the Armed Forces Minister resigned, the Secretary of State for Defence resigned and now the Prime Minister has resigned. This Administration has failed. It is broken. It is going. It made many mistakes, but worst of all, it failed to defend this country. For that, it deserves to come to an end.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank our armed forces for their work to keep this nation safe every single day—the regulars, the reserves, the cadets, the civil servants who back our forces, and the men and women of our defence industry who keep our fighting forces on the frontline with the kit and equipment that they need to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I have heard the pride in our armed forces from both sides of the House today, and though there was quite a lot of politics, in particular from the Opposition Front Bench, I think that all those who serve in uniform can take from this debate that, regardless of party, we back them and we will continue to support them.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that it is a shame that Reform Members are still not here for a defence debate. None the less, in their absence, I will press on. There were a number of common themes raised today, but before I mention them, I will say this to the House. I am proud to be a Plymouth MP; I am proud to represent Devonport, the largest naval base in western Europe; I am proud to be the son of a Royal Navy submariner; and I am proud to be an RCDS graduate. I wish the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) all the best for his graduation in due course.
On Saturday, I will be on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day, which is a brilliant annual event. I know that there is cross-party support for the men and women of our armed forces, but in particular, I thank one set of armed forces personnel who have done an amazing job in Plymouth over the last year, clearing all the second world war bombs that we keep finding in our city. The armed forces have a lot of roles, but the role that has been on the TV news is the one played by the brave men and women who have been moving second world war bombs around, putting their lives at risk to safeguard others from a conflict that took place many decades ago. I thank them for that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In Armed Forces Week, will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the brave men and women, the staff and the recruits of HMS Raleigh, the local community that keep them going and especially the reservists, who are such unsung heroes in this important week?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her comments. HMS Raleigh is an important training establishment for the Royal Navy. Right across the country, whether in the Navy, Army, Air Force or the new direct entry scheme for cyber, we have some brilliant people training the next generation of talent in our armed forces. I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who serve at HMS Raleigh.
This has been a good debate with some passionate speeches across the House. People are passionate because they care about defence; indeed, that is why I stand here as a Defence Minister. I care about defence, I care about our national security and I am proud that I am part of a Government that also do. A number of themes have been discussed and I will detail them here. Across the House, we have spoken about defence spending, readiness, armed forces personnel and veterans, and about how we deal with the inheritance left by the previous Government, how we value our people more and how we publish the defence investment plan. I will return to each one, but first I will turn to the DIP.
Those who were present at Treasury questions this morning will have heard the Chancellor say:
“The Ministry of Defence is producing a defence investment plan that will meet the scale of the challenges and meet the moment with increased readiness. I am confident that the new defence investment plan will be published before the NATO Ankara summit. It will involve more money spent more effectively and will meet the scale of the challenges facing our country.”
I think that answers the question.
Luke Pollard
I will make some progress. That was a clear answer to the questions that have been asked on the matter.
When it comes to defence spending, which was raised by a number of colleagues across the House, let me be clear: this Labour Government are spending more on defence. I welcome a debate that asks how we can spend even more and faster, but we should be clear that we are spending more on defence. Next year, we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. That figure was not met in a single year of the previous 14 under the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The shouty people on the Opposition Front Bench say the world has changed. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) must be terrible when he goes to the cinema in terms of being shouty. I agree that the world has changed; that is why we are spending more on defence. Would I like to spend more? Of course I would.
Luke Pollard
No, I will make some progress.
We are spending more of this increasing defence budget with British companies. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) mentioned Kraken in his constituency, which I visited very recently. He will be pleased to hear, if he is not familiar with this, about the increased orders that we have given Kraken for its K3 Scout. I believe there is a K3 Scout on show in Speaker’s Court at the moment. Kraken is a brilliant company investing in cutting-edge technology that we are backing not only for 47 Commando in the Royal Marines, which is in receipt of K3s for Project Beehive, but for the autonomous hybrid Navy options, especially in the strait of Hormuz. It is a brilliant company doing brilliant things.
When it comes to readiness, let me say clearly that we need to develop our warfighting capabilities, moving from an era of expeditionary warfare. The strategic defence review set out clearly the change that is required. Our forces have been postured and resourced for a period of expeditionary warfare for quite some time, leading up to where we are today, and the SDR set out that we need to move away from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness against a peer adversary. That means a number of things. First, it means retiring old kit and equipment that is not suitable for that task. Secondly, it means massively reforming our procurement system so that we can procure faster.
We inherited a broken procurement system that we are fixing, and I am pleased that the new national armaments director is leading much of that work. I know that we can achieve improvements in procurement because the brilliant men and women of our Ministry of Defence do so in the support that they provide to our friends in Ukraine. On one side of their desks, they can use increased permissions to procure kit and equipment for Ukraine faster. On the other side of their desks, we are trying to make it easier for them to procure what could be similar equipment for our own armed forces.
Luke Pollard
No, I am going to make some progress.
The third area that people have spoken about today is armed forces personnel and veterans, and I am grateful to a number of Members from across the House for mentioning people who are doing incredible things in their own constituencies. I believe it was the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who spoke about Tony McCawley, who runs the veterans breakfast. I thank him and the hundreds of people like him who run veterans breakfasts up and down the length of the country. I know it makes such a difference for veterans, especially those who might be having a tough time, to go somewhere where there are other people who have walked in their boots—maybe in a different unit and maybe at a different time of service, but having someone they can relate to makes such a big difference.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who spoke about Muster Point and Stuart Mendelson from Stevenage, who is doing such a good job in supporting veterans in his community as well. I know that if there were more time, every single Member who has spoken would have been able to single out brilliant people doing brilliant things in their own constituency, and I thank them.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me now answer the questions about the inheritance that we face. I have already spoken about the SDR wanting us to move from expeditionary warfare to warfighting readiness, but we now need to deliver the changes that we have set out. We have made good progress, but we inherited a situation where 47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed. I believe that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was responsible for those delayed programmes when he sat in my seat.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to make some progress.
Let me also be clear about the inheritance that we have in housing and in morale. We inherited a situation where many of our armed forces were living in housing that was frankly unacceptable. They had black mould in their children’s bedrooms, leaky boilers and leaky roofs. We are sorting that out with a generational repair, and nine in 10 military homes will be either refitted or rebuilt in the next decade. We have already delivered the first 1,200, with the worst homes on our military estate being able to be refitted. That has been delivered by taking those houses back into public control.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can seek your guidance. In this Opposition day debate, many of us have spent four and a half hours in this Chamber seeking answers from a Government Minister. When he refuses to give way, how do we ensure that he responds to our questions? Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will still have my say. Is it in order for a Minister not to give way through the whole of his speech?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he chooses to give way or not.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) did say that I was a good Minister, which I am sure is a kiss of death for my career, but I welcome it none the less. He asked me how I am trying to answer the questions; I am answering the questions by not giving way, so that I can answer the questions that have been asked. I have taken copious notes.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress; I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The fifth area that we have spoken a lot about in the debate is how we value our people more. Valuing our people more means improving their conditions, and that means improving defence housing and improving childcare for deployed personnel, including deployed personnel in the United Kingdom, such as those deployed and based in Scotland. We have taken an important step in addressing that.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress, as I have said a number of times. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start listening.
I am exceptionally proud of the biggest pay rise for 22 years. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the effective real-term pay cuts to our armed forces under the Conservatives. Well, they have had above-inflation pay rises from this Labour Government.
Luke Pollard
I am still going to be answering the questions raised and not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Let me turn to the questions that have been asked. [Interruption.] They are very shouty, Madam Deputy Speaker—a little bit angry as well.
I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and rate him highly. I appreciate his honesty in speaking about decisions that his party made when it was in coalition with the Conservatives. I have not seen that level of honesty in many of the speeches from Conservative Members, but I am grateful to him.
Luke Pollard
I am still not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) made a good point about numbers versus capabilities. I have responded to a number of urgent questions and debates around the defence investment plan, but I want more discussion about the new capabilities we need to bring on board. For instance, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned, how can we invest in more deep precision strike and integrated air and missile defence? How can we ensure that we are looking at F-35As? That is precisely what we need to invest more in.
I listened carefully to the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and I am grateful to him for making it. In particular, his experience of having to bury men from his regiment shows what an important, experienced figure he is; we in this House need to listen to him. He asked about the national armaments director ripping up the rules around procurement.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Puberty Blockers
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the Opposition spokesperson.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to take steps to prevent the PATHWAYS clinical trial into the effect of puberty suppressing hormones on children with gender incongruence.
Before I start, I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and a member of the British Medical Association. It is also important for us to recognise at the beginning of this debate that we are talking about the protection of children—vulnerable children who are troubled, and who need our care and compassion and the very best quality of healthcare.
The healthcare of children distressed about their gender is an area in which attempts have been made to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia; we saw the way that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) was treated when she raised concerns. As adults and as elected Members of this House, we have a duty to safeguard children in our country. That means protecting them from adults who—with whatever motivation, good or bad—could do them harm.
As a children’s doctor, I have recruited patients for trials, and I have cared for children and babies participating in clinical trials. I recognise the value of a well-designed clinical trial in improving clinical care, but today the House is not being asked to consider the principle of performing clinical trials in general, or on children in particular—I hope we can all agree that a well-designed trial can improve care. Rather, we are being asked to consider the Pathways trial: whether it meets ethical tests, what it does, the cohort, the protocol and the consent. I will go through each of those points in turn.
The Pathways trial is part of a group of studies run by King’s College London and funded by the Government. So what does it do and why are we so concerned? The trial will take 226 children who are physically healthy—who are developing normally—and inject them with powerful drugs to delay that normal development in a way that may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage their sexual function, and leave them unable to have children of their own.
We are told that the purpose of this is to treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence. So what is gender incongruence? The International Classification of Diseases states that it is
“characterised by a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex, which often leads to a desire to ‘transition’”.
We know that gender incongruence is a condition that is subjective. It is based on how someone tells us they feel. There are no blood tests and no lab markers that can be used to diagnose it. As a paediatrician myself, I understand that how patients feel, particularly in relation to their mental health, is very important. We know from the Cass review that the vast majority of children with gender incongruence will get better on their own. Again, as a paediatrician, I am used to providing supportive treatment for conditions such as respiratory viruses and gastroenteritis, which generally get better on their own, but I am not used to giving powerful drugs to children that can cause permanent long-term damage for subjective, self-resolving difficulties during adolescence.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
As a consultant paediatrician, my hon. Friend will be able to give a definitive view on this matter. Some who campaign for this treatment and therapy argue that the effects of gene therapy are reversible. To what extent are they reversible? Should we be treating this as a reversible treatment? My hon. Friend has referred to permanent damage. Can we try to agree across the House at least on this matter: that gene therapy applied to children is not reversible?
Dr Johnson
This is not a form of gene therapy. It is a medication that is a GnRH analogue, and what it essentially does is delay puberty. It was designed as a drug to treat children who go into puberty much earlier than they would be expected to, and to delay it until, as it were, the right time. The effects of the use of puberty blockers in older children and for a much longer period, at an age when they ought to have started puberty, are not fully understood.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that we do not know the effects, but a number of children have been put through this process via the now discredited Tavistock process. Why does she think that the NHS will not refer to the data linkage study and use the data that would have been gained from the children who were put through that process, in order to find out what the effects are before deciding to put a whole new cohort of children through what is clearly a damaging procedure?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and I will come to the data linkage study shortly. What we do know from the Cass review is that the vast majority of children who went on to puberty blockers in adolescence went on to receive cross-sex hormones, which are known to have permanent effects.
One fact that is crucially important is that it is not possible for clinicians to confidently determine which children with gender incongruence will persist with the trans identity into adulthood, and which will not. How can the clinicians possibly know that they are not injecting potentially dangerous drugs into children whose incongruence will resolve itself? The answer is that they cannot. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is aware of new evidence allowing clinicians to work out confidently which children will persist with the trans identity at 11 and which will not? We need to think about the risk involved in the treatment, and whether it is worth the benefits that they will purportedly receive.
The trial researchers suggest that they will take a wide approach to looking at potential benefits, that they will look at quality of life and body satisfaction, and that there must be a reasonable prospect of benefit; but how can they know whether there is a reasonable prospect of benefit when they do not know whether or not the condition will persist? Some have suggested that giving puberty blockers will help the few adults who retain their trans identity into adulthood to pass as the opposite sex. Does the Secretary of State think that the long-term damage to many is worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 specify that “anticipated benefits” must justify the risk. This is an ethical rather than a medical question. Does the Secretary of State think that the benefits justify the risk?
I regret that we have ended up discussing the details of a clinical trial in the Chamber—the reality is that things should be done impartially by scientists in most cases—but with this topic we have seen the quashing of open debate, which is why we have ended up where we are.
I will move on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). Even if the Secretary of State thinks the principle of the trial is right, he must surely agree that it is unnecessary and unethically broad. For example, if someone was designing a trial to treat children with a specific form of cancer, the children who would be entered into the trial would have that specific form of cancer. We would not include children with any disease, because that would make the results unreliable in terms of benefit to the target group and children would be unnecessarily put at risk of receiving experimental drugs that they did not need.
The same applies to this trial. The Cass report tells us that many of the children in the proposed trial will get better on their own. The Secretary of State said yesterday that
“we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady knows that she is one of my favourite Tories—I think I have said that before. She has quoted Baroness Cass many times. Of course, Baroness Cass thinks this trial should go ahead, because the benefits outweigh the costs. Why is Baroness Cass wrong and the hon. Lady right?
Dr Johnson
Well, one of the things with doctors is that if you ask two doctors, you might get two different opinions. I completely respect Baroness Cass. She has been president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, of which I am a member, and she has done great work on the report that we commissioned in the last Parliament. I know she is concerned that people may obtain these drugs illegally if they are not provided, but I do not share that concern. Personally, I think the important thing is whether the people obtaining such drugs legally are using them in a way that is safe, and I am not convinced that that is the case.
Dr Arthur
By giving way a second time, the hon. Lady shows why she is my favourite Tory. Does Baroness Cass not say that she has met young people who have been self-medicating with testosterone, which is irreversible? That is one of the problems that we are trying to address through this trial. It is about protecting young people so that they are not going down their own medical pathway, but are listening to medical advice and are well supported in a coherent framework.
Dr Johnson
I am sorry, but I just do not support that. We would not give children cocaine on the basis that they wanted it and would get it illegally otherwise. These are not sweeties; they are powerful drugs and need to be treated with respect.
Even if we accept the premise that a very small number of people might benefit from treatment, how could clinicians decide which children to treat? On what ethical or moral code would we want to inject powerful drugs into children who are likely to have a self-limiting illness and therefore do not need it? That is what the Government have chosen to do, and it is not necessary.
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, they have this data already. The Tavistock was a travesty, but it means that the Government could analyse the data from the outcomes of those children. They could establish the outcomes as children went into adulthood, and Baroness Cass tried to do this using the data linkage study. Shockingly, six out of seven adult gender clinics refused to provide the Government with the data. Even when a specific piece of legislation was passed by the previous Government to clarify that it was legal to provide the information to this trial, the gender clinics still did not provide it.
I understand that NHS England is working on the data linkage study, but I ask the Secretary of State why it is taking so long. Is the abolition of NHS England causing delay? Why is he letting this trial, which he has expressed reservations about, go ahead in the knowledge that it is unnecessarily broad and in advance of the data linkage study?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Lady agree that unblocking the reasons why the data is not being made available should be the top priority, and that analysis of that data should be done before any further experiments on children are done?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and he expresses my point succinctly. Why is the Secretary of State going ahead with a trial—experimenting on more children unnecessarily—when he has the data to analyse already? Why has he chosen to fund this trial? Is he worried about the children who will be put on a medical pathway that may lead to cross-sex hormones and a lifetime of medicalisation when they would have got better by themselves anyway?
I want to talk about the age of these young people. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency warned in February that the youngest patients are at the greatest risk, and may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period. They have a higher risk to fertility because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2, but this Government have chosen to include children of 11 or 12. Some will wonder why it is 11 for girls and 12 for boys—indeed, I was asked that question yesterday—but as a paediatrician I am aware that puberty starts earlier in girls than in boys. It is somewhat ironic that a trial based on the premise that girls could be boys recognises this biology, but I am glad that in this respect it does. However, that means some of the participants will be primary school-aged children with the merest form of puberty. How can they possibly meet the eligibility criteria, which includes
“sufficient understanding of the treatment advantages and disadvantages, including discussion of fertility preservation”?
How can a child of 11 understand what it means to lose sexual function, to be unable to have children when they are older, to have difficulties in thinking and to have weak bones? Remember that this Government think that 14-year-olds are not old enough to watch social media, but they think 11-year-olds are capable of understanding this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I just say this to the hon. Lady and, perhaps more importantly, to the Secretary of State, who is very genuine, personable and easy to speak to. In Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Minister there have taken a decision not to pursue this. Would the hon. Lady agree that, when the Government pursue something here that may set a precedent for somewhere that has not agreed to it at the time, there could be an influence, with an adverse impact on the regional Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly where we are, and elsewhere—and it is important that the Government here do not take a decision that could influence areas they do not control?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on devolution, and I am sure the Secretary of State was listening and considering what he has said.
To go back to the age of the young people, I am reminded of the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock, which says:
“We do not think that the answer to this case is simply to give the child more, and more detailed, information. The issue in our view is that in many cases, however much information the child is given as to long-term consequences, s/he will not be able to weigh up the implications of the treatment to a sufficient degree.”
I draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to the next part of the quote:
“There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.”
Yet, as Secretary of State confirmed yesterday, the children must consent or assent to being in this trial. Another question that he did not answer yesterday is why the Government did not heed the MHRA recommendation for a minimum of 14 years. Having established that the Government are going to put a group of physically healthy children with a self-resolving condition at a risk they may not fully understand, the remaining question is why they would they want to do this.
The trial itself has an interesting design. We are told that it is a randomised controlled trial—as a doctor, I am familiar with that term—but in this case it is a bit of a fudge. Yes, this Government-sponsored trial will randomise which children get the drugs now and which get them in a year’s time, but the comparison group that does not receive puberty blockers—300 children from the Horizon Intensive trial, with whom the trial will seek to compare—may not be considered a reliable comparison, because the group is a different group with different eligibility criteria. When the results of this trial are published, this fact is bound to be used by people who dispute or disagree with the findings. The Secretary of State said this trial will resolve the dispute over the issue, but that is one of the reasons why I think it will not.
I want to discuss sexual function, because yesterday the Secretary of State said that the trial would involve the completion of a number of questionnaires, and one of my hon. Friends raised the question about what happens to children’s sexual function in the long term. What is sexual function? It is desire, arousal and orgasm. The trial organisers are clearly concerned about this, because they put into the trial the ALSPAC—Avon longitudinal study of parents and children—romantic relationships questionnaire. I read the questionnaire on the Health Research Authority website, and children from the age of 12 and over will be asked these questions, one of which is:
“In the last year have you had oral sex with another person? (This is when they put their mouth or tongue on your penis/vagina or you put your mouth or tongue on their penis/vagina)”.
Let us be clear: if that is happening to a 12-year-old, that is sexual abuse and the police should be called. Is the Secretary of State content for the Government to be asking these questions of such young children? Can he believe that they will be paid £20 for completing their questionnaires, alongside £30 for completing the assessment of cognitive ability and £15 for completing physical and height assessments, in addition to travel expenses?
There will be lots of talk this week about the Prime Minister’s legacy. Putting children as young as 11 on puberty blockers, with irreversible life-changing consequences, would be the most disturbing final chapter in what has been a troubled book of leadership. Today, right hon. and hon. Members will be asked to vote to consider their approval or disapproval of the trial. I urge them to look at their conscience, read the trial protocol—it is online—and remember that these are vulnerable children who deserve the best care. One day, the children caught in the middle of this debate will be adults. It is our responsibility to ensure that when they look back on their one childhood, their one adolescence and their one chance to enjoy growing up, they must know that every decision was made with the utmost care, caution and respect for their future. The power to make that happen is in our hands today. I urge hon. Members to protect children’s futures.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
I know what a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue this is. As I said in the House yesterday, I have myself struggled with the profound challenges this subject raises. We all, as adults, owe a duty of care to every child and young person in this country. That is a responsibility I bear, both as a citizen and as Health Secretary, with the utmost seriousness and sincerity. It is why, in all my deliberations on this matter, my consideration is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led, safe and effective. The way to ensure that is to follow expert clinical advice, which is what the Government are doing.
Dr Hilary Cass, the clinician who I think has more respect in this space than any other, has spoken about the importance of this trial in recent days. I remind the shadow Minister that it was her party that commissioned the Cass review and accepted its findings, which included the Pathways trial. I have been clear to the House that this is a challenging area. I accept and welcome the scrutiny of Members, but I encourage us to keep in mind Dr Cass’s request to consider the issues sensitively and cautiously. She says:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
I do not think that there is any question that a few years ago, children’s safety and wellbeing was not being protected when it came to gender incongruence. From around 2009, the number of children and young people being referred for NHS support around their gender identity increased rapidly. Stories subsequently emerged of young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at an early age, of children rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand, and of clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health issues. As such, there was rightly deep concern about the vulnerability of these children and young people, the care and treatments they were receiving, and the surge in referrals. And so, in 2020, NHS England commissioned the leading paediatrician, Dr Hilary Cass, to carry out a review into NHS gender identity services for under-18s.
What Dr Cass uncovered was shocking and scandalous, and she made a series of recommendations for how children can be better protected and supported. It was, in my mind, unquestionably wrong for children and young people to be routinely prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria without any clear evidence on their benefits or risks. The situation then was out of control and so I fully supported the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), which followed the temporary ban brought in by the previous Government.
In considering what to do next, Dr Cass identified that treatment for gender incongruence was
“an area of remarkably weak evidence”.
She found that even clinicians working in the field were divided on the best way to support, treat and care for young people suffering from gender dysphoria. Where there is strong divergence of medical opinion on treatment, the two possible responses are either to continue with uncertainty—and with that, conflicting opinions and advice—or to undertake a trial. It is only by doing that that we can ensure that children with gender-related distress get the same access to and standards of care as everyone in the NHS.
Gregory Stafford
There is a third option, which is to get NHS England to motor ahead with the data-linkage study, so that we can use the data that has already been collected to find out the answers to the questions that the Secretary of State is posing. Only then, if the information is not there, should the trial go ahead. Why is he not pushing that third way?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman’s question allows me to address that matter directly. The data-linkage study will not provide clear evidence of the risks and benefits of puberty-suppressing hormones, which is needed to guide future clinical practice for this cohort. The type of information that would be available in a linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will collect about the relative benefits and harms of puberty-suppressing hormones when accessed alongside a holistic model of care.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
For clarity, are Scottish children going to be included in the trial, either by being able to travel south of the border or via NHS Scotland directly?
James Murray
I have responsibility for NHS England as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I am setting out the protocol agreed in relation to this trial, as it is a subject that is arousing a lot of questions in the Chamber, which is fair. [Interruption.] I will come back to that point, if the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) allows me to make a little progress.
James Murray
I will make a little progress, and then I will be open to more interventions. We need to be clear about who we are talking about. As Dr Cass said, the vast majority of children and young people who question their gender will resolve it without needing any support other than their friends and family. For many young people, questioning their identity, on many different fronts, is a normal part of growing up, and we should simply let them be. A small number of those young people, however, need greater support because of the level and longevity of discomfort that they feel, and that can often involve counselling or therapy.
For a very small number of young people, it is possible—and I emphasise the word possible—that medical treatment would help improve their quality of life and mental health and reduce their gender-related distress. That is why Dr Cass recommended a trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing, and to establish how best to support children and young people suffering gender incongruence.
Iqbal Mohamed
On that point, in normal clinical trials, the active substance and a placebo would be used, and the impact, changes or benefits that each cohort experienced would be checked. If children have a psychological leaning and are emotionally feeling that they are in the wrong body, is there not value in having a cohort that takes a placebo and seeing if that improves their mental health?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question around how the clinical trial is designed. In this case, the young people involved in the trial, of whom there will be around 226, will be split into two groups; one half will have the puberty blockers from the start, the other half will receive them after a year.
My understanding of this matter, having interrogated the detail carefully, is that a placebo would not be appropriate for this trial because the subject will be able to know the impacts of having the puberty blockers; they will be aware of whether they are having the medication. What is important, however, and what I hope will set this Pathways trial in a wider context, is all the other work that is being done to study the incidence of gender incongruence and the responses to that among young people, which will go beyond the trial we are talking about to look at children and young people questioning their gender through talking to them, understanding their mental health and their approach to that. All that will happen alongside this trial, which is one part of a much wider study to understand how best to support young people who are facing these gender-related issues.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I acknowledge the serious way that the Secretary of State is approaching this. I think many people will be concerned that, as the shadow Minister has said, there is no objective blood marker for these individuals; I think they will be concerned that a group of people will be taken forward in this trial when a whole range of influences could have governed how they have got to that point, given that the implications of taking these drugs are quite profound for their life and further development. How does one reconcile the fact that there is no way of verifying the suitability and the way that these individuals have been selected for the trial? Perhaps he could help me to understand it better.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone he took in asking an important question, which I am pleased to be able to respond to. The bar for getting on to this trial is set extremely high, with strict eligibility criteria: parental consent, alongside the young person themselves consenting or assenting; a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years; and consent from both the NHS care team and a national multidisciplinary team, including a wide range of disciplines, to understand all aspects of a young person’s health, context and situation. The level of approvals and scrutiny that young people will have to go through to participate in the trial will, therefore, set the bar extremely high.
James Murray
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He mentioned parental consent—what would happen in a situation where the child was in the care of the state? Would they be included or excluded from this trial?
James Murray
If a child is looked after under a care order, the local authority has parental responsibility, so it would need to be part of the consent process as the corporate parent.
I turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) about young people becoming involved in the trial and the checks that are in place to enable that to happen. As I set out earlier, as the trial involves children, it comes with a responsibility to interrogate and understand its design. As Health Secretary, I have sought the most detailed assurances possible from my clinical advisers as to how children taking part in the trial will be protected.
There are a number of important safeguards. As I have said, children can participate only with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent. They can participate only if they have had a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years, have received psychosocial support through the NHS and are of stable physical and mental health. They can participate only if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns and if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its possible advantages and disadvantages. They can participate only if the treatment has been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team and if they are already accessing NHS gender services. On eligibility, the bar is extremely high.
The number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will be low and the safeguards to ensure their safety and wellbeing will be rigorous. I have sought and had an assurance that, once they are involved in the trial, participants may be withdrawn at any point. We are not proceeding with the previous, now decommissioned, model of care overseen by the Conservatives when they were in government. We are proceeding cautiously, with rigorous safeguards in pursuit of the evidence, as Dr Cass recommended.
Last Thursday, the independent MHRA approved an updated protocol that significantly strengthened the objective criteria for withdrawing children from the trial, which is a change that I welcome. Signs of greater risk to participants will now trigger increased monitoring, clinical review or their automatic withdrawal from the trial. All participants will be monitored before, at the start of, every three months during, and after the trial. Before and during the trial, information will be collected about mental health, quality of life, self-harm and suicidality, body image, cognition, puberty stage, physical health and side effects.
I have been determined to ensure that the oversight of this trial is as rigorous and robust as it possibly can be, so I have requested monthly updates on its progress. That will include my being notified of any emerging risks.
This trial is rightly one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times. We should expect nothing less when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Yet, as Dr Cass has made clear, we have to build the evidence base to show whether the treatments are safe and whether they produce the positive outcomes that young people and clinicians want from them.
The Opposition’s motion would prevent us from following expert clinical advice, when proceeding with the trial is the most appropriate way forward. I say that not because I am suggesting that we should feel instinctively comfortable in doing so but because I have arrived at that conclusion after considering the clinical evidence and receiving robust assurances on the safeguards that are in place.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State has agonised over this matter—he made that clear in his statement to the House last night and again today—but what is not in doubt is the harm that these drugs do. It is an established medical fact. He is determined to be driven by the evidence. That is evidential. We know that the drugs have harmful effects, so in essence what he is saying is that we are prepared to wear those harmful effects on the off-chance that the drugs may have a beneficial set of effects, when there is no evidence to suggest up until now that they do.
James Murray
The MHRA has introduced additional safeguards. As a result of its dialogue with the trial sponsors, the amended protocol published last week increases the level of safeguards. That means that if the regular monitoring, which will happen at least every three months—it can be more regular during the trial—shows any sign of increased risk of harm, that will lead to increased monitoring, clinical review and, when considered against objective criteria, automatic withdrawal from the trial.
It is a question of monitoring this trial, possibly more closely than any trial before—the level of scrutiny is very great indeed—to ensure that at the first sign of any increased risk of harm, action will be taken. That is the assurance that I have sought in interrogating this matter carefully in recent days, and that is the basis on which I am talking to the right hon. Gentleman and others in the House today.
We must come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter to move forward as a country, and I believe that we should follow clinical advice and establish the clinical evidence gathered in a highly scrutinised trial with all the safeguards in place that I have described. Only that approach will give us the confidence about where we settle on this matter in the future. On that basis, the Government oppose this motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
This debate is on a subject that, it goes without saying, is emotive and complex. We must therefore as always endeavour to have this conversation with compassion and empathy. The Liberal Democrats’ position is clear and simple, as reflected in our amendment to the motion: any medical treatment and the approval of any clinical trial, including the one we are discussing, must be led by expert medical advice. It should not be led by personal belief, no matter how sincerely and passionately that belief is held. Politics has a place, but not in questions of medical trials and clinical consensus—those are better left to experts.
The Cass review, originally commissioned by the Conservatives, was clear that there was a need to gather more evidence. The safety of young people is paramount, and the experts involved in this space know that better than anybody; they work with these children day in, day out and understand the risks of both action and inaction. That is why we supported the previous decision to pause the trial after the MHRA raised concerns, and why we now support the decision to start it again.
We will listen to the experts and the clinicians, but to build trust in expert advice we need transparency and clarity, and throughout the process, we have pushed for exactly that. We want the expert opinions on the public record, as that allows us as politicians, as well as the wider public, to approach this issue with clarity and facts, not ideology or misunderstanding. That is why we called for the Government to publish how the MHRA arrived at its decision when concerns were first raised, and yesterday we called for the Secretary of State to confirm that the MHRA had confirmed that its concerns had been substantially addressed. Transparency is needed so that people can be confident that clinical advice is being followed.
Alison Bennett
I am afraid that I will not.
Liberal Democrats have been arguing for many years that improved access to better specialist healthcare services for children and young people struggling with their gender identity is extremely important. Those young people have been badly let down by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. The closure of the Gender Identity Development Service made it clear beyond doubt that change was needed. We have consistently campaigned for real action to tackle the shocking waiting times across the NHS, including for gender identity services.
Liberal Democrats welcome the move to create new regional centres to offer this care to the young people who need it. There is a need for multiple geographically dispersed clinics so that care is closer to those who need it, but roll-out has been slow, and more needs to be done to tackle the waiting lists—quite simply, a three-year average wait is not acceptable. For the centres to run effectively, we must support the specialists who provide children and young people with high-quality, compassionate and clinically appropriate care.
Treatment, first and foremost, should be based on talking therapies. Space and time to talk through feelings is vital for young people struggling with their gender identity. It is a deeply complex set of feelings, and questioning and understanding one’s identity is never an easy thing, especially for a child, but for talking therapies to be an effective first step, children must be able to access them when they need them, not after years on a waiting list.
The debate is about access to a form of healthcare—one that is led by doctors and clinicians—and, as for any other form of healthcare, we must listen to the experts: the people who have spent years training and years delivering care.
Alison Bennett
I will not.
We must never lose sight of the fact that at the core of the debate is young people’s wellbeing and health. It is not about ideology; it is about what is best for young people. The Government must always prioritise clinical evidence and put the interests of patients at the heart of care.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I wholeheartedly agree with her points about the importance of talking therapies. Those are incredibly important tools for children who are in gender distress. We need to see greater access to talking therapies for all children in a timely fashion.
May I first say that there is far too much debate about trans people without them? We would not tolerate this in any other debate. Yet somehow, whether in the media or in politics, in debate after debate—online, in the media and in this place—we talk about trans people and people in gender distress without acknowledging that we are lucky to be born into a body we identify with. I will never know the pain of gender distress. There are times when I look in the mirror and I think, “God, I wish I could change this.” Usually, I wish I could not look so tired, but I do not know what it is like to not be in a body that I identify with; I am fortunate and therefore speak from a position of great privilege.
I will start with the words of one of my constituents, an 83-year-old trans woman called Teraina. She said, “I was born a male but I have never been a man. I tried but I failed. I always have felt female. Even at school as a boy, I was bullied for being”—in her words—“a ‘sissy’ so I left. I am 83. I have lived my life. This is about the future generations and the others who come next.”
Teraina discharged herself from hospital to have that conversation with me because she feels so strongly about future generations: that they should not be bullied for who they are; that they should be able to access treatment; and that they should be able to be who they are. We must get this right for the future generations of people like Teraina, because too many have lost their lives, or have suffered, living a life that was not fully theirs.
It is fair to say that there is a varied range of views in the Cass review. However, if future access to treatment for gender dysphoria is dependent on more research, it is vital that the Pathways trial goes ahead with the additional safeguards now put in place. Whatever one’s views on the trial, it is clear that every step has been taken to put the safety of patients at its heart. It has been designed by experienced clinical researchers and checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and has included independent academic peer reviewers. As with all clinical trials, this one will be overseen by the data monitoring committee, as the safety and wellbeing of those taking part is vital.
All those safeguards should be welcome. After all, those people are the experts when it comes to the medical procedures and the science. The experts when it comes to individual children, however, are the parents. Both today and yesterday, some of the rhetoric around the statement has ignored the important role of parents in the trial.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I know the constituent my hon. Friend has spoken about. My hon. Friend also makes a valuable point about the need to speak with people who have lived a life, given that these things have been done in ignorance. Her point about parents is key. I have a constituent who is trans whose parents have engaged with me and explained the difficulties of learning to deal with and manage the situation. Their voices, alongside those of clinicians, are really important in understanding the issues. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Owen
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to the LGBT+ community and for his work, including with his constituents. We have heard a lot today about throwing children into wild experiments, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something done in collaboration with parents—parents who love their children and want the best for them, and with medical professionals who want the same. The rhetoric around the trial really needs to change.
No child will be able to take part in the trial without parental consent. That has been confirmed again by the Secretary of State from the Dispatch Box. Of course, there will be some children who will never gain their parents’ consent: a heartbreaking situation for any family. However, there will be many parents who will truly support and know the wishes of their child; they will agree with the suitability of the treatment and want to support them on their journey.
Much has been discussed about the child, but parents have huge agency in the process. We are not just talking to the children; we are talking to adults who want the best for their child, and that point should be recognised.
Iqbal Mohamed
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have huge respect for her and I completely agree that nobody here or outside should be looking to disrespect or harm any individual, whatever their age. Would she agree that parents should also be given all the information available around this condition, its treatments and the paths that children follow? Over 93% of children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it and then are happy in their natural body. Does she agree that that and other information should be made available to the parents?
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words at the beginning; that is the right tone, which we need to set, and information is key. People need to be able to make informed decisions—whether it is the child or a parent—and there needs to be independent information so that people can make fully informed decisions.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Further to her point, does she not agree that the Opposition’s motion to prevent a clinical trial would not give people information, options and choices? It would cut down information, options and choices. She mentioned a constituent in her 80s who clearly did not grow out of her gender dysphoria, and this motion would close off lifesaving and life-changing treatment for the 7% of people who do not grow out of gender dysphoria.
Sarah Owen
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention; absolutely, information and scientific evidence are key, and this trial will be conducted by experts with patients’ best interests at heart. We have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and I am sure that, as a doctor, she cares about her patients as much as all the doctors and clinical specialists that will be involved in these trials.
Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee held a one-off inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers. We stuck to the science. There were different views on our panel of witnesses, but I wanted to demonstrate something that has, sadly, not happened very often around this topic, which was that we could discuss it in a sensitive, respectful way, based on fact, not opinion—not for social media clips or for likes on a particular outlet’s sidebar of shame, but for the good of the people we represent.
We also examined the use of puberty blockers for other medical purposes—something that has not been discussed today when talking about the risks, or perceived risks, of puberty blockers. It is commonplace to use puberty blockers for certain cancers, for endometriosis and for children experiencing premature sexual maturity, also known as precocious puberty. When it comes to cancers such as prostate cancer, the professors on the panel described the need to essentially “turn off” testosterone. This is now a commonplace treatment for prostate cancer.
Another use of puberty blockers is for endometriosis. We already know the disgraceful delays in diagnosis and treatment for endometriosis and adenomyosis, with women waiting at least 10 to 13 years just for a diagnosis. They are living in pain for far too long, but experts are using puberty blockers, again, to essentially “turn off” menstruation and oestrogen for women with severe endometriosis.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am listening to her very intently. Does she know what a measure of success would be in this puberty blocker trial? If 80% of the children on it were happy with the outcome, would that be a success? What are the ultimate measurements of success?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is making an important speech, but before she gets back to her feet, I must tell her that I need to get 12 more Members in to speak.
Sarah Owen
I know that further details will be coming from the Secretary of State as to what a marker of success is, but I think we have to ask ourselves what a marker of success is for the individuals and families. For some, staying in their sex from birth may look like success. For others, that will not be the case. This is very much on the individual.
Sarah Owen
I will not; I am going to make some progress, as I have been duly told to do.
The treatment of premature sexual maturity, or precocious puberty, in children—this is for children—uses puberty blockers now. The professors reported to our Committee that puberty blockers are
“recognised as a reversible treatment.”
Professor Butler added that we know
“from follow-up studies with children who have received it for precocious puberty that there are no ill health effects in the long term nor are there any negative effects on fertility recovery.”
Professor Grossman pointed to a “huge amount of evidence” from Harvard University highlighting successful treatment and outcomes for girls prescribed puberty blockers for premature sexual maturity
“in terms of fertility and their subsequent life.”
Sarah Owen
I am not going to take any more interventions, as I have been told that I need to crack on.
These puberty blockers are the same drugs, prescribed in the same way, but instead of treating gender distress, they are treating prostate cancer, endometriosis and premature sexual maturity in children. Yet we have heard no call from scientists, campaigners or the medical community to stop the use of puberty blockers for those treatments.
Some have been critical of the trial going ahead, but what happens to young people experiencing gender distress if it does not? Dr Hilary Cass believes that without a trial, young people will continue to get drugs from “unregulated and dangerous routes”, and my Select Committee heard evidence to support that. Unfortunately, young people are now self-treating because they see no other option. They are getting hold of medication from abroad, with no assessment, support or medical advice. Dr Hilary Cass was right to say that she is
“absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do.”
For me, safety is paramount, but this is an issue of access to healthcare, and there should never be a block to healthcare for anyone. While the trial goes forward, many young people, younger and older, will be scared and frightened about what the future holds. I hope that the Secretary of State can address the hostile environment for young trans people, as well as what support outside of legislation and the medical world needs to be more widely available for people in gender distress and the entire LGBTQ+ community.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I frankly cannot believe that we are here again. When the Pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Forgive me—there is a five-minute time limit, which is the only way that I can incorporate all the Back Benchers who wish to contribute.
Rebecca Paul
Yesterday, even the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care conceded—the second one to do so—that he is “uneasy” and even “uncomfortable”. I suggest that his discomfort is nothing next to the lifelong damage that the trial will potentially do to an extremely vulnerable cohort of children, whom we should be protecting. That funny feeling in his stomach—[Interruption.] Oh, he has left. That feeling is his good judgment trying to be heard—he will not hear this if he has left—and it is not too late for him to listen to it. I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said yesterday: he is a good man who is being placed under intolerable pressure on this issue. But he needs to find his courage.
The number of children and young people presenting to the NHS with gender distress increased dramatically in the years after 2009, with an exponential rise from around 2014. What is behind the increase among Gen Z is unclear, but the reasons are likely to be multifaceted. It is speculated that the factors may include 24/7 internet access, the increased acceptance of trans identities, or even peer social and cultural influences. Over the past 20 years, groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids have called for better access to treatment and more rights for trans people. Large corporates have gone big on diversity and inclusion to boost their brands.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am slightly concerned by the idea that trans acceptance is part of the problem. Does the hon. Member agree that trans acceptance is completely reasonable and that trans people have always been here?
Rebecca Paul
I am not saying that it is a negative thing; I am trying to explain why we have seen an increase in the numbers of young people with gender dysphoria. I am stating facts; we were just talking about the importance of doing so.
In 2009, only 51 patients were referred to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service for children, of whom two thirds were male. In 2016, there were 1,766 referrals and two thirds of them were female. That is quite the change. There has been an overall surge in the number of children suffering gender distress, but the increase is especially notable among girls. We also see over-representation of neurodiversity, mental health issues and trauma in this group. To put it another way, these children are much more likely to have been in care, to suffer with anxiety and depression, to be autistic and to have been abused. It is a group of incredibly vulnerable children.
GIDS was established in 1989. Its main approach to treatment at that time was therapeutic, referred to as watchful waiting. Early studies from the 1980s showed that in around 85% of cases, the gender incongruence or distress ceased in the child after going through puberty. Later studies reached a similar conclusion, with between 67% and 90% desisting after puberty. Only a small cohort of children continue to experience gender dysphoria or incongruence after puberty, and it was that extremely small group who would likely adopt a permanent trans identity in adulthood.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Recently, the Government announced that they will legislate to prevent under-16s from viewing social media. We already ban under-16s from drinking alcohol and smoking, because we believe that they should be protected from doing things now that may have negative impacts on them later in life, particularly to their health. Does my hon. Friend think that this should sit in that category of protections for children?
Rebecca Paul
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; a child of this age cannot possibly consent to the life-changing, irreversible changes that come from puberty blockers. We need to remember that almost all children who start puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and there is no going back from that.
We need to remember that we have already had a trial in the UK. When we started using puberty blockers in the UK after 2011, the preliminary results came out in 2015-16 and did not demonstrate psychological benefits, with some of the females actually suffering a worsening of symptoms, including a higher incidence of wanting to hurt or kill themselves. The results of the study, which were not formally published until 2020, demonstrated no statistically significant improvement in gender dysphoria or mental health outcomes. It is important to remember the early studies that told us that, in a majority of cases, going through puberty resolved gender distress. It follows, therefore, that stopping or delaying puberty using medication derails that natural desistance, essentially locking in.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Speaking as a member of the political class and the medical class, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she would accept that it is better for politicians to accept advice from medical experts around medical issues?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Member for that excellent question. I obviously always respect and listen to different clinicians, but what is happening with this debate is that one set of clinicians with one view is being listened to. Let me remind everyone about lobotomies. Lots of very respected people came out for lobotomies; in fact, the person behind the idea won a Nobel prize. I think we would all agree that those clinicians got that wrong, so it is incumbent upon us in this House to always question. It is absolutely right that we listen to clinicians, but unfortunately we are seeing only one set of clinicians with one set of opinions being listened to here.
A Finnish study was published in April that looked at more than 2,000 adolescents and young adults who had been referred to gender services. It found that medical interventions did not reduce psychiatric problems and may even be associated with worsening mental health. How many times have we heard it said that puberty blockers offer a pathway towards improved mental health and reduced psychiatric distress for those struggling with gender identity? I have lost count. But there is hard evidence that not only says different; it says the opposite. I would be keen to understand from the Minister and the Secretary of State whether that study was taken into account before deciding to go ahead with the trial.
I want to point out that children and young people who grow up to be same-sex attracted are over-represented in this cohort, and that is something we need to think about. If we look at the case of Keira Bell, she was a lesbian struggling with her sexuality, and instead of people saying, “It’s okay to find other women attractive—there’s nothing wrong with that. You do not need to change your body,” they said, “Ah! You’ve got gender dysphoria.” They put her on puberty blockers, and then she went on to testosterone shots. She then had her breasts removed in a double mastectomy, and then she detransitioned. This is a deeply homophobic approach to healthcare. Those on the other side of the argument think they have the progressive position. I am sorry, but you are repeating mistakes that have been made historically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Obviously, I have not said anything, so I am not repeating anything. No “yous” and “yours”.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I must confess that Opposition days are beginning to feel a little bit like groundhog day. A party that largely sat on its hands during some of the most significant and difficult challenges is now returning to tell us where this Government are going wrong, and doing so with all the fervour of a party that has never held power, let alone governed for 14 years. Just to warn everyone, I will not be taking interventions.
This is a deeply emotional issue, and I recognise that it provokes strong and differing views across the House. I am not here to shout down or dismiss any perspective. I have never had to face this decision myself, either as a parent or as a young person. It is a decision that invites intense scrutiny and judgment, often unfairly casting those involved as villains for doing what they believe is right for a child. We would all do well to remember that we can never truly know what it is like to walk in someone else’s shoes.
Too often, this debate has been shaped by vilification and misinformation, much of it amplified by opposition voices and anonymous social media accounts, to the detriment of one of our most vulnerable communities. We hear the warped suggestion that people simply wake up one day and decide on a whim to embark on years of hormone treatment, to face discrimination and to fight for legal recognition, or, worse, that clinicians involved are reckless experimenters intent on subjecting vulnerable children to harm.
The Conservatives are, of course, entitled to their opposition, but what alternative are they actually proposing? As usual, they have found an apparent problem, but where is their suggested solution? Is it to return to a time when children experiencing gender incongruence were ignored or dismissed as an inconvenience? That approach belongs to the era of section 28, not to 2026. If their answer is an outright ban, they risk driving vulnerable young people into what Dr Hilary Cass has described as
“unregulated and dangerous routes.”
We are already seeing reports of children presenting at clinics having already accessed irreversible treatments at a very young age.
The outrage we hear today about so-called experimentation rings hollow when it is accompanied by no viable alternative, only a return to the same vacuum that previously existed. I do not suggest that this trial will provide all the answers, but it is undeniably better than turning our backs on a complex reality and leaving young people without safe, supported options.
Richard Quigley
I will not, I am afraid—I did warn you, although I do like the hon. Gentleman very much.
Richard Quigley
Not enough to give way.
If we cannot trust Dr Hilary Cass, the author of a report that the Conservative party itself has endorsed, when she says she is
“absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do,”
who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science, or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the Government have chosen to follow is not reckless; it is rigorous. The MHRA and King’s College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible, evidence-led policymaking looks like.
It is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be: one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care, compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows. For me, the choice is clear: we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act, guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. I am once again proud to be part of a Government who are doing just that.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Last autumn, on the announcement of the trial of puberty blockers on children, a cross-party coalition of Members and peers assembled who have serious concerns and are campaigning together for the Government to reverse this terrible decision. These are Members from across the political spectrum—as diverse as the independent group, the Lib Dems, the DUP, Tories, Reform, Labour and Restore, who are not usually in agreement on most political issues—working together on something that we believe is about the fundamental safeguarding and protection of children.
The previous Secretary of State held a meeting for Members and peers that allowed us to directly question those responsible for overseeing the trial. I had one main question: is there a lower age limit? I was told no—categorically no—so a child presenting with possible gender dysphoria pre puberty could actually have been as young as eight years old. Thankfully in this latest evolution, the trial seems to have now excluded those younger children, and we are told that it is for those aged 11 and over, but an 11-year-old child also has no possible way of envisaging life-changing pathways, future, possibly serious, health issues, regret, infertility or damaged sexual function.
The Health Secretary talked yesterday of “consent or assent” being given by those children. We are told that at least one parent must consent, but you do not have to be a genius to work out that is a future nuclear missile aimed directly at the family courts. Separated parents, many of whom will not agree with each other about whether to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity, how to treat their gender distress or what, if any, social transition to accommodate at home or school, will be potentially battling each other over whether or not their child should be participating in this or future trials, all while their pre-pubescent son or daughter begs for the medical treatment that they believe with all their heart will save all of their discomfort and distress.
Many expert clinicians who worked at the Tavistock and who informed journalist Hannah Barnes’ award-winning investigations for “Newsnight”, and subsequent book “Time to Think”, are totally opposed to this trial. We have had meetings with several of them, including Marcus Evans and Susan Evans. Marcus is a former Tavistock consultant, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst, employed by the Portman NHS trust for 35 years, including as the head of nursing. Sue is also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and mental health nurse, formerly of the Gender Identity Development Service. They both argue against the affirmative-only model of treatment, such as the use of puberty-blocking drugs, as it masks underlying issues, such as childhood trauma or autism. Along with psychologists Stella O’Malley and James Esses, both with years of experience of treating children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria, they are completely against the Pathways trial and the treatment pathway it puts very young people on.
Detransitioners often experience years of extreme distress and choose not to speak publicly about their own personal stories, but some would willingly engage with Ministers and Members. Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Philippa Roberts and Jonni Skinner, to name a few, have bravely shared their heartbreaking experiences of severe treatments, irreversible surgeries, mental health battles and years of painful regret. Although we have had nine Health Secretaries in just nine years, anyone in this post, however briefly, given the power to sign off such an enormously consequential trial, with huge potential for future investigations, must at the very least engage with those who have treated and been treated for this condition. I cannot think of any valid arguments against doing so and hearing from both sides of the argument.
There are many other reasons for stopping the plans for this trial—most important of all is proper analysis of the data that already exists, along with the Conservative Government’s previous decision to ban the use of these drugs on children. The data linkage study completion is the strongest reason, along with the social, psychological and physical reasons already heard.
The cross-party coalition and I will not stop campaigning until this dangerous experiment on children is cancelled for good. Puberty is a natural, necessary life stage—a right. We should be able to help and support young people through it, until they are old enough to make life-changing decisions with certainty and the maturity they lack as young children.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate so far and I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who has worked so much in this area. We should all acknowledge that this is not an easy issue.
The reason why I wanted to speak in the debate is that back when I was trying to get elected in 2024, I met the mother of a young trans woman. She told me about how her daughter really started to come to terms with who she was when she was entering puberty, but that led her to stop eating because she did not want to go into puberty. Her condition got so bad that she had to be taken to hospital, and she almost died. We should not view this as a lifestyle choice, and we should not think that doing nothing comes with no consequences. I know that not all cases are the same, but the reality is that doing nothing is not the answer. We do have to answer these questions.
I welcome the news this week that the Pathways trial is set to go ahead. Since the Government announced an indefinite pause on the prescription of puberty blockers last year, both young people and clinicians have been stuck in limbo. This uncertainty has helped no one—not the young people who are desperate for medical support, nor the researchers who need to gather data to fully understand the effects of these drugs. However, it is right that this renewed permission for a trial is based on clinical judgment, not political discourse. We should be led by science, not politics, where the health of our young people is concerned.
King’s College London and the MHRA have worked extensively to propose a safe and ethical trial, increasing safeguards since March and continuing dialogue with the Health Research Authority. I understand the concerns around the trial, and I think we all should. We all want to ensure the safety of the children involved, but it is time we find a way forward that balances the safety of the young people involved and the opportunity to enhance the care that we provide for children struggling with their gender identity. Far too often, that care is lacking.
Many Conservative Members have consistently called for the full implementation of the Cass review. Baroness Cass was quoted multiple times by the shadow Minister in her introduction to this debate, yet the Conservatives have called this debate to oppose the trial, despite it being one of Baroness Cass’s recommendations. Why are the Conservatives not willing to listen to Baroness Cass on that single issue?
In her original review in 2024, Baroness Cass made it clear that research into puberty blockers was necessary. Just this week, she has said that the trial to examine the risks and benefits of puberty blockers will reduce harm, not cause it. In fact, she goes further and tells us that the debate around the risks of puberty blockers has been exaggerated—we have seen some of that today, if we are all honest. She is absolutely right on this point.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Conservative Government commissioned the Cass review. In their 2024 manifesto, the Conservatives committed to implement the review in full, which would include a trial. However, as my hon. Friend is saying, they now propose in this motion to stop the trial. Is that not proof that we actually need to have a trial? We need to take the party politics out of this matter, stop politicians from being the lead commentators and put it in the hands of the families and the clinicians.
Dr Arthur
Exactly. Baroness Cass is a respected expert in this field, and she made recommendations that were broadly accepted. We should be using science as a basis for decision making, not rejecting her findings purely on the basis of politics. Let me go back to what I said at the start: doing nothing will lead to our young people being harmed. That is an incredibly important point.
We cannot rely on debates in this place to decide how and when puberty blockers should be used. Rather, we should be relying on thorough scientific research, carried out in proper trial conditions and led by medical experts. We heard earlier the Health Secretary explaining some of the detail around protections for our young people. Baroness Cass is also clear that more children will be harmed by preventing the trial than by allowing one to go ahead. That is an incredibly important point.
Preventing a trial drives desperate children to look online or internationally for unregulated hormones or hormone suppressants. That leads young people to unsafe puberty blockers or to start taking hormones such as testosterone at a much earlier stage, which are irreversible once they start to take hold. We can prevent that by providing the properly regulated use of puberty blockers in the UK via this trial. The trial will provide understanding and allow clinicians to effectively guide Government on our next step. It is the right and necessary thing to do for the Government, clinicians and young people. We need to take better care of our young people, and we need to do that via a clinical trial.
Let me say again that doing nothing might seem like the easy thing to do, but it will come with consequences. I really hope that we hear more from Opposition Members about what they think the consequences of doing nothing will be for the health and wellbeing of our young people, because we have not heard that.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned the recently published studies in Finland. Does the hon. Gentleman not think there is any merit in waiting to see what the Finnish tests and trials throw up? We could then see what we could learn from them, rather than replicating or duplicating them here. International science should surely be respected.
Dr Arthur
I welcome that fantastic point. Until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic, and what I learned was never to focus on a single study when doing research, because a single study is basically an anecdote. We have to look at the breadth of the research. If I may say so, we see exactly the same in the climate change debate—the broad spectrum of science supports the argument for climate change, but there are always one or two contrary views. Those views are welcome, but we do not base our view on just one study; we look at the breadth of the research.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The reason I am in the Chamber today is the protection of children—that is why I care about banning social media, and it is why I am here to speak about puberty blockers. We protect young people under the age of consent from alcohol, heroin and sexual abuse, because they are children under the age of 18. This puberty blockers trial for 11-year-olds makes me ask whether we are putting sufficient safeguards in place for those young people, and whether they have the cognitive ability to understand what they are doing. Do they have the cognitive development to understand that, when their brain is fully developed, they will have made an irreversible choice, one that will last for the rest of their lives?
We talk about these children giving consent. What about a class action lawsuit? Members have referred to 7% of people being happy to continue with the therapy. What will happen when these children are 18 or 25? Inevitably, a percentage will decide that they do not want to continue in the gender they chose as a child and want to go back to the gender they were before. What are they going to do? Are they going to sue the Government? Are they going to sue the clinicians for conducting the trial, because they were forced and coerced into something that they did not fully understand?
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way on that point. There is a lot of “what about” in her remarks; will she reflect on Dr Hilary Cass’s comments that the trial will lead to less harm than would otherwise be the case? Why does she believe that Dr Cass is saying that? Does she doubt her expertise in this instance?
Joy Morrissey
My doubts come from why, for example, we are not allowing the data linkage study to be fully completed before proceeding with the new trial. That study would find out what has happened to all the children who have already taken puberty blockers. I wanted to ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), that question, but I was not able to make that intervention; I do not know whether that had anything to do with the £1.5 million donation from Ferring Pharmaceuticals that the Lib Dems took before the 2019 election. I do not know whether that had anything to do with it, but there has to be some level of declaration if a political party has taken donations from a pharmaceutical company that is promoting this drug. That is relevant to how one represents oneself in the Chamber.
There is no justification for proceeding with the Pathways trial before the data linkage study is complete. Puberty is how a child transitions from childhood to adulthood, and anything that affects that process is going to have long-term effects. Those effects are going to be felt, not in one or two years, but in 10 years. The brains we have as adults, at the age of 24, are very different from the brains we have as 11-year-olds—our frontal cortexes are not fully developed. This is not just about the effect on these children’s psychology; what effects do these drugs have on humans over the long term? We do not know that, so why not look at the data linkage study? It does not have to be perfect, but it will allow us to protect the children going into this trial, so that the trial is as well-run as possible.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for making such a passionate speech. I think we all agree, across the House, that we are here not to politicise or to demonise, but to try to make the right decisions for the safety of children. I think that all Members here share that intention. It was said earlier that these drugs are already used to treat different conditions, such as prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. For the first two conditions they are taken by adults for a very short time, and for the third they are taken for a limited period until the child reaches the age of puberty. Such misinformation—or comparison—is not really valid, and should be avoided.
Joy Morrissey
That is an excellent point. When I heard about those other uses for the drug, I thought that I would be interested to see more clinical trials for conditions such as endometriosis and cancer to establish its long-term effects. However, that is for adults. When it comes to protecting children, I want to ensure that this trial involves as much safeguarding as possible.
We do not fully understand the long-term risk. We come to the House again and again to discuss what constitutes a child and what constitutes protecting a child. We need to be clear about the fact that we must protect people under the age of 16, or 18—I do not care which age it is, but it should be an age on which we all agree—and that they must be subject to extra protection and safeguarding until they reach adulthood. That is why we are asking for so many safeguards—we need to ensure that the unintended consequence of trying to help a few young people does not lead to greater harm to many—and it is why we are here today.
I do not feel that asking the Government to include the data linkage study is too much to ask. This trial is a trade-off: long-term health is being exchanged for short-term happiness. This trial, in my opinion, is not safe, and this trial will not protect children from harm.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Everyone should have the right of access to high-quality, evidence-based healthcare, whatever their age. At the heart of this debate are young people experiencing profound gender-related distress, and the families who support them. Too often they have found themselves caught in the middle of a political argument while facing long waits, uncertainty, and a lack of clear treatment options. Every young person deserves compassionate, evidence-based care, and that includes transgender young people and children with gender incongruence.
The irony of the Opposition motion is that it would stop the very research that many Members have argued is necessary before decisions about treatment can be made. If we are serious about evidence-based medicine, we must also be serious about gathering evidence. The Pathways trial follows a recommendation made by Baroness Cass in her independent review, a recommendation that had enjoyed cross-party support when it was published. Since then the trial has undergone extensive scrutiny by researchers, ethics committees, independent reviewers and regulators. Following further modifications and additional safeguards, it has been approved by both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority. If Members believe that more evidence is needed, surely they should support a process that is designed to produce that evidence.
Much has been said about risk, and of course risk must be taken seriously, but the answer to uncertainty cannot simply be to refuse to learn more. The answer is careful, closely monitored research with robust protections. Participants must have experienced gender incongruence for at least two years, must already be receiving NHS gender services, must have undergone psychosocial support, and must be assessed as being physically and mentally stable. Both the young people and their parents must consent, and every participant must be approved by clinicians and a national multidisciplinary team. This is not an uncontrolled experiment; it is a tightly regulated clinical trial operating under some of the highest standards of oversight that are available in modern medicine.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made a valid point about the need to ensure that children who realise that they are gay do not decide that they are transgender, and that we do not feel that we should push more gay people back into the closet, as they are feeling very much under threat at present. However, there is another risk that we must discuss, and that is inaction. For two years, puberty blockers have effectively been unavailable outside research settings. Young people and their families have been told repeatedly that more evidence is needed, and now, when a trial designed to generate that evidence is ready to proceed, some seek to stop it. What message does that send?
Behind every statistic is a family. Parents of transgender children and children with gender incongruence often speak of the distress of watching their child struggle and feeling powerless to help. They see anxiety, fear and growing distress as their child experiences physical changes that can feel deeply uncomfortable and alienating. These families are not political talking points; they are looking for support, answers and hope. For many transgender young people, puberty itself can be a source of profound distress. We should not pretend that doing nothing is a neutral act, because delays, uncertainty and the absence of treatment options have consequences too. Puberty blockers have generally been understood as a reversible intervention intended to pause puberty and provide time for further assessment and support, and the purpose of this trial is to strengthen our understanding of both the benefits and the risks. If opponents argue that more evidence is needed, blocking the research that would provide that evidence is a contradiction that this House should reject.
I also want to address something that often sits beneath debates such as this. If you come to this debate from the position that transgender people do not exist or that it is a fad, you are mistaken. Transgender people have always existed, and they deserve the same dignity, compassion and evidence-based healthcare as anyone else. If, as I believe we all do, we come to the debate motivated by concern for children’s safety and wellbeing, how can we say that we are protecting children while being comfortable with them living in fear of the changes that puberty may bring? How can we say that we are acting in their best interests when some young people are terrified of growing into an adult body that does not align with who they understand themselves to be, while parents watch helplessly from the sideline? If our goal is to truly safeguard children, we should support careful research, rigorous oversight and evidence-based medicine. We should seek answers, not prevent them. We should reduce uncertainty, not prolong it. That is why this trial should proceed.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who made a very effective and powerful speech. All of us here today are concerned about the safety and wellbeing of children, and we want to ensure that young people facing a crisis of identity get the support that they need and that is appropriate for them. In many cases, that will be talking therapies. We need to give children and their families time to figure out exactly what the issue is and whether they will develop out of it in time, but that is not always the case.
My concern, and I believe the concern of many here today, is for those children who do not, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) put it, grow out of it as if it were some problem—children who have a genuine fear of what puberty will bring, and of what adulthood in a body that they do not recognise as theirs will mean. Those children currently feel that they have no option. If we take away the possibility of puberty blockers, where will they go? Where will they turn? Too many young people are committing suicide, and we have to acknowledge that that is the very real danger of putting up a very different type of block—a block to understanding and to helping them develop.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for giving an eloquent speech. It is really important that we are very responsible in the way we talk about suicide, and I would like to point out that Professor Louis Appleby did a study on exactly this issue following the ban of puberty blockers. His conclusion was that we were not seeing an increase in suicides as a consequence. He also made the point that it is important not to suggest that denying young people puberty blockers causes them to commit suicide. That is a negligent thing to do, and it is important that we put that on the record.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Lady, but I point out that that is not what I said. I said that we were leaving children without an option. I also point out that if we are going to be responsible, we should not accuse people of being homophobic because they are trying to support the transgender community. Many of those people who support the transgender community are lesbians or gay. I know this because I am the honorary president of the LGBTQ+ community within the Liberal Democrats, and there is a great feeling of community between the two. I would caution people not to call anyone who wants to support the trans community homophobic.
These children need our support. In providing that, we should listen to clinicians and experts, such as Dr Hilary Cass, who has said, as so many Members have pointed out, that this trial will help protect children and will mean that they are less likely to be harmed. I think we should take that as our guiding principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) clearly laid out my party’s policy. I am proud of the fact that, as a women and equalities spokesperson, I was responsible for the formation of most of our policy on the transgender community. I have to say that I spoke to a great many of them, and they would be appalled if they felt for one moment that we were not going to support them, not going to support this trial or not going to stand up for them at a time when they are under increasing pressure and we are seeing the demonisation of that community.
The young children facing a crisis of identity—wondering who they are, and wondering what support they will get—are looking to us to give them that support, and that is why I will oppose the Conservatives’ motion.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and I agree wholeheartedly with her comments about homophobia.
I remind the House that I am a former biomedical scientist, and I have probably read lots more medical publications than many in this Chamber. I have also volunteered many times for medical research, either as a healthy patient in my younger years or as a patient now in my slightly older years, so I know the process from both sides. I think it is really important that we recognise that the UK has some of the highest standards for medical research, especially when it involves patients. There is talk about why there is no placebo, but sometimes it is not ethical to do a placebo-based trial. If we are withholding a form of medical intervention from someone just to prove that the next best thing will be the next best thing, that is not ethically right, because we are withholding medical care when someone needs it. That is very different from a healthy patient model, in which we are treating healthy patients to see if there is a biological change that would be harmful to all patients.
All too often, healthcare for the trans community is marked by lengthy wait lists, inconsistent treatment and discrimination—we have heard some of that stigma today—and there needs to be a concerted effort to change that. We have heard a lot about safeguarding children, and I think everyone in the Chamber agrees that that must be paramount, but I fear we are dividing trans children from other children when it comes to their medical needs and what support should be in place.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed yesterday that the Pathways trial will go ahead. We have heard many Members mention that young people getting better is a way through this, but that is very stigmatising for those who do hold on to their trans identity into adulthood. In fact, very many—the majority—of young trans people will go on to be trans adults, and we also know that those who detransition do in some instances retransition, because they detransitioned for the social reasons of not having a supportive family and other social pressures. This is not as static as some may think, and in fact young people often raise that fluidity with me.
Young trans people need this trial to move forward. For many, this represents the only legal route to access puberty suppressants at the moment. A pathway can be profoundly impactful, and we have heard people describe it as lifesaving. This has not fallen from the sky. There are well-established scientific and clinical precedents for the use of puberty-suppressing hormones, supported by decades of research and medical practice, and for a variety of different conditions. Even fertility clinics use these drugs in some of their regimes with certain patients. As I have mentioned, placebos are not the solution to making this a safer trial.
Puberty-suppressing hormones are not new and they are not experimental. They have been used safely since the 1980s, and we have decades of clinical experience of supporting their use in controlled settings. But instead of engaging seriously with the potential benefits of such a trial, the Opposition have framed the issue as part of a broader culture war that is trying to erase trans children’s identities. By removing healthcare, we are not going to remove trans children; they will look for alternative access to treatments, including, as we have heard, starving themselves to prevent puberty starting. That is horrific to hear—as someone who has been very active on eating disorders, that is really quite terrifying.
We should be focused on ensuring that the voices of those people who will be most impacted—the young people and their families—are part of the discussion. The way in which the trial has been put together is of course not perfect—no medical trial is perfect—but it is really, really important, and the risk of harm from not going ahead with the trial has to outweigh the risk of harm from doing the trial. We need the data and the understanding, so we can make the right decisions when designing the clinical interventions and services that should be available to young people. Anyone who is denying that should think again about why they are making that argument. This issue is not about whether trans young people exist; it is about whether we choose to respond with the real—
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am absolutely appalled by the Government’s decision to press ahead with the Pathways puberty blockers trial. When I look at the decision, I genuinely find myself asking: what lessons have this Government learnt from the last number of years? Parents have raised concerns, families have raised concerns, clinicians have raised concerns, campaigners have raised concerns, and many in this House have raised concerns. This is not a concern that has appeared overnight. The petition on this issue, which was debated some time ago, attracted significant support, and I must note that my constituency of Upper Bann was one of the leading constituencies in raising concerns about puberty blockers and their impact.
Ministers have been warned time and again. We had the Cass review, the closure of the Tavistock clinic and the decision to stop the routine prescribing of puberty blockers to children. All those developments pointed in one direction: greater caution, greater scrutiny and greater protection for vulnerable children. Yet somehow this Labour Government have looked at all of that and reached the conclusion that will harm more children, not less. They have decided that the answer to this difficult issue is to recommence a trial using the very drugs that are considered unsuitable for routine use, the very drugs that children cannot routinely be prescribed, and the very drugs that Ministers themselves acknowledge raise serious unanswered questions. That is the contradiction at the heart of the announcement to recommence the puberty blockers trial. If these drugs are not considered sufficiently safe, sufficiently evidenced or sufficiently understood to be routinely prescribed to children, why are the Government prepared to recruit children into a trial involving the same drugs?
What troubles me in particular is the age of the children involved: children as young as 11. When I think of an 11-year-old, I think of a child at the very beginning of secondary school, maybe even in primary school; I think of a child still trying to work out who they are; I think of a child whose views, interests and outlooks on life can change dramatically in the space of a few months—indeed, even in the space of a few days; I think of a child who still needs adults to guide them, protect them and make decisions in their best interests. I do not think of somebody who should be carrying the burden of unresolved questions about fertility, bone development, neurological development and long-term health outcomes. The Government tell us that more evidence is needed, but on whose shoulders are they placing that burden? The shoulders of children: children are being asked to participate because adults still do not have the answers. That cannot be right.
I have had the honour of meeting Keira Bell—one of the bravest campaigners I have encountered in public life, because she has been willing to speak publicly about consequences that she will carry for the rest of her life. When people discuss the issue, they often hide behind clinical language and advice. Clinical advice can be wrong. I queried clinical negligence and malpractice in Northern Ireland through a recent freedom of information request; in one year, £9 million was paid out. That shows that clinicians can be wrong. Yes, we need them and we depend on them, and I have so much respect for them, but they are not always right.
Keira Bell has spoken openly about the loss of her healthy breasts, concerns about her future fertility and the permanent changes that she lives with because of the pathway she was placed on as a vulnerable young person. Perhaps the most heartbreaking thing she has said is, “I was a vulnerable teenager who needed help”—not drugs, but help. She has also said, “I believe I should have been challenged on my views.” Let us think about that: a young woman looking back and saying that the adults around her should have asked harder questions, exercised greater caution and protected her.
We are all called to this place to do the right thing. The right thing is to look at the data that is already there and the young people who have been on this pathway, and to stop the puberty blockers trial with immediate effect.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I support an individual’s freedom to choose to live their life in whichever manner they want, subject only to the law. That includes someone’s right to want to live a life in a different gender identity to that which they were born with. But this debate is not about that; it is about administering powerful drugs to children. Although I have no direct experience of what it is like to want to live a life as somebody with a different gender identity, I have represented parents in the family court disputing their child’s gender identity—in one case, a child under that age of 10—in legal proceedings.
There is an absolutist argument that I want reject: the argument that this is only a clinical question, and that politicians, decision makers and the Government must follow clinical advice. The clinical advice itself is disputed, but I accept the weight that the Government have placed on the Cass review, which was commissioned under the previous Government. It is right that the current Government place weight on that. This is much more than a clinical question, though—it is an ethical question, a moral question and a legal question—and the issues that need to be grappled with fall on the shoulders of the elected Members in this place.
I want to explore one of the issues that I think is fundamental: the issue of consent. What can consent mean when we are talking about young children? What can it mean when we are talking about a parent giving consent for something to happen to their child? The issue of consent is not new. We have the legal age of consent for engaging in sexual activity. Society, through this place and the courts, has decided that children should not be engaging in sexual activity under the age of 16. That is not a fundamentally clinical issue; it is an issue around the emotional, psychological, moral and ethical impact on a child who does not fully understand what they are getting themselves into.
When it comes to a child under 13, we have a law that says consent is impossible. Under 13, there is no such thing as consent to sexual activity; it amounts to what we might term statutory rape. However, in the trial we are talking about today, children under the age of 13—at the age of 12—are going to be asked if they have engaged in oral sex in the last year. That is something that is illegal—something that they cannot consent to by law. Why are they being asked a question like that in these clinical trials? I ask the Minister to address that point directly. Plainly, consent is meaningful only if a child understands all the ramifications. I challenge anyone to stand up and back the idea that a child under the age of 13, for example, understands what it is like to give up the possibility of fertility, to live a life in a different gender and to really understand, at that age, what gender means in its adult entirety.
I turn now to the role of the parent. What parent can possibly say whether their child has been able to grapple with those issues in any meaningful way? They may be better placed than anyone else, but that does not mean that they can really form a judgment or view. After all, it would be preposterous to suggest that an adult could consent to their own child engaging in sexual activity, so how can they possibly consent to a child grappling with those ideas such that they administer a powerful drug to suppress their development and puberty?
We have a Government who have taken the view, which I welcome, that an adult cannot possibly consent to their own child having a social media account because they are not in a position to assess all the harms. How, by extension, can they say that an adult is in a position to consent to their child taking powerful drugs that will suppress their puberty and sexual development? It lacks any sort of coherence. I urge the Government to think again.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
It is a great shame that this debate has been broken up along party lines. It should have been had as the debate on assisted dying was, where people from across the House could stand up and make their own case. Indeed, many Members from across the House have been supportive of what I am about to say.
Following the publication of the Cass review in 2024, the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the then Secretary of State for Health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical trial settings. Polling by Whitestone Insight in ’25 showed that the public do not support a trial, with 67% of respondents agreeing that puberty blockers should never be given to under-18s, even as part of a clinical trial. That figure was 70% among parents of children under 18.
Like his predecessor, the Secretary of State has declared that he is uneasy allowing this trial to proceed, and cites clinical advice and a need for scientific evidence as a cover to allow him to support it. I have worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. There were clinicians who said that the drug thalidomide was safe and clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment. There were also clinicians who assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children at the Tavistock clinic for more than a decade, with an estimated 2,000 children receiving these powerful drugs. Where are these children now? How have they got on?
More importantly, I believe that as Members of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, especially children. In our induction as MPs, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. It is clear to me that allowing possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys, when we know that some of these children at least will reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth, is completely inhumane and uncivilised. Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life-changing medical research?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The journey from childhood to adulthood is challenging for many, difficult for some, and tortuous for a few. Through that journey, the support of older people, who are often parents, loved ones, people who care, is critically important. For those who suffer from gender dysphoria, that journey is all the more challenging. Many people—perhaps all of us in this Chamber—will have struggled with the emerging sexuality that is part of the journey to adulthood, but most people who suffer from dysphoria cope with it as they go through puberty. Indeed, the evidence—and there has been much talk of evidence in this debate—shows that medical intervention in those cases would not only be unnecessary but profoundly damaging.
Yet at the Tavistock clinic, the horrors of which I first highlighted in 2019, thousands of children were prescribed life-altering drugs. Indeed, it is more shocking still: more than 70 children aged three and four were sent to that clinic, and 382 children aged six and under were referred. The Government are fond, now, of speaking about the Cass review commissioned by. the previous Government, but the review was not welcomed by the Minister and the trans lobby. When it was commissioned, it was regarded with horror by those who presumably now support this trial.
The Cass review found that doctors must be extremely cautious about giving trans drugs to under-18s—not 11, 12 or 13-year-olds, but people under 18. It found that doctors must be able to
“refer to the longer-term benefits and risks”
of treatment options; that young children should have therapy before they are allowed to socially transition; that many parents expressed concern about their child being socially transitioned and affirmed in their expressed gender without parental involvement; that too many decisions about changing gender have been rushed, with too little consideration given to whether children might regret their actions later in life; and that childhood trauma, neglect and abuse feature heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender change.
As many as two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence. Those are the vulnerable children who went to the Tavistock clinic, which was closed after pressure from those who understood the horrors that took place there. When it was opened, of course—
Sir John Hayes
I will in a moment, when I have made an attack on the liberal bourgeoisie, which the hon. Gentleman might want to hear. When the Tavistock clinic was opened, it was seen as an emblem of progress by the liberal bourgeoisie. Now, of course, we know that it was the embodiment of wickedness. On that note, I give way to him.
Dr Arthur
I am part of the liberal working class. This debate is not about the Tavistock clinic. The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted Baroness Cass, but one thing he has not said is that she recommended that the clinical trial go ahead. She said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks there will be real benefits to it. Rather than talking about Tavistock, will he address what Baroness Cass, who he quotes extensively, thinks about this trial that we are debating?
Sir John Hayes
Baroness Cass certainly wanted to gather more evidence. The evidence we have shows the damage that puberty blockers can do. We know that the substantial science suggests that they affect bone maturation, cerebral capacity and, of course, fertility. It is certain that there is no compelling evidence that puberty blockers have a beneficial effect. That is why she sought more evidence, as she concluded that there was no compelling evidence that they have a beneficial effect.
Christine Jardine
As another member of the liberal working class, I wonder whether the right hon. Member has the experience that many of us in this place have of talking to constituents, friends and family who have children who have struggled with their gender identity and have benefited from puberty blockers. While he says that there is no evidence, many of us have direct experience of seeing the benefits in action.
Sir John Hayes
That experience clearly contradicts the Cass review’s findings, but it is for the hon. Lady to have that debate, no doubt, with Dr Cass.
What is certain is that we have no indication from the Government about what success in the trial will look like. When challenged on that subject, answer came there none. How will we gauge whether the trial is a success or a failure? Are these children really guinea pigs to be used to provide the evidence that the hon. Lady says is already freely available in her anecdotal experience of communicating with her constituents and others?
We know that there is certainly evidence from other countries. Have the Government looked to draw on that, rather than engaging in this dangerous trial? We know that there is evidence too from the 2,000 or more children who went through Tavistock. Some have suggested that we should look at the data already available rather than putting any more children at risk. Yet despite the Secretary of State’s agonised decision—I do not intend that to be sarcastic or pejorative; I appreciate that the Secretary of State was completely straightforward about how difficult it was to make the decision—the trial goes ahead. I accept that there are additional safeguards—this is not Tavistock; it is something different—but none the less it brings immense risk alongside the determination to try to gain facts. Instead, let us look at Finland and Denmark and at other countries that have already gathered evidence. Let us look at what we know of those who have already been through this process.
G. K. Chesterton said:
“children are innocent and love justice”.
I fear that this trial will steal their innocence and deny them justice. I hope that even at this late stage the Government, recognising that, will abandon this awful trial and save innocent children from that fate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the wind-ups; I invite the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
This has been an important debate. It has been a difficult debate, but a necessary one none the less. There are some subjects in public life where the easiest course is silence, where every word is weighed, where motives are questioned and where hon. Members may be tempted to step back rather than step forward, but when the subject is the safety of children, silence is not an option.
Children and young people are at the centre of the debate. They are not slogans or political symbols to be used by either side of any argument; they are children, and often vulnerable children experiencing distress that can be profound, complex and deeply painful. They need kindness, patience and support from adults who listen and act responsibly. They need services that are timely, professional and compassionate. Compassion is measured not by how quickly we medicalise a child’s distress but by whether we protect the child’s future and respond to their present pain. That is the heart of the debate.
Sadly, those of us who are concerned about this trial are often labelled as transphobic. Personally, I find that offensive. Child safety matters to me, and so does equality for trans people, but we have to think about children. The Government ask the House to accept that the Pathways trial is the responsible way to build evidence. Ministers say that it is a carefully controlled study, that safeguards have been strengthened and that only a small number of children will be involved. But the question before us is not whether research matters—of course it does—but whether this particular trial involving children as young as 11 and 12 is the right and ethical way to proceed. We on the Conservative Benches do not believe that it is. My position is rooted in a simple principle: when evidence is uncertain, risks may be lifelong. When the patient is a child, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. That is not ideology; that is good medicine.
The Cass review changed the debate because it brought clarity to a field that had been allowed to drift for too long. It found weak evidence, poor data, inadequate follow-up and a service model that too often failed to look at the whole child. It was the previous Government who treated those findings with the seriousness that they deserved. The routine prescription of puberty blockers on the NHS was ended because the evidence did not justify the practice. That was not a rejection of vulnerable young people; it was an act of safeguarding.
The Government now say that this trial is different. They say that it is not routine prescribing and that there will be monitoring, consent, assessment and withdrawal criteria. Yet process cannot answer the central moral question: can a child, at the start of puberty, truly understand the impact of interrupting that stage? Can an 11-year-old meaningfully consider questions of fertility, bone development, cognitive effects, sexual function and future regret? Can a parent, faced with a distressed child and a desperate sense of need for relief, rationally navigate the uncertainty without enormous pressure? Those are not abstract questions; they go to the integrity of consent itself.
In most areas of medicine, when the risks are serious and the benefits uncertain, we become more cautious, not less. We do not reassure ourselves merely because the cohort is small, or say that because only a limited number of children may be exposed, the ethical concern is reduced. For each child in the trial, the consequences are enormous and personal. For each family, the decision is life-altering. For each future adult, the question may one day be, “Did the people in authority protect me properly?”
The Secretary of State has said he feels “discomfort and unease”. I welcome that honesty, and I believe it to be heartfelt. Yet discomfort in this area should not be something that Ministers try to manage away; it should make them stop and think again. Unease is sometimes the proper response of conscience. The Government point to safeguards, but safeguards are not the same as certainty. Monitoring every three months may identify some problems, but it cannot guarantee that long-term harm will not emerge years later. Objective withdrawal criteria may be better than vague discretion, but they do not remove the risk of treating a child unnecessarily in the first place.
The Government have still not answered a fundamental question: why proceed now before the existing evidence has been fully examined? There are children and young people who were treated under previous services. There is data that may help us to understand outcomes. There is a Tavistock-related evidence base that should be completed and analysed before more children are exposed to puberty blockers in a new trial. Surely the first duty is to learn from what has already happened and therefore potentially identify wherever there may be gaps. That is not obstruction; it is responsibility.
The Government must not ignore the wider context. Many children who experience gender distress also have other needs: mental health difficulties, autism, trauma, family pressures, anxiety, depression, eating disorders or safeguarding concerns. Dr Cass was clear that services must look at the whole child and not just one aspect of identity. We should not accept a system that is slow to provide holistic support but prepared to move ahead with powerful medical intervention under the banner of research.
The House must be honest about the tone of this debate. There will be young people listening who will be feeling frightened by it. There will be parents listening who feel judged. There will be clinicians listening who are trying to do their best in a difficult and contested area. Let us be clear: our concern is not with the dignity of any child—their dignity is beyond question. Our concern is with the decisions made by adults in positions of power. Children deserve adults who can hold two truths at once: that their distress must be taken seriously, and that serious distress does not automatically justify experimental medical treatment.
Vikki Slade
I am slightly confused because we know that the young people in this trial will already have all those other things in place. The Minister has been clear about the talking therapies, for example, and about the time period. It takes two years in the gender system before anyone can access this trial. I am worried that it is slightly disingenuous to suggest that these children are going to be popped straight on to a trial without everything else being in place. Could the right hon. Gentleman just clarify that he understands that?
Stuart Andrew
I can assure the hon. Lady that I have given this an enormous amount of consideration. I understand what she is saying, but my argument is that we already have a set of data on children who have gone through some of these experiences, and that needs to be looked at. Having spoken to some of them, I do not want to see others experience it.
Stuart Andrew
I am going to continue because I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond.
The Secretary of State says that this trial will help settle the evidence, but a trial that follows children for a limited period cannot by itself settle questions that may only become clear in adulthood. It cannot fully answer the questions of what a child will think at 25, 35 or 45 about decisions that were made at 11 or 12. When I was in my teens, struggling with my sexuality, it was complex enough. It was emotionally draining. It was scary. I cannot imagine how much harder that would have been if someone had added to the mix by telling me that maybe it was not my sexuality but my gender. This is why we must listen to people like Keira Bell.
We must not confuse the creation of some evidence with the resolution of all uncertainty. The Opposition’s approach is careful, proportionate and child centred. We must pause this trial, complete the analysis of existing data, publish a full account of the known risks and unknowns and strengthen non-medical support. Then, and only then, should we consider what further research should be ethically justified. This is not abandonment; it is protection.
The first responsibility of any health system is not to validate every proposed treatment, but to ask whether that treatment is safe, necessary and in the long-term interests of the patient. When the patient is a child, that responsibility is heavier still. We owe these young people more than good intentions. We owe them caution. We owe them honesty. We owe them services that see them in the round, and we owe them the humility to admit that when the evidence is uncertain, the answer is not to press ahead and hope; the answer is to pause, learn and protect. For those reasons, I urge the House to support this motion.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I would like to start by declaring an interest, because my son Milo, of whom I am extremely proud, is a trans man.
I have listened to colleagues very carefully over the course of our proceedings. There have been some truly heartfelt speeches, and this strength of feeling is certainly warranted wherever children are concerned. The Government welcome this scrutiny, and I want to thank Members from all sides of the House for the constructive tone and substance of this debate.
I am not the Minister who is responsible for leading on this policy in the Department for Health and Social Care. Nevertheless, I feel a great deal of responsibility for the health and wellbeing of children in our country. As the Minister of State for Care, I am, for example, responsible for making sure children at end of life are receiving the right palliative and end-of-life care. And tooth decay, for example, has an appalling effect on children’s wellbeing. When it comes to gender incongruence, I cannot help but think of those children suffering in great distress, who may even be watching our proceedings this evening, and I want them to know that all of us in this Chamber want what is best for them. We might disagree about how we get there, but I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who has spoken today.
Fundamentally, our approach on this side of the House is to be led by the evidence, and on this I pay tribute to Dr Hilary Cass, who has taken on one of the most sensitive and polarising issues of our times with such courage and professionalism.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—I hugely respect her expertise as a paediatrician—has said that our decisions could be motivated by “fear and hostility”, but that is not a charge that anyone could level at Dr Cass, who has shown the utmost courage and professionalism from the moment that she was appointed. It was on the strength of her independence and integrity that the previous Conservative Government, of which the hon. Lady was of course a member, accepted her recommendations. One of those recommendations was for a regulated, robustly safeguarded trial. Yesterday, Dr Cass said that she is
“absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do.”
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Minister on an excellent and brave speech. When the Cass report came out, I was criticised for not accepting it in full, and now the very same people who said that to me are not accepting the Cass report in full. Does he agree that that is hypocrisy, and that those people should stick to their word?
Stephen Kinnock
I know that feelings on these matters are strong and heartfelt. If the Conservative party has changed its position and is putting forward its arguments with sincerity and honour, that is a perfectly acceptable position to take, but I simply remind the House of the journey that the party has been on.
Rebecca Paul
The Cass review also suggested a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones. On that basis, will the Government launch a clinical trial on cross-sex hormones as well?
Stephen Kinnock
This is a debate about hormones for suppressing puberty, and is related to the matter that the hon. Lady raises, but it is important that we get the sequencing right. Let us look at the trial and the evidence. That is part of the process of understanding the milestones and the forks in the road faced by children who are experiencing gender incongruence. Let us do this one step at a time.
We are proceeding carefully, cautiously and under the mantra that the safety and wellbeing of children are non-negotiable, and with clarity that a robustly scrutinised trial with rigorous safeguards is the only way of establishing a robust evidence base for puberty-suppressing hormones.
Many hon. Members have asked about safeguards, so let me remind the House what they are. A child can participate only with the consent of a parent or guardian and the child’s own consent or assent, and only if they have had a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years; if they are of stable physical and mental health; if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns; if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its potential advantages and disadvantages; if they have been deemed clinically appropriate by both their NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team; and if they are already accessing NHS gender services, including participation in a tailored package of psychosocial care.
Sir John Hayes
Will the Minister at least commit to looking again at the experience of Finland and Denmark, whose evidence has led them to now emphasise counselling rather than medical intervention?
Stephen Kinnock
A little later, I will go through all the different work that is going on. This is absolutely not happening in isolation; we are taking into account a range of other studies.
Some colleagues have raised the work of the MHRA in strengthening the safeguards for young people involved in the trial. The MHRA has been engaged in a scientific dialogue with the trial sponsors, and it was the outcome of that process that led the MHRA, as an independent body, to publish the updated protocol last week. We welcome the changes, because they show that the MHRA is taking its job seriously and that the system is working as intended. We cannot cut corners when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of children, and the safeguards are now in place to guarantee greater monitoring and clinical reassessment, including objective criteria for withdrawing children and young people from the trial entirely. I remind colleagues that the bar to qualify for the trial is extremely high, with only a small number of young people expected to meet the strict criteria.
Some other colleagues—I turn now to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—have queried the need to have a clinical trial when a number of children have already taken puberty blockers and information is already available. However, Dr Cass concluded that there is not enough evidence about the risks and benefits of those medications. That is why she was so clear in recommending a trial to find that clinical evidence, because that is the basis on which we can take those decisions.
The information in the data linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and risks of puberty-suppressing hormones. NHS England is, however, committed to delivering the data linkage study and has taken time to ensure that the data is shared by relevant organisations.
Esther McVey
I have been listening to the debate and have not yet heard what the Government will deem to be a measure of success of this puberty blocker trial before it goes ahead. What are the criteria, the measurements, the percentages and the numbers, and what are the timelines over which they will be measured? Can the Minister explain what those are? If someone is unhappy, can they sue the Government?
Stephen Kinnock
As the right hon. Lady will know, a lot of this is about the distress and the tremendous mental health pressure that young people going through gender incongruence feel. Clearly, one of the outcomes that we will look for from the trials is an alleviation and an amelioration of those significant mental health issues and distress. Those are the kind of outcomes we want to see to help some of those young people who often end up in awful situations, leading to self-harm and other terrible situations.
Some colleagues have asked about the wider support we are providing for children and young people with gender dysphoria and incongruence. I am pleased that the Pathways study is just one part of the wider work being done to ensure that the support is there. For example, Pathways Horizon is an observational study of all children and young people attending NHS children and young people’s specialist gender services. Pathways Connect is a brain imaging study, Pathways Voices will interview young people, and Horizon Intensive is about ensuring that there is a comparison group of 300 participants who are expressing gender incongruence.
Furthermore, NHS England has opened three new children and young people’s gender services in the north-west, London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the east of England this year. I can confirm that the Government aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics, within specialist children’s hospitals to provide holistic care. The new services will increase clinical capacity and reduce waiting times so patients can be seen sooner and closer to home.
I can update the House that waiting lists for children and young people’s gender services have come down since this Government took office. As of April, nearly 3,000 fewer children and young people were on the waiting list compared with September 2024.
This Government stand by the principle that we will always be led by clinical advice and clinical evidence, but that does not mean we take these decisions lightly, and it does not mean that we are abdicating our responsibilities either. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has requested monthly updates on the progress of the trial, including any emerging risks. Throughout this process, he has immersed himself in the detail, scrutinised the issue and sought the strongest assurances from his most senior clinical advisers. We have received those assurances and are proceeding on the basis of evidence, not ideology.
I end with regret that it appears that the cross-party consensus on Dr Cass’s expert review has been lost, but also with hope that colleagues can get behind Dr Cass’s work again. We will move forward on the basis of taking decisions based on the expertise of clinical and medical professionals, and acting within clearly defined safeguards and robust oversight, including in this House, to provide the best quality of healthcare and support for all children and young people to access what they need.
On one level, this is a specific debate about a specific issue, but when we zoom out, we see that it goes to the heart of what our NHS is about, which is how best to do the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people. When we look at this through that basic ethical prism, there can be no doubt that this Government’s position is the right one. A small cohort of vulnerable children are struggling, and it is our job to help them—it really is as simple as that. I therefore urge colleagues to oppose the Opposition’s motion.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Forest City: West Suffolk
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family and I are local residents affected by the development proposal we are about to discuss. I am grateful for this debate about the proposed Forest City, and I am especially grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to lead it, given my shadow Cabinet responsibilities.
I sought this debate because Forest City is such a danger to our way of life in West Suffolk. For those who are unfamiliar with this monstrous proposal, this is it: a city of 1 million people—the size of Birmingham—between Newmarket and Haverhill in Suffolk, and over the border into Cambridgeshire. It would be a city of 1 million people, supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge—a city that is seven times smaller, with only 145,000 residents. It would be a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. That would all be where today stand ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horseracing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country.
The most important thing to say about the plan is that its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, none of which stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for allowing an intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea, like the NHS; that was a bold idea just after the war. Let us try and use our imaginations: perhaps we will create a shining city—a city not on a hill but in the flatlands of Suffolk—and, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.
Nick Timothy
I think we have just had it—the people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of Forest City, which I think is shameful.
As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land. Where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers, this creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit. At the scale proposed—approximately 400,000 homes—that implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by the Government.
Secondly, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase, while denying itself increases in land value uplift. For a city of 1 million people, non-housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure. The developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross-subsidise investment, but this falls far too short. Without capturing the wider increase in land value, this is another massive black hole.
Thirdly, the plan implies water self-sufficiency at scale. The east of England is a water-stressed region, and a city of 1 million people would require around 170 megalitres per day of additional supply. That is equivalent to one south Lincolnshire reservoir or two fens reservoirs in deployable output terms, at a capital cost of up to £4 billion, excluding network reinforcements and financing. There is no plan and no funding for that work, and when I wrote to Anglian Water, it said that the developers had not even been in touch.
Fourthly, even assuming compulsory purchase at existing use value with hope value removed—which I believe is not what the developers have said to local landowners—land acquisition would require around £1 billion of up-front public expenditure. Removing hope value reduces up-front costs, but capping resale prices through a so-called permanent affordability model means that there is no mechanism to pay back the capital. In other words, this is yet another black hole.
Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of Government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply I received one day later did not even seek to provide answers. When their report, “We Can Build A City”, was published and sent to Ministers in April, it failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges. That is no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend.
Let us take the Government’s new towns programme as an example. Those are only towns, not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead. Where whole cities have been built from scratch elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked—to an extent—are often artificial new capital cities where the functions of government create jobs, such as Brasilia and Islamabad. Often they are in countries where there is still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities, such as in China. Even in China, though, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates.
The reasons for that failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities are built speculatively, without real demand; there are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation; and they are elite-driven projects, disconnected from the needs of real people.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Although there are no proposals the size of a city in my constituency, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the green belt in Hayes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this indiscriminate building on the green belt threatens communities and is swamping public services as well?
Nick Timothy
It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one described by my hon. Friend must be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and must come with infrastructure, services and amenities.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge? The recent sale of Cambridge City airport to Homes England is an exciting initiative that will genuinely provide the homes and businesses we need.
Nick Timothy
I completely agree, and I will come to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area.
You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the examples that I have just given is in a western country. That is because advanced economies do not build artificial communities from scratch in the hope that economic growth will follow. That is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of its chances of success. In truth, the Government know that.
In the small print of the new towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying that it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest, and no route to delivery. They said that Haverhill did not meet their economic tests, and that the area near Exning and Newmarket had too little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City
“a recipe for disaster, paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.”
Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, has said that there is
“no need for such a city”,
that the proposal has “major flaws”, and that—for the reasons that I have already given—it is “unaffordable”. As Mr Lovegrove says, according to the employment-population ratio and the labour force participation rate, a city of 1 million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000, but the city of Cambridge has a working population of less than 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but I wonder whether they have even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My constituency is in the path of the Oxford-Cambridge arc. I welcome the proposed development at Cambourne; there is also a proposal for a new town just south of the constituency, in Tempsford. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Forest City could just be a huge distraction from the new towns programme, which is a credible way of getting on with delivering the housing for which we certainly see the need in my constituency?
Nick Timothy
I do agree, but it is not just a distraction from the need to build in the way that that is needed in the broader region around Cambridge. Only today I received an email from one of my constituents who said, “I see that you have a debate. Please will you emphasise the damage that this is doing to people’s mental health, and the anxiety that it is causing local residents?”
Why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have won fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC, and to date the Government have refused to say no. In March, the Housing Minister said in answer to a question from me:
“Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters.”
In April, he confirmed that the meeting had in fact been held in February. When the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury, I asked Ministers there, in April, whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer. When I asked whether the advisers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year—not this year—with senior media figures, not developers. To date, everyone has been completely evasive about the whole thing.
During a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a Housing Minister, told my noble Friend Lord Herbert:
“We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1423.]
But this is the point: Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the Government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The Government could just say no, but so far they have refused.
In the meantime, it is local people who are suffering. I have had emails from people who have told me that they would like to sell their house, but cannot. I have had emails from people who have found their dream home in Suffolk, but cannot commit to buying it as long as this development remains on the table. People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurlows have been told that village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told that their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Ousden and Dalham and Lidgate and Cowlinge—which, like Haverhill, the developers cannot even spell—have been told that they do not matter. Their lives will be ruined, and they have been told that they will have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. They have been not only disrespected, but insulted.
The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come—it was apparently a secret public meeting. Behind our backs, they and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting, and too rural to understand the obvious joys of city life. In the Financial Times, Mr Malik was photographed next what was called a “deserted field”, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country.
The poor behaviour does not end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation, but they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves. Based on Cambridge land values, that would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition as being in the national interest. She is less open about the fact that Mr Malik will soon be her son-in-law, and her family therefore have a direct financial stake in what she promotes.
On different occasions, Mr Malik has claimed the support of local landowners, when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. He has claimed the support of the British Horseracing Authority, which has had to write to him to tell him to stop. He has also claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter. He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground, he backed down.
In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk—those living in villages and those in the towns; those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there; those who are young and those who are old; the landowners, homeowners and renters; and the businesses and residents. There is value in the rural way of life, even if the Forest City developers disparage it. Local people do not want to see their homes and communities destroyed.
This is not about knee-jerk opposition to new homes, because we have had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new local plan proposes 5,000 new homes, on top of the 8,700 already marked for planning permission. Although Government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they have gone up by 57% for us. To put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable. As I said in my maiden speech, we should
“embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks”,—[Official Report, 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 445.]
of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That is why I have never been an anti-housing campaigner, but the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City.
The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city, and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke’s hospital. It needs a rail link and not just the often single-lane A1307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled, and there need to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon.
My concern is that this Government, who have been setting and missing ambitious house building targets, will see Forest City not for the impracticability of the plan but as a big idea that they can seize to show that they still have radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and some local Labour politicians—we have heard from one today—have already hinted at, or even given, their own support.
Peter Prinsley
I do not wish to declare my support for Forest City, but I wish to declare that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, has not grasped the imagination behind this project. We are not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns; this is a completely new idea. What does he think about that?
Nick Timothy
To be honest, I am at a complete loss as to how that does not express support for the scheme, and if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not support it after his earlier intervention, that may be a record U-turn even for this Labour party.
This debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it is causing, so I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to ensure that we get clear answers, and on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. First, do the Government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through
“the appropriate local consultations and approvals”,
and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government?
Secondly, for all the reasons I have given, will the Government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Thirdly, in particular, will the Government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Fourthly, do the Government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal, as presented, and if so, where do they agree or disagree? Fifthly, will the Government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different Departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its advisory board?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.
Matthew Pennycook
Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high-level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate.
Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head-on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site-specific merits by individual local planning authorities.
The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large-scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi-judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates.
The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through
“the appropriate local consultations and approvals”,
and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high-level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally-led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally-led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered.
When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.
Nick Timothy
I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi-judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come on to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I believe I have already confirmed to him, in answer to a written answer on 9 February, that the Government have no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally-led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City 1 proposals. I do not think we can be clearer than that. The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City 1 proposal. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not given that a business case has not yet even been put together by the promoters.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I nor the Secretary of State have met the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City 1 proposals. The promoters met my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new towns programme. As we have discussed, special advisers in our Department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals. As he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with requirements set out in the relevant guidance.
To conclude, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the Government express an opinion on the high-level scheme proposed, but I am afraid there is not much more to add to what I have set out already. As I have made clear, when it comes to the east of England, the Government’s focus is firmly on delivering high-quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the greater Cambridge development corporation on 2 June, and the required statutory instrument was laid two days later. Subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity. A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan making and development management powers. The development corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. On that note, I welcome the support he has expressed for the Government’s focus on Cambridge.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026
Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. These two instruments, alongside the amendments made by the Employment Rights Act 2025, extend the time limit for presenting claims to the employment tribunal from three months to six months across the majority of employment rights. The draft regulations apply to Great Britain, while the draft order applies to England and Wales. The changes will help to create a framework that is more consistent and accessible, and better aligned with the realities faced by workers and employers. I recognise that Members will be rightly concerned about the capacity of the employment tribunal and the wider dispute resolution system to adapt to this change, given the growing caseload. However, I make it clear that we fully understand the challenges and are already working on reforms focusing on making the system more effective, efficient and resilient.
The dispute resolution system taskforce was set up by the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice last year. It comprises representatives from business, trade unions, legal organisations and third sector organisations. The taskforce is helping to inform our work to develop reform measures, which include short-term, targeted measures to reduce pressure on the system as well as forward-looking measures intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. Those will follow a phased approach, with work on some measures currently under way. We will have further opportunities to discuss that work, but I will now turn to the two instruments on employment tribunal time limits.
The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 are important because they ensure consistency with changes made by the Employment Rights Act and the current six-month time limit for statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. For many people, three months has proved to be a difficult window, and the short timeframe has led to rushed claims or, in some cases, people missing the opportunity to bring a claim altogether.
By moving to a six-month time limit, the regulations create a more realistic and fairer system that better reflects the realities people face, provides more time for disputes to be resolved without needing to go to an employment tribunal and supports fair access to justice. They give employees and employers more opportunity to engage with concerns early and, where possible, resolve disputes before they reach tribunal. The additional time, alongside the consistent approach to time limits across jurisdictions, will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, particularly in complex cases, as well as time to consider the legal costs and funding that may be required.
In practical terms, the regulations do this by updating a series of existing regulations so that the six-month time limit applies across a range of workplace rights that were not already amended by the ERA, including those relating to part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation and negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS-related protections. By bringing those time limits into line with a single six-month timeframe, the regulations support a clear and straightforward process.
The commencement date for the change is 1 October 2026. The new six-month limit will apply only to claims where the problem at work occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Any claims based on earlier events will continue under the current three-month time limit. That approach provides clarity and avoids disruption for cases already in progress.
The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing breach of employment contract claims by employees from three months to six months in England and Wales. The new time limit will apply only where the relevant employment contract is terminated on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to contracts terminating on earlier dates will continue under the current three-month time limit. The change ensures consistency by aligning breach of employment contract claims with the extended employment tribunal time limits introduced by the Employment Rights Act. The instrument applies to claims of this nature in England and Wales only and does not extend to Scotland, as the power to change the parallel Scottish legislation, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, lies with Scottish Ministers and not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government so that the change will also be made in the parallel Scottish legislation. However, in relation to Scotland, the change is expected to take effect in mid-November. We will provide clear guidance to ensure that those based in Scotland are aware of this temporary discrepancy in the time limit for breach of employment contract claims.
Taken together, these instruments represent a sensible step forward by aligning with the changes to employment tribunal time limits in the Employment Rights Act. By creating a more realistic timeframe, improving consistency and supporting better-prepared claims, they help deliver a fairer and more workable system for all.
I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax. She is the second Minister in her role in this Government, and I sincerely hope that we are not due a third. I wish her well over the coming weeks. There was a time—[Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
There was a time not so long ago when we had a Government who said that they were obsessed with growth—that it was their core, underlying mission. Casting my mind back to that moment makes me feel old, but my goodness, what a long way we have travelled over the last almost two years.
I say that because no Government who were obsessed with growth, no Government who were genuine about creating the economic conditions for prosperity that provide our public services with the resource they need, and no Government who were sincere about giving the young people of this nation the opportunity to find work and climb the ladder of opportunity would, in all seriousness, have introduced these measures. It belies their lack of knowledge of working in business, for they do not understand the stifling impact of piling regulation upon regulation and doubling the period of jeopardy for an employer at a time when, as the Minister acknowledged, our employment tribunals are drowning, deluged and failing.
I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have some appreciation, although maybe not the full horror, of what is going on right now in our employment tribunals. I would certainly like to hear more from the Minister and her officials about their plans to remedy a situation that we all should recognise as a crisis. To be fair, this did not all happen on the current Government’s watch. It dates back too many years, but it is getting worse by the week.
The open caseload of single claims stands at a record 64,157 in the last available figures, which is a 55% increase in a single year. One does not need Carol Vorderman’s maths ability to understand that the backlog has grown by more than half in the last 12 months alone, firmly on this Government’s watch. It is not too late for the Government to recant, to see the light and the wisdom, on this statutory instrument, and perhaps ingratiate themselves with the next Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are more firmly committed to the growth that has eluded the incumbents.
New single claim receipts rose by 39% last year to 50,000. That is the addition to the stack of claims, while—please write this down—disposals fell by just 12%. As we sit in this non-air-conditioned Committee Room this afternoon, more claims are being added to the pile. The backlog is growing. The prospect of claimants and employers receiving settlement of those claims now dates back more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. Again, I urge the Minister to correct me if any of these statistics, based on the figures of the Office for National Statistics on gov.uk, are somehow erroneous, or if I am portraying a false narrative of the situation as it exists today.
In these Committee Rooms, we are supposed to engage our minds and properly look at the evidence, not just vote the way we are told. Wouldn’t that be a good idea: evidence-based policymaking, rather than simply yielding to whatever the Government ask and whatever officials put in front of us?
The Government’s overall economic analysis of the Employment Rights Act, of which these regulations are a small measure, implies that the volume of cases in the failing, unreformed employment tribunal system is expected to increase by about 17%—this is the economic analysis of the Department for Business and Trade from January 2026. That is 17% more cases on a backlog of 64,000, which is growing by the day and resulting in delays to claims of more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. I will not detain the Committee with every single measure in the 330-page unemployment Act that the Opposition oppose—that is largely behind us—but there is no reason, when we are in a hole, to keep digging and make the situation worse.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that about 80% of the costs that the system imposes on employers are passed on through lower wages, so it is the workers we seek to represent, our constituents, who ultimately bear the cost. Business has continually warned that increasing the already 13-week time limit would potentially significantly increase the jeopardy and therefore the risk.
And who ultimately pays the price? This may be a fact that Government Members do not wish to fully contemplate, assimilate and understand, but the people who pay the price are the young people who are denied those opportunities. I would be delighted if any Government Member wanted to intervene to tell me the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds today, and how much that has increased in the last 24 months under this Government as a result of both the swingeing increases in tax and the crushing amount of red tape.
In the absence of anyone intervening, and to move us forward quickly, I can reveal that the figure is 16.2%. That means that one in six of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are actively looking for work—who are dispiritedly firing off application after application—are simply unable to find the work that they seek. That is 735,000 young people, almost three quarters of a million.
I believe in the good of Members, so I do not really believe that anybody on the Government Benches came here to put young people out of work, but the law that we pass most often is the law of unintended consequences. I urge Government Members to look at their consciences and decide whether putting more of our young people out of work is really what they came here to do.
I will conclude with a few points to the Minister, if she would be so kind as to respond. First, she talked about the idea that six months is somehow fairer than three months. If that is the case, and if it is the Government’s position, will she make representations to the Chancellor to similarly apply that 13-week increase to 26 weeks when it comes to HMRC? The ordinary taxpayer does not have that same luxury of time. If it is the Government’s new principle that the only fair period is 26 weeks, there will be plenty of opportunities to extend that across to other parts of Government in a symmetrical way.
Can the Minister share any specific assessment her Department has made of how many additional claims these two instruments alone will generate? We have heard about the 17% overall increase in tribunal claims, but can we have an understanding of the additional claims that relate just to these measures, so that Members can make an informed decision when they cast their vote? That is unless the Minister is kind enough to withdraw the measures today.
Given the 64,000-case backlog, what resources does the Minister plan to give the employment tribunal to remove the constraining factors by having additional judges, hearing rooms and sitting days and longer hours? Perhaps she has a comprehensive plan that can reassure hon. Members that 64,000 cases is just a transient backlog, and that it will not grow. Finally, if the Minister is confident—as I am sure she is—about the Government’s reforms, which she mentioned in passing, will she commit today to publishing a clear timetable that identifies the day on which the backlog will be reduced to the pre-2024 level she inherited?
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The shadow Minister asked whether this is really what Members came here to do, and I can say that I genuinely and literally came to this place to do this, so I am delighted that we are doing it. I was one of the people who joined Pregnant Then Screwed in its #Givemesix campaign against maternity discrimination. I spent years practising in employment tribunals, and I saw very large numbers of women with maternity discrimination claims and people with discrimination claims of all types.
There is a huge problem: 74,000 women a year are estimated to lose their job while they are pregnant or on maternity leave, over and above what would otherwise be expected for their demographic. This absolutely enormous problem is affecting our national productivity, with so many women falling out of the workplace after they have children.
When women have just had a baby and suddenly lose their job, they have very limited money because statutory maternity pay is extremely limited—it is awful—so they cannot afford legal advice. They also have a tiny baby, so bringing legal proceedings is not something they are seeking to do. It often takes them a long time to seek advice about their situation. Women are regularly being ruled out of bringing perfectly legitimate claims for the widespread problem of discrimination.
I gently remind the shadow Minister that his Government failed to recruit any employment tribunal judges from 2010 to 2018, and that is how we ended up in this mess. We have no pipeline of people coming through who have seniority. This Government recommenced the recruitment of judges, and, to be fair, at the very back-end of the last Government there was some realisation of the catastrophic mess that had been generated in the employment tribunal system.
It is not in employers’ best interests for the system to be run down, and it is not in employers’ best interests for us to assume that the best thing for employees is to insist that they have no rights and are unable to enforce those that they have. None of those things make business better in Britain; what they do is level down so that the worst employers are enabled to get away with misconduct while penalising those who do the right thing.
I literally came here to do this. I have campaigned for this for years, and I could not be more pleased to see it happen, because what I think we will see is that good employers have absolutely nothing to fear from these measures. Good employers are the ones who are taking the time to deal with grievances properly, and that takes more than three months. At the moment, we are seeing people being pushed to bring claims to protect their position far too quickly, which pushes them into an adversarial process that is not in their best interests or employers’ best interests, and it is potentially enabling unscrupulous employers to find ways to get people to time-out by unduly elongating the process. I absolutely support these measures, and every Labour Member should be proud of them. I want to say a huge thank you to Pregnant Then Screwed for the campaigning it has done for many years. I am really proud to be here today.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a brilliant and well-made speech about why this legislation is so important.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister conveniently missed out a couple of statistics in his opening remarks. I will start with the first one. Going back to historical statistics on the previous Government’s inability to fix and appropriately resource our employment tribunal, if we look at 2017 and 2018, the percentage increase year on year of the number of outstanding single cases reached a shocking 89%. From 2008 to 2018, the average time from receipt of a claim to the first hearing was stable at around 30 weeks. That increased to 49 weeks by early 2021. If we look at the stats published in 2023, employment tribunal delays had increased by 60% since 2010 due to resource shortages. I certainly do not want to go back to those targets, nor commit to them here today.
These measures are absolutely necessary because they recognise the reality that many people need more time to understand what has happened to them, seek advice and prepare their claim properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton outlined. By creating a more realistic timeframe, they will reduce the risk of a rushed or missed claim and support fair access to justice. At the same time, they will give employers greater opportunity to engage early to resolve concerns and avoid unnecessary employment tribunal claims.
The shadow Minister also asked what other work the Government have planned. I am sure he will welcome this update. He heard me refer to the dispute resolution system taskforce, which actually met this afternoon to progress that work at pace. I thank all members of the taskforce for their commitment and engagement so far to consider that longer-term reform. We are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient, and to make up for the lack of resource we saw under the previous Government.
In the shorter term, we are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027. Recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, which I am sure the shadow Minister will welcome.
The Government are also actively improving efficiency and productivity, including through virtual hearings to enable judges to hear cases remotely. Where local shortages arise, we are deploying legal officers to optimise limited judicial resource and centralised telephone support so that litigants get a consistently good service and so that tribunal staff can focus on case progression. We are also rolling out digital systems and piloting AI transcription to support employment tribunal performance.
We have talked about the impact of this legislation and why it is so important. Businesses will benefit from the increased time in which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed. That creates an opportunity for disputes to be resolved before they even reach the employment tribunal, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system in turn.
The shadow Minister knows that we published an impact assessment setting out the impacts on both employers and employees. Although we expect that more claims could be brought to the employment tribunal, as he alluded to, he unfortunately missed out that the six-month time limit will give employers and employees longer to resolve disputes without needing to go to tribunal. We expect that the additional time to submit a claim will result in fewer claims being submitted late, thereby saving judicial time by reducing the resource spent on considering time limit extensions. It would have been good of the shadow Minister to reflect on that latter part, too.
Just as importantly, the instruments will bring greater consistency across the system, aligning time limits and making the process clearer and easier to navigate for everyone involved. These are measured reforms. They will ensure that the system works better in practice by being clearer, fairer and more effective. I therefore commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations expand the eligibility for the climate change agreements scheme to include three new processes—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automotive-grade battery cells—as well as clarifying the existing eligibility and administrative requirements for the scheme and updating the carbon emissions factor figure used in the buy-out fee for the scheme.
The climate change levy was introduced in 2001 for the purpose of encouraging energy efficiency across our economy by taxing energy supplies such as electricity or gas. From the outset, the tax has included the CCA scheme, a voluntary scheme that provides eligible energy-intensive businesses access to significant discounts on their CCL bill in exchange for meeting negotiated energy-efficiency or carbon-reduction targets.
As a tax designed to drive efficiency, the CCL should accommodate the changing energy landscape. We therefore propose to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the three I have already mentioned. Those processes meet the scheme’s established eligibility tests, thereby demonstrating that they are sufficiently energy intensive and, where applicable, subject to competition from imports. Their inclusion is consistent with existing policy and continues to support the Government’s objectives of delivering affordable and secure energy and decarbonisation, while also helping to drive growth.
In summary, the regulations give effect to the Government’s decision to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the production of automotive-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wishart, presiding over our proceedings. Given the origin of this measure, with the policy work that underpins it having begun under the previous Government, we will not oppose it, but as the Minister may expect, I have a few questions for him.
The climate change agreements allow eligible facilities to reduce their energy use and, in exchange, pay reduced rates of the climate change levy. The discounts can be significant—up to 92% on electricity. The regulations make three changes: they expand the scheme to include the three new processes the Minister referred to, they consolidate the existing eligibility rules and they correct a numerical error in the formula used to calculate buy-out fees.
The consultation that preceded the changes was launched in November 2023 and closed in February 2024. Applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and in October the Government announced that the production of automative-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics were all to be included. The changes do not take effect until January 2027, over three years after the consultation opened—a lengthy process, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Wishart—and the response to the consultation highlighted that more time was needed. Will the Minister explain why the process has been so lengthy?
As I mentioned, applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and three were selected. I have looked into it but was unable to find the information, so perhaps the Minister can tell us what the other processes were and explain the basis on which they were rejected. I would also be interested to know whether there is the potential for those sectors to be given further opportunities to apply.
I will not dwell on the buy-out fee correction, because the adjustment goes to four decimal places. I am not sure that will have a substantial impact, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on that.
I have previously welcomed the Government’s decision to extend the climate change agreements scheme for a further six years. When businesses are facing headwinds, the extension offers much-needed respite. Nevertheless, as all Members will know, British manufacturers pay considerably more for energy than their competitors. Compared with the EU, UK firms pay 50% more, and the gap between the UK and America is much larger.
Excessive energy costs are undermining our growth and productivity prospects, yet in the most recent Finance Act, the Government raised the climate change levy rate, at a cost to business of £2 billion a year. That is a significant burden on businesses that are already struggling. We need cheaper energy, which is what the Conservative’s cheaper energy plan would deliver.
We welcome the lightening of the load on businesses, and we support the agreements, but the Government should stop adding levies and costs to the energy bills of companies and individuals, and instead look to remove them. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
It is positive that the Government are looking at costs and energy bills for businesses and non-domestic consumers. Extending the scope of the climate change agreements scheme is a good step to support our industries in the transition. Decarbonising our industry, and encouraging energy-intensive businesses to be more energy efficient and to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, will be vital to meeting our carbon targets. That could not be more relevant than in this week: not only is it London Climate Action Week, but for the first ever time we have a UK Health Security Agency red alert for extreme heat. Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is here with us now.
We must do all we can to decarbonise and avoid the worsening of climate impacts on our economy and way of life, so it is right to include the three processes the Minister mentioned—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automative-grade battery cells—in the reduced rates scheme. Ultimately, to decarbonise industry we need a package of policies, including ones to make low-carbon actions and technology viable for businesses.
We Liberal Democrats feel that the Government also need to take steps to simplify the current energy-tax system, and that once the emissions trading scheme is fully effective in the UK, complicated taxes such as the carbon price support and the climate change levy should be abolished. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
As we have heard, the price of energy is currently a huge and disproportionate burden for our businesses, across sectors, compared with other countries, which makes the UK less competitive. We need to take action to help businesses—not just energy-intensive businesses but the many small business that are currently left exposed to exorbitantly high energy costs—to decarbonise and have affordable bills. If the Government are serious about meeting our climate targets and driving British industry forwards, we need action and ambition to help to support businesses and industries to stay competitive.
Dan Tomlinson
As ever, I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contributions and questions.
I agree with the shadow Exchequer Secretary that lengthy consultations can be a frustration—they are the bane of my life too. Of course, we need to make sure that we engage and listen, but it is always good to be as quick as we possibly can be. There is a gap between now and when the changes will come into effect because the Environment Agency requires numerous administrative processes to be completed before facilities from newly eligible sectors can join a scheme. We of course always look to make sure that we can speed up such administrative processes.
I will follow up in writing with details as to why the non-successful processes were not successful; I do not have that information at my fingertips today, but I look forward to reading the letter and sending it to the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I can confirm that the four processes that applied but were not successful were two relating to tire retreading, one relating to the roll turning of plastics and one relating to water. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points in due course.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that there is a very minor change in a complicated formula from 0.0497 to 0.0498. I am assured that that is about helping to make sure the Government do these things properly, and that the resultant changes will not be significant.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that we have high energy costs in this country. We need to bring them down. We are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of saying no to new nuclear power stations over and over again, and we are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of not investing in our energy security. Instead, we are going to get a range of different energy sources into our energy mix so that we can get prices down. The Chancellor proactively made the decision at the last Budget to take £150 off energy bills for families across the country, which was very welcome indeed.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned how she would like to see the carbon price support removed. I have good news for her: just a few short weeks ago we announced that we are removing it. I am disappointed that she did not hear that exciting news. It is a very niche tax, but it is important that we are removing a tax that had become outdated and was not fit for purpose given the current structure of our energy market. I do like to make sure that we get rid of taxes.
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need action and ambition on decarbonising our electricity network. We must take the steps we need to take to get clean power and to make sure that we meet our net zero obligations, not just for ourselves but for future generations and for the world. We owe it to all of humanity to make sure that, in a reasonable and careful way, we make progress towards decarbonising our economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221)
The Chair
Members may remove their jackets, because I am going to remove mine—it is too hot.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Lewell. I know that for many colleagues across the House the prospect of being on a Delegated Legislation Committee considering Church of England legislation is not the true highlight of their parliamentary week—and in this weather; I am so sorry. However, while our setting today might be routine, the legislation before us is anything but. The Measure is a cornerstone of the Church of England’s ongoing vital reform of clergy discipline and safeguarding.
During the passage of the Measure through the General Synod, the Church acknowledged that the current system has not served complainants well; they have far too often found the process to be retraumatising, opaque and painfully slow. Equally, it has not served clergy well, leaving many in a state of prolonged anxiety and limbo. The new Measure is the result of six years of detailed work to address that situation. To that end, the Clergy Conduct Measure will replace the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in its entirety. It is clear that the system was not fit for purpose: it was outdated and needed reform to better protect and support individuals.
Before I turn to the detail of the Measure, hon. Members will see from the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee that it initially found the Measure “not expedient” on the basis that clause 31(3) provided that the tribunal hearings were to be held in private by default. I am pleased that the Church withdrew that and the General Synod looked at the issue again. In February, the Measure was amended for hearings to be in public by default.
Concerns were also raised about the working relationship with the Church. The Church has assured me that it recognises the need to work collaboratively with the Ecclesiastical Committee and with Parliament. It should know that robust parliamentary scrutiny is not a hurdle to be cleared, but an essential part of ensuring that our legislation is fair and transparent and commands public confidence; we are, after all, legislators.
The Measure at the heart of the new system is proportional. It introduces three different tracks to allocate complaints to: as a grievance, as misconduct or as serious misconduct. Each track has its own procedure for investigation and resolution of the complaint, and by triaging cases effectively from the outset, the Measure seeks to ensure that every complaint is handled appropriately and with the right level of seriousness. Crucially, that will lead to a much quicker process. Justice delayed is justice denied, both for those raising complaints and for those facing them. By streamlining investigations and hearings, the system seeks to end the agonising multi-year delays that have so heavily characterised the current process.
The Measure also makes vital strides in aligning safeguarding and discipline processes. The one-year limitation period will be abolished for allegations of serious misconduct, meaning that those who have been seriously harmed by the Church will be able to bring a complaint regardless of when the alleged conduct took place. In cases involving children or vulnerable adults, safeguarding professionals will automatically become party to the complaint, providing critical input into the decision-making process. That alignment will be significantly better for both complainants and respondents, ensuring that safeguarding is not treated as a separate silo but is central to the disciplinary framework.
Alongside that, new statutory duties are placed on bishops to implement support for all those affected by a complaint, and there are significant protections for the clergy through the introduction of restraint orders against those who persistently harass them with vexatious complaints. For the most serious cases where the cleric is prohibited from ministry for life, the outcome of deposition from holy orders has been reintroduced.
The new system provides greater protections for vulnerable witnesses and ensures that those who have the immense courage to come forward and report abuse or misconduct are properly supported and shielded throughout the proceedings. The Measure will be supplemented by rules made under secondary legislation, which will be considered by the General Synod next month. Ideally, the Committee would have had the rules alongside the Measure, and I hope going forward that the Church will look at ways to implement this. Should that legislation pass the General Synod, it will be laid before Parliament under the negative procedure.
Behind every clause of the Measure, and behind every complaint that it will eventually govern, are real human beings. There are victims seeking justice, congregations needing leadership and clergy dedicating their lives to service. The Church has listened to survivors, to the clergy and to Parliament in devising this new system. The Measure is serious and comprehensive, and it is a response to those voices. I am pleased to commend it to the Committee today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am as surprised as I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, for I was nominated by the Committee of Ways and Means to chair the Committee, only then to discover that I was to have the pleasure and honour of serving on it.
This is a most welcome Measure because it reverses a very unwelcome modern trend—namely the trend to reduce discretion and to centralise decision making. The method by which the lead assessor will assess the different levels of complaint, whether grievance, misconduct or serious misconduct, enables him to have the decisions on the outcome of those complaints for grievances dealt with at the local level. Even where the threshold for misconduct is reached, if it is at the lower end of the scale, the lead assessor still has the discretion to have the matter resolved as a grievance.
Nothing used to infuriate me more, as an assessor on the board of courts martial, than seeing a number of what I regarded as trivial cases come before us that, frankly, earlier in my career would have been settled and resolved by the commanding officer. Because they went through this litigious procedure, it wrecked careers and put officers and men under a huge amount of strain. We have heard from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, about the trauma that people accused of offences go through with prolonged procedures, so I welcome that provision.
The other thing I welcome about this Measure is the provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants. The Church, like our constituency parties, is a voluntary organisation—although I sometimes wonder why I volunteer when I am subjected to some of the more gruesome modern liturgies. Nevertheless, it is a voluntary organisation in that, overwhelmingly—exclusively—the congregation is voluntary, and a significant amount of the clergy are now non-stipendiary.
We all know from our experience of handling our own voluntary organisations that character clashes and differences emerge. It was always said that, when it came to any kind of selection, the local candidate was at a disadvantage because, if they know you, they know they do not like you. Therefore, these provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants are most welcome. On that basis, I will certainly be voting for this Measure.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very thorough welcoming of this Measure, and for wanting to ensure that we support it. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a progressive step forward. It brings much transparency to the process and more fairness to all, whether that is a complainant or somebody being complained about. I welcome the fact that he will be supporting this Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Casting my mind back to before the weekend, we had a wide-ranging debate on clauses 1 to 3 but, I think, substantial agreement about the central proposition to abolish NHS England. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who succinctly put his finger on the key issue: it is fundamentally right that people and their elected representatives should be able to hold Ministers to account for the performance of the health service. It is also right that Ministers should have the tools to make the changes that are needed. The abolition is a necessary result of restoring that principle.
The debate raised a number of questions, a substantial number of which we will address during the course of the Committee as we reach the relevant clauses. However, I will pick up a couple now. I reassure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston that the Government do take the impact of this process on staff seriously. We will treat people with the care, respect and fairness that they are owed through this process, now and in the months ahead. I am also committed to consulting recognised trade unions and I have a joint partnership forum to support ongoing engagement. More broadly, we recognise that change of this type is never easy, but we will need to go through the process quickly, which means, of necessity, proceeding in parallel with the legislation on the detailed internal design work for the new Department. That is in the interests of staff, patients and the public.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the issue of whether the Bill was the cause of delays to the workforce plan. To be clear, it has not been, and we will publish that imminently. She also asked about the opportunity costs for other programmes, and I assure her that the Department, NHS England and Ministers are clear that we are here to deliver the 10-year health plan and other changes that make a difference to patients. We can, should and will do several things at once, and the Bill will help us with that by providing clarity of roles, greater freedom to local organisations and other positive changes.
To take just one example of the real impact, we are already saving on agency costs, and this is the first time in many years that the Department has not had to go back to the Treasury for a further injection of cash mid-year. That is getting a grip on the system. I add that the opportunity costs of not acting are very clear to the public, to staff and to patients in every single staff or patient survey that is issued. Those are the opportunity costs of not doing something; that is why we are acting. Clauses 1 to 3 are a necessary requirement for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the initiatives that are expected of us.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
This brings back memories of being in probably this same Committee Room a few years ago. I made this point during the previous sitting, but is the Minister able to commit that before the Bill leaves the Commons, a full and detailed statistical breakdown of the costs and benefits will be published, given their absence from the impact assessment?
Karin Smyth
I can tell the right hon. Member that we expect that NHS England coming into the Department will deliver up to about £1 billion in annual savings by the end of the Parliament, driven primarily by reductions in headcount, calculated using the average staff costs—about £77,000 per staff member in the Department and £94,000 per staff member in NHS England—including all pension and employer costs, which I think should help contribute to those numbers. As I think he knows, we will publish all accounts in the usual way.
I commend the three clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Reducing inequalities
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—
“1C Health improvement and health inequalities duty
(1) In exercising any functions relating to the health service, Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—
(a) improve the health of persons in England,
(b) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services, and
(c) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services.
(2) Health inequalities ‘between the people of England’ means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in, or in different parts of England.
(3) ‘Health inequalities’ means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants.
(4) Under subsection (3) ‘general health determinants’ are—
(a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety;
(b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water;
(c) employment prospects, earning capacity, and any other matters that affect economic security;
(d) access to public services;
(e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health;
(f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.”
This amendment would amend clause 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006 to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—
“1C Health improvement and health inequalities duty
(1) When considering whether or how to exercise any functions, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—
(a) improve the health of persons in England,
(b) reduce health inequalities between persons in England, and
(c) reduce inequalities between persons in England with respect to their ability to access health services and to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services.
(2) Health inequalities ‘between persons’ living in England means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in, or in different parts of England.
(3) ‘Health inequalities’ means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants.
(4) ‘General health determinants’ are—
(a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety,
(b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water,
(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity,
(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services,
(e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health, and
(f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.
(5) In subsection (1)(a), the reference to improving the health of persons includes a reference to mitigating any detriment to health which would otherwise be occasioned by the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions.
(6) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to reducing health inequalities includes a reference to mitigating any increase in health inequalities which would otherwise be occasioned by the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions.”
This amendment would amend clause 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006 to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities, reflecting the duties placed on combined authorities and CCAs in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.
Amendment 34, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) reducing inequalities between the people of England with respect to hospital transportation access.”
This amendment would create a duty for the Secretary of State to have regard for reducing inequalities in England with respect to hospital transportation access when exercising functions in relation to the health service.
Amendment 30, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2) In discharging this duty the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to involve all departments of government in reducing health inequalities, and must take reasonable steps to ensure that other all departments consider the impact of their policy proposals on health inequalities.”
This amendment would require a whole government approach to addressing health inequalities by requiring the Secretary of State to involve all departments in the discharge of their duty in relation to health inequalities and took reasonable steps to ensure other departments consider the impact their policies might have on health inequalities.
Clause stand part.
New clause 19—Health improvement and health inequalities strategy—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a health improvement and health inequalities strategy.
(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult all bodies which they consider appropriate.
(3) The strategy under subsection (1) must include—
(a) long-term targets related to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities in England,
(b) provision for the establishment of a public authority with functions for additional monitoring and reporting on progress towards the targets set by subsection (3)(a), and
(c) any other provisions the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) All Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the strategy under subsection (1) in carrying out their functions.
(5) Within 12 months of the publication of the strategy under subsection (1), and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the implementation of the strategy.
(6) ‘Health inequalities’ means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities.
Peter Prinsley
I apologise for being a little delayed, Sir Jeremy. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It would place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities when exercising functions.
Between 2011 and 2021, the UK was one of only five high-income countries where healthy life expectancy fell. Over the same decade, we faced a cost of living crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and economic decline across the post-industrial regions. We cannot shy away from the fact that ill health is rising. Economic inactivity due to sickness is at its highest level since 2012, and we witness a widening disparity in health outcomes. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK, on average, live just 52 years of healthy life. There is now a 16-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the UK. Even within individual constituencies, the life expectancy gap can be as wide as seven years between local postcodes.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that decisions taken at the highest level of the health system consistently reflect the reality that health outcomes differ sharply depending on where someone lives, the conditions that they live in and their opportunities to achieve good health. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve the health of persons in England. The intention is that this duty would include the need to reduce inequalities in health. That is in addition to the duties that are already in the clause, relating to inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare.
At present, the Bill brings together old duties on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequality in access to and outcomes from NHS services. Those are too narrow and do not reflect the wider determinants of health that the Government have pledged to tackle through their 10-year plan. The amendment would strengthen the duty to reflect the wider cross-Government goals for health improvement and health inequalities. That would make an important statement of the Government’s commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, and would set in train an important step towards achieving them.
The amendment also provides a clear definition of “health inequalities” and “general health determinants”. Health inequalities means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health, which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants, including housing standards, environmental factors, public transport, economic factors and other wider determinants of life expectancy. The amendment has been drafted to mirror the wording of the newly enacted section 45 duty on combined authorities in relation to health improvement and health inequalities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.
Accepting the amendment would ensure consistent focus on the mission of creating a fairer country where everyone lives for longer, from the top of Government to regions and neighbourhoods. By setting this out explicitly, the amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State cannot overlook the wider conditions that shape health outcomes. In sum, the amendment would require that when decisions are made, the Secretary of State must consider their impact on health improvement and on distribution of health across the population.
The amendment is supported by the Health Equals coalition, including 27 organisations that wrote an open letter to the Minister on 15 June. Those organisations range from the Health Foundation to the King’s Fund, Ramblers UK and the Wildlife Trusts, showing the breadth of support from across the sector. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee also recommended that the clause be amended in this way.
Embedding this duty in legislation would strengthen accountability and ensure that the reduction of health inequalities is treated not as a secondary consideration, but as an integral part of how the health system is led and managed. If accepted, the new duty would ensure clear alignment at national and local levels about the importance of prevention.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Jeremy. I will speak generally about the amendments on health inequalities, and specifically about some points that the group of amendments homes in on.
On the general principle of dealing with health inequalities, the sentiment behind amendment 13 is important, and I support hon. Members’ motivation for tabling it, but I question exactly what “persons of different descriptions” means. Does it relate to protected characteristics, which employment law deals with, or to geography? I suspect that it is both, and I wonder whether there are more considerations than those two. It would assist us if the amendment were clearer on that, notwithstanding the fact that clarification may be made during the debate or to the amendment itself if it is accepted later. I have concerns about what “persons of different descriptions” means. Certainly, in everyday English, every individual could be described as a person of a different description, so the phrase does not have any particular legal meaning.
If the phrase means something equivalent to protected characteristics, I wish to say something about health inequalities affecting those of different ages. I am the Member for Isle of Wight East, which, of course, has an older population. I want people of all ages to have equal access to health and social care, and inequalities in access to be levelled out and removed, but it is not only older people who find accessing health services difficult, not least for reasons of physical access; the entire population within an area with an older age demographic is affected. The Isle of Wight has a small local authority. We are fairly unique, in that we are surrounded by water and have a higher age profile, which, taken together with other challenges, makes health equality a challenge for the entire population, not just older people. The issue is aggravated by other considerations, primarily relating to geography.
Amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, refers to hospital transportation access. That can mean a lot of different things in different places. I support at least the aim of putting more pressure on the Secretary of State and the Department and encouraging them to recognise and eradicate inequalities in hospital transportation access. For my constituents, accessing specialist services means crossing a body of water, which is not only a physical barrier—a ferry has to be taken—but a cost barrier, because ferries cost money. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, given the challenge in my constituency, but of course other places have different but challenging hospital transportation issues.
Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, refers to cross-departmental working to ensure that health inequalities are taken into consideration. I think this is key. Of course the primary responsibility for health inequalities rests with the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is by no means the only Department with that responsibility. The more we think about the various inequalities that exist in this country, the more we realise that other Departments have considerable responsibility. We hear from politicians—of all parties, but particularly the Labour party in government—about better joined-up working between Departments, but without something more concrete in Bills such as this one, that will remain one of those aspirations that many talk about but few actually achieve.
The most obvious Department to help achieve the reduction in health inequalities is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, given its responsibility for local government funding. Of course, local government has primary responsibility for delivering social care and public health within its area. It is a well-known feature of the system we have in this country that healthcare is free at the point of use and delivered effectively by central Government, while social care is a combination of different provision but private funding and local government have the largest role to play, and too many people fall through the gaps in those fundamentally different ways of funding two parts of the system. Unless MHCLG is bound into the way we reduce health inequalities, even with the best intentions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, it clearly will not be delivered in a comprehensive and holistic way.
I refer again, as an example, to my area, which has a higher age demographic but a small unitary authority with a lower funding base. It is a matter of public record that the funding decisions made by the current Government at the beginning of this year have meant an effective reduction in funding for my local authority, notwithstanding its responsibility for an older population and the existing challenges in delivering social care. That is an argument that I and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), are making to the Government in an ongoing conversation about how we can resolve that issue. We are having that conversation with MHCLG, notwithstanding the fact that it has a very direct impact—the biggest impact, in my view—on health inequalities in my constituency and the effectiveness of the Government’s 10-year health plan and their intention to improve the general health of the population. That is the probably the key departmental relationship that will be relied on to deliver the reduction in health inequalities.
The Department for Transport also has responsibility for this. If we refer to its responsibilities for reducing health inequalities outside the context of this argument, people might scratch their heads and wonder what we are talking about. but as soon as it is brought into a real-life example within this debate, it makes sense that the Department for Transport has some responsibility for reducing health inequalities. However, we will not achieve all we want to unless that responsibility is made more obvious and specific, named somewhere in some Bill. We have an option to achieve our intention to have joined-up decision making, and to ensure that every decision in any Department that has the potential to impact health inequalities is considered, whether in a formal impact assessment or just in the ordinary day-to-day decision making and mindset of the relevant Ministers, Secretary of State or departmental officials.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak to clause 4 and this group of amendments. Health inequalities are commonly defined as the systemic differences in health status and distribution of health resources between different population groups. There are limits to how far the state can equalise health in a free society, but I am sure all Members would agree that the service should not preside over differences in access to health resources. Unequal access runs contrary to the vision of the NHS as a comprehensive service, available to all and based on clinical need, not ability to pay. Those principles are violated when people without fixed addresses struggle to access general practice, or patients in rural areas, such as my constituency, miss out on treatments—for example, specialist cancer treatments—that are available in more urban areas.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted section 1C in the National Health Service Act 2006, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the need to reduce inequalities in the benefits that people obtain from the health service. As the explanatory notes to the 2012 Act made clear, the intention of that was to
“include consideration of the need to reduce inequalities in access...and the outcomes”.
Clause 4 of this Bill takes that which was understood and makes it more explicit.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I support updating that duty—she is smiling. The word “benefits” in the original section is a nebulous and subjective term. The wording introduced by the clause is less imprecise and requires the Secretary of State to consider the whole health pipeline. None the less, I have some questions about the lens that clause 4 and its predecessor, section 1C of the 2006 Act, invite the Secretary of State to look through, particularly in relation to other statements made by the Government.
In the Government’s policy paper “ICBs as strategic commissioners”, they say that increasing the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards will result in them being
“better placed to support innovation”
and
“design new models of care”.
Innovation can produce disparities; that is true in healthcare as well. If one ICB decides to innovate and produces a better service, that area will have a better service than another, and the Secretary of State will have the job of undoing that. That could be done by spreading the innovation across the whole of the country, but if the innovation is expensive or difficult to roll out, it could in effect be quashed. Does the Minister recognise that empowering health leaders to innovate and do things differently could widen inequalities, at least in the short term? Is she willing to accept that?
A problem with using inequalities as a stand-alone metric is that it does not really tell you whether things are getting better or worse; it must be taken into consideration alongside a wide range of other metrics. An often forgotten fact is that disparities can be reduced by levelling down as well as by levelling up. Fixating on determining the size and cause of disparities can, in some cases, come at the expense of eliminating them. I recently tabled a written question to ask the Government if and when they plan to
“set an explicit target to close the Black and Asian maternal mortality gap.”
I note that the Minister stood on a manifesto pledge to close that gap. The Government response to my question indicated that they are waiting for Baroness Amos to finish looking at the drivers of inequalities before they do anything. It is possible to produce tomes on the nature of disparities; I suggest that energy would be better spent on addressing them.
Amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to consider health inequalities arising from differences in general health determinants. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, as statistically, those with lower earning capacity, limited access to green space or unhealthy lifestyles have comparatively worse health outcomes, but would placing a duty to take stock of that on the Secretary of State make the health service any better for such groups, or for the population as a whole?
What would be the practical purpose of the amendment? As somebody said to me yesterday evening, do we have a section in education legislation stating that the Education Secretary has to consider that their job is to ensure that people are educated? Do we have clauses in defence Bills saying that the Defence Secretary must consider the defence of the realm? I cannot be sure, but the amendment seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious, so what effect would it have? Does the Member who tabled the amendment think that the Secretary of State will not consider those factors—essentially, that he will not do his job properly? Do they not have confidence in him or in future Secretaries of State?
Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would need to consider inequalities arising from people’s employment, environmental conditions and lifestyle choices, which his Department has little to no control over. If poverty is the problem, the solution is employment and welfare policy, which is not in his gift. If poor environment is the problem, the solution is environmental policy. If a well-informed adult chooses, despite knowing the detriment it may cause them, to consume unhealthy food or an excessive volume of alcohol, or not to exercise, what can and should the Minister do about it in a free society?
Amendment 13 would risk distracting from the focus of clause 4, which is, as I see it, to ensure equal access to health resources regardless of a person’s standing in society. What is the practical effect of making it a duty on the Minister to do these things? Will it cause a whole load of bureaucracy? Will the Minister have to produce impact statements for every new hospital? If, for example, one opened on the Isle of Wight—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was talking about that—would we need to consider what effect it would have on smokers, people who do not exercise or people who have a lower earning capacity, and produce an endless list of assessments? It would take a lot of money and effort and not really add anything. The amendment would also risk the Government getting bogged down in litigation, as people who disagreed with the Government’s or the ICB’s decision would spend their time litigating the question whether something that may or may not even be relevant was considered properly.
Members will not be surprised to hear that my thoughts on amendment 29 are similar to those on amendment 13. I do not doubt for a minute that its supporters have the best intentions, but this type of public sector equality duty language does not do anything to improve public services. Too many arms of the state have been so concerned with disparities that they have become incompetent at getting on with the job that they are actually meant to be doing; they are distracted by trying to measure all these different equalities.
Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to involve all Departments in reducing health inequalities and take all reasonable steps to ensure that all other Departments
“consider the impact of their policy proposals on health inequalities.”
Is this spreading the bureaucracy and the impact assessments more widely? If the Government decide to buy a new submarine, do they have to consider what effect it would have on people who smoke on the Isle of Wight? It does not make sense to me. It is a statement of the obvious that members of the Cabinet and Government have to work together to deliver better health for the country. Of course that is true, but what would be the practical effect? The Minister may be able to tell us.
New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to publish a health improvement and health inequalities strategy within six months, and an annual report thereafter. Again, that would invite more glossy brochures from the Government, using the precious time of civil servants. The new clause seeks a cross-Government approach by mandating that all Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the strategy when carrying out their functions. Again, it is basically stating what their job is.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Although all these amendments come from a very good place, they are so obvious that they should already be happening, and are too obvious to be enshrined in some overriding duty in a Bill.
Dr Johnson
I agree. The amendments include, in many cases, a statement of what someone’s job is. Does the Member who tabled them think that the Secretary of State is not doing his job and therefore needs to be told what his job is? That could create a whole load of bureaucracy detracting from the actual job in hand.
Amendment 34 concerns transport access. I understand that that is a problem for many people in rural areas, such as my constituency. They often have a harder time, as the distance they need to travel is longer and public transport services are infrequent. Healthwatch, which will be cancelled by this Bill if the Government get their way, has heard from patients who struggle to book transport online, and whose transport turned up several hours early or was cancelled with little or notice at all. Those problems are well documented.
I visited Lincoln county hospital, which has a unit for renal dialysis, where I heard that although transport is provided for individuals having dialysis, which is good, it often does not turn up when it should or does not pick people up at the time that it is supposed to. More concerning is the fact that if they need a transplant and transplant assessments, most have to go to Leicester to have that done, which is several hours’ drive from some parts of Lincolnshire. Most disturbingly, I heard concerns that some people would choose not to go through the transplant programme, and a factor in that decision would be the ability to get to the transplant centre to have the significant amount of testing and follow-up that needs to be done. Clearly, that is not equal access, so I urge the Minister to look at that.
Imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider reducing inequalities is a good thing, but it does not magic up the resources necessary to fix them. In exercising his functions, it is a problem the Secretary of State is already capable of addressing. I am sure the Secretary of State, like the Minister, is a good person and wants people to be able to access the services. If Members believe the Government are failing in that regard, I would advise that adding another legislative duty is not likely to bring about the change desired. If we are being honest with the public, we must challenge the premise that every disparity is evidence of a policy failure. The duty placed on the Secretary of State should be to ensure that care is of an equally high standard across the board.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East highlighted extremely well the difficulties of accessing hospital services on an island, but it can be a problem anywhere, including in rural constituencies. Winchester is about 60% rural. Since I was elected, an issue that I have had a great deal of correspondence about—even protests and petitions—has been the cancellation by Hampshire county council of bus services, particularly from rural villages such as Colden Common. People need buses for a variety of reasons—obviously to get to work and school—but the No. 1 issue concerning people is that of mainly elderly people using the bus to access hospital and GP services. They are really worried. It is causing a huge amount of stress that they will not be able to access hospital and GP services and not be able to remain living independently in the village that they have lived in for years.
One of the new hospitals in Hampshire is due to be built in south Basingstoke. Extraordinarily, the consultation on the location of the new hospital did not include consultation with the South Central ambulance service. When moving an A&E department and maternity service to another location, it seems blindingly obvious that the ambulance service should be heavily involved in deciding where a new hospital may be located, given that it is primarily responsible for ensuring that people can get there in a timely manner. Although there is obviously a need for local councils to ensure their constituents can get to a local hospital, it is important that we have some kind of obligation. I assume it would have been an obligation that when setting up the location of new hospital services, the ambulance services must be consulted and engaged with to get their input.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
On amendment 13, the shadow Minister asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South felt the need to table amendment 13. One can only assume it is because health inequalities have continued to widen for far too long. In a 20 or 30-minute drive across my Wolverhampton North East constituency, life expectancy drops by seven years. I accept that tackling health inequalities is not just about health; it is about a wider web of societal issues, including educational, employment and housing inequalities. That very long list is beyond the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Amendment 13 will put the tackling of preventable ill health and health inequalities at the centre of national decision making by ensuring that the Secretary of State must consider not just NHS treatment but wider social and economic factors. Will the Minister assure the Committee that future Secretaries of State will not overlook the wider social and economic factors that drive ill health and unequal life expectancy, and that there will be a responsibility to work across Departments to tackle that wider and growing inequality?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to all hon. Members who tabled amendments in this group, some of which have not been spoken to. I will address the central points that Members have rightly highlighted. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Health and Social Care Committee for their report and recommendations for the Bill.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will set out what clause 4 does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East highlighted, the wider determinants of health inequalities are important. On the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made about the Labour party, they absolutely run through our DNA. Clause 4 restates and reaffirms our commitment to tackling health inequalities. It reformulates section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006, aligning it with the duty imposed on NHS England by section 13G of that Act. It makes plain the need to achieve greater equality between the benefits that people receive and the provision of health services—for their ability to access those services and for the outcomes achieved. Importantly, “outcomes” includes the safety and effectiveness of health services and the quality of the experience undergone by patients. The clause will ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to reducing inequalities in respect of all those benefits.
The wording of the revised duty more directly encapsulates the benefits that must be taken into consideration and obtained from the health service to support action that reduces or prevents inequalities. Fundamentally, the clause underpins our commitment to improving the health of the population and tackling the stark inequalities that blight the health of communities up and down the land, which have got worse over the past 14 years. That is central to this Government’s ambition, which is why we highlighted it in the 10-year health plan.
We also recognise that this is not a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care alone, which is why we are already working across Government to address the root causes of health inequalities and the barriers to accessing health and care services. We are ensuring that our action on health is embedded in policies that shape people’s daily lives, from the homes they live in to the air they breathe.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Before the general election, I was the Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson, and one thing that came up regularly was how important housing is, and not just for obvious physical conditions—mouldy houses can cause breathing issues. Temporary accommodation is devastating for the long-term health outcomes of the people who are placed in it. Does the Minister agree that working with MHCLG to improve housing—particularly social housing—is critical to achieving the Government’s objective?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next comments. I absolutely agree with her, and so do the Government. That is why we are improving living conditions through the new decent homes standards, which set standards across all rented sectors. Awaab’s law requires social landlords to act promptly to fix housing hazards. Since coming into government, we have launched the warm homes plan, the Keep Britain Working review and the homelessness strategy. In April, we published a renewed women’s health strategy, marking a decisive shift to ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes that they deserve. Last November, we published England’s first ever men’s health strategy, to improve the health and wellbeing of all men and boys. Within the Department, we are reviewing the Carr-Hill formula and the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to ensure the funding matches need.
However, there is much more to do. The Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), will continue to engage with key stakeholders, including representatives of Health Equals. I have a meeting with representatives of that body this week.
I sympathise entirely with the motivation underpinning amendment 13, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and I commend hon. Members for working on this important agenda, but I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. I note that it draws on the duty that was recently placed on combined authorities by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, with a view to creating a similar duty for central Government.
Fortunately, I can reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State already has a duty to secure improvement in the health of people in England, and the power to take such steps to improve public health as they consider appropriate. We would not want to narrow the definition of the existing duty, because health inequalities come from many causes, as has been discussed. As I have said, we are already working across central Government and local government to address those wider inequalities, including in housing and air quality, and by getting more people into work.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that innovation might expand inequalities across our country, but we have seen a shocking expansion in the inequality gap across our country. That is what we are seeking to reverse, as we have made clear in our 10-year health plan, and the Bill will ensure that that happens. That is why we say that we will take the best to the rest; we are not about taking people down.
Finally, I turn to amendment 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester. He has spoken before about his constituents’ experience, and I have spoken with him about the new hospital programme, his constituents’ reliance on transport to access hospital appointments, and the difficulties experienced in more rural areas, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East also mentioned. That is why, in our 10-year health plan, we are very clear about our strong commitment to rural and coastal communities—we are the first Government to do that.
We agree that reducing inequalities in hospital transport is important. The Bill already places a duty on the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the need to…reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services”.
Inequalities in access to transport to receive care fall under the scope of that duty. As such, the amendment is superfluous.
I also offer the reassurance that NHS England has been implementing a range of actions to reduce inequalities in patient transport, including the speeding up of reimbursement for patients eligible for the healthcare travel costs scheme. I also inform the Committee that the cancer plan included a commitment to provide up to £10 million a year to pay for the travel costs for cancer care for children and young people, and their families, as people have long campaigned for.
Some important issues have been raised in this debate, and I am sure that we will return to them. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket to withdraw the amendment. I commend clause 4 to the Committee.
Peter Prinsley
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Patient involvement and choice
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
“(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must act with a view to enabling patients to make choices with respect to aspects of health services provided to them, including to make choices as to the provider of those services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that patients who are referred for a service to be provided outside a hospital setting (‘out-of-hospital services’) are offered a choice of provider of that service from among the providers available in their integrated care board area and, where relevant, in neighbouring areas, in accordance with regulations made under section 14Z45B.
(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must—
(a) offer the patient a meaningful choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service under arrangements with the integrated care board;
(b) provide the patient with information to support an informed choice, including for each available provider—
(i) indicative waiting times;
(ii) the location at which the service would be provided;
(iii) the quality ratings or outcomes data applicable to that provider for that service where such data is available; and
(iv) whether any costs would be incurred by the patient in travelling to or receiving the service at that provider;
(c) not exclude from the list of available providers any provider approved solely on grounds of commercial interest or organisational type; and
(d) take all reasonable steps to give effect to the patient's choice within a clinically appropriate timeframe.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘out-of-hospital services’ means services—
(a) provided in community, primary care or ambulatory settings rather than in a hospital inpatient or outpatient department; and
(b) which the Secretary of State specifies by regulations as being within the scope of the choice obligation under subsection (2),
and may include diagnostic services, audiology and hearing aid care, podiatry, dietetics and nutrition, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and such other services as the Secretary of State may specify.
(5) In specifying services under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the potential for the expansion of choice to reduce waiting times for the relevant service;
(b) the availability of sufficient independent and NHS providers to make genuine choice meaningful; and
(c) the desirability of ensuring access to choice for patients in all parts of England, including in rural and deprived areas.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, a statement setting out—
(a) the out-of-hospital services for which choice obligations under subsection (2) will initially apply;
(b) the timetable for extending the choice obligation to further services; and
(c) the support that will be made available to patients, in particular those with limited digital access or literacy, to exercise the choices to which they are entitled under this section.
(7) The Secretary of State must review and update the statement required by subsection (6) at intervals of not more than two years.”
This amendment strengthens the new patient choice duty inserted by Clause 5 from a general aspiration into a specific, enforceable right to choose between providers for out-of-hospital services.
Dr Johnson
This group is about how patients can exercise choice. When the national health service was founded in 1948, patients could select their own GP, but it was difficult to change things and exercise choice elsewhere in the system. The health service has come a long way since then. Successive Governments believed that they could make state institutions more responsive by treating the public, to some extent, like customers. Today, patients can choose their GP, hospital, consultant and different types of end-of-life care and mental health service, but choice is about more than just selecting among providers.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on amendment 59.
The amendment fosters competition. That is not ideological; the Government themselves have accepted, in clause 5, that competition and choice are important. As my hon. Friend said, this is about ensuring that patients have real choice, and not just something that the Secretary of State has thought about. If one provider has a waiting list of 30 weeks, for example, while another can see patients in just four weeks, patients should clearly be given the opportunity to choose the faster option. By expanding patient choice and making better use of the available capacity, my hon. Friend’s amendment has the potential to reduce bottlenecks without necessarily increasing overall NHS spending—that is a good thing.
Importantly, the amendment allows patients to choose between all approved providers, including NHS bodies and independent sector providers. It prevents integrated care boards from excluding suitable providers simply because of their organisational type. I think all Committee members believe in provision that is free at the point of use, but that can come from a number of different providers, including the independent sector.
Peter Prinsley
Does the hon. Member recognise that there are circumstances in which independent provision within a district has the effect of disabling the NHS service? A pertinent example is the ophthalmology world. Services have become difficult to deliver in NHS hospitals because large numbers of NHS staff have chosen to work in the independent sector. That makes the comprehensive provision of a service in an eye department difficult, as the staff are all off operating on cataracts.
Gregory Stafford
I do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. He is essentially saying that, by allowing the private sector to carry out operations and procedures, we are somehow making the NHS unsustainable. The follow-on from that logic is that we remove all private sector providers and practice so that every single doctor, nurse and therapist is working in the NHS. I do not think that he is arguing for that situation, but it is the logical progression of his argument.
Dr Johnson
When I met surgeons, they said that one reason they like working in elective independent sector hospitals is that they can do more operations on a given day. The shadow Secretary of State visited a provider of cataract treatment yesterday. It is able to perform more treatments on a given day, partly for organisational reasons. The NHS, which is quite frustrating for surgeons, could learn from that. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I do not want to go down the cataracts route, but she and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have both mentioned them. Clearly, cataracts are a relatively low-complexity, high-volume type of operation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that some providers can do five or six operations per list, while other places are doing two or three. That is often about the private sector being able to move more quickly, which is obviously better for patients, as well as for clinicians, who want to do the surgery that they have trained for.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I think that competition can play an important role in driving improvement. When providers must attract and retain patients, they have a stronger incentive to deliver timely, high-quality services, and to innovate in how they provide care. In that sense, competition is not an end in itself but a means of improving outcomes and responsiveness for patients. If both sides of the Committee support clause 5, because we are interested in choice and competition, amendment 59 is the logical extension of that.
The amendment is also clear about where the new obligation choices would apply. It covers a range of out-of-hospital services, including diagnostics, audiology, hearing-aid care, dietetics, physiotherapy, ambulatory cardiac monitoring and so on. By clearly defining the services in scope, it provides a realistic and workable road map for implementation.
As I said, the amendment is not about ideology—I think we all agree about choice and competition—but about ensuring that patients receive timely care and have a meaningful choice about where that care is delivered. By fostering healthy competition, making full use of the capacity in the system and putting patients at the centre of the decision-making process, it offers a practical route to improving access and raising standards of care. For those reasons, I support it and commend it to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. We almost went down a cataract rabbit hole, but I think the points were well made. I will outline the Government’s general approach to choice and then move on to the amendment.
I recognise that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are committed to protecting and upholding patient choice in our system, as are the Government. That is why clause 5 introduces new duties that require the Secretary of State to promote
“the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives”
in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of their illness, and their care or treatment. That applies when the Secretary of State is exercising health functions.
The clause also requires the Secretary of State to
“act with a view to enabling patients to make choices”
about the health services provided to them. The Government are committed to involving patients and carers in decisions about their care. We know that supports a better experience of care and, in many cases, better outcomes. Furthermore, if they want to be, patients should be active participants in decisions about their own care, rather than passive recipients of services.
I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I do not think it is necessary. It turns a general duty into one with more prescriptive detail, which risks adding complexity. Details on service types and operational details currently sit in secondary legislation, which allows them to be updated and amended as services evolve. I reassure the hon. Member that we will protect and maintain all the existing rights and duties set out in the choice regulations.
In any future consideration of expanding patient choice, which this amendment requests, I hope the hon. Member would agree that we would need to build up and test the evidence base to ensure that any changes were effective and meaningful for patients, before legislative changes were made. I am not sure what problem the hon. Member is trying to solve.
The Government are committed to protecting patients’ rights to choose. It is absolutely right that the duty to involve them in decisions will remain a central principle of the new health system and that patients are empowered to make informed, meaningful choices. I believe that the clause, unamended, does just that. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 58, clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out from “promote” to end of line 11 and insert—
“(a) innovation in the provision of health services and in the arrangements made for their provision;
(b) take steps to ensure the timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations across the health service in England;
(c) identify and seek to remove barriers to the uptake of innovation by NHS bodies, including procurement barriers, regulatory barriers and cultural barriers to change;
(d) promote access to innovation so that patients in all parts of England, and patients from all socioeconomic backgrounds, have equivalent access to effective new technologies, medicines and care models; and
(e) have regard to the economic and industrial benefits to the United Kingdom of developing and deploying healthcare innovation in the NHS.”
This amendment would further define the meaning of promoting innovation in health services in England.
Dr Johnson
In healthcare, as in many parts of life, innovation is the way in which new ideas, products and services are developed to solve problems and improve patient outcomes. Here, the entire country has a record to be proud of that goes back a long time. Dr John Preece, a GP and research fellow at the University of Exeter, was the first general practitioner to use a computer in a patient consultation. He co-designed a model with IBM in 1969, and his work led to the creation of the electronic patient record, the forerunner of the electronic patient record that we will discuss later. Innovators working with NHS England have also been seeking to reduce single-use plastic in gastrointestinal procedures, improving outcomes for haemodialysis patients, as well as improving the environment.
Peter Prinsley
Does the shadow Minister accept that, in order to encourage innovation within the health service, we need to do whatever we can to support clinical academics? It is within the academic departments of universities, where people are working in hospitals and teaching in medical schools, that we see the most fruitful innovations.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right, but there are pressures and challenges for clinical academics, which he will be aware of. I am sure the Minister, in summing up, will tell us what she is doing about those.
We need to support innovation in all parts of the health service, not just in university hospitals. One of my concerns is that there has been a drive towards a hub and spoke model. There are good reasons for that, and there have been some good outcomes for patient care, but in some cases it restricts innovation in the peripheral parts of the model; it can disincentivise innovation and make it more difficult. We need to consider how we support innovation in all areas of the NHS.
Helen Morgan
One of the challenges of recruiting staff in Shropshire relates to exactly that point: some areas of the health service are perhaps less exciting to work in than others. Ensuring that innovation is driven across every NHS site and every region will help us understand the recruitment and retention problems that have plagued some of the country’s more rural areas.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was a very junior doctor, whether one wanted to work in a small hospital in the countryside or a large teaching hospital in a big city mostly related to whether one wanted to study a specialist, narrow field of medicine or a wider, broader field of medicine with a variety of different conditions. During my career, I have seen consultants make choices that meant they had to move from their district general hospital to a teaching hospital in order to make progress—in one case, a consultant was told he would not get a professorship unless he moved. The hon. Lady is right: we need to carefully consider how we support innovation.
I have concerns with the clause as it is drafted. Section 13K of the NHS Act 2006 gave NHS England the power to award prizes in support of innovation. Clause 6 ensures the Secretary of State has that power, but there is a big difference between an arm’s length body of technocrats awarding prizes and a political office holder awarding prizes, because then the prizes come out of taxpayers’ money and Governments are particularly short of that—not because they are not taking higher rates of tax, but because they are squeezing the economy.
There is a risk that those awards, and funding for innovation more broadly, become exposed to political cycles. When Governments face a fiscal straitjacket, Ministers are often quick to slash discretionary spending, even though it provides a long-term return on investment. There is also a risk that prizes will be awarded on the basis of who shouts loudest. Certain charities will want the Government to focus on awarding innovations in cancer care, for example; some unions will want the Government to focus on awarding innovators who achieve greater equity in service delivery. There is little doubt that Ministers will have a tough time batting away lobbyists calling for more funding to incentivise this or that type of innovation.
Clause 6 also gives the Secretary of State the power to set up a committee to provide advice on awarding prizes. It is right that the Health Secretary should solicit expert advice when determining which trusts, teams or individuals deserve incentive payments, but does that require the power to set up what is effectively a whole new quango? The Government created more than 25 arm’s length bodies and advisory councils in their first six months. Does the Secretary of State require the power to pay members of the advisory committee when there are many experts in their field who can give their time charitably? I notice there is no requirement for any prize committee to include the chief scientific officer or representatives from ICBs. It is ultimately an unchecked spending power.
Gregory Stafford
What my hon. Friend describes is the real nub of the Bill. If we are to abolish NHS England and move most of its functions to the ICB level or to the Department of Health under a Secretary of State, it would be utter madness for us to, at best, move one set of bureaucrats from NHS England to the Department of Health and therefore gain no extra efficiency, or at worst, as seems to be the case in this clause, not only transfer the NHS England bureaucrats, but create a whole new set of bureaucrats and committees to continue the functions already performed under NHS England.
We need to understand whether the Bill is really about making our NHS more efficient by removing levels of bureaucracy, as was the stated intent of the Minister and the previous Secretary of State, or whether it is simply a political power grab where we keep all the bureaucrats and the inefficiency of the current system.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend, as ever, puts things very succinctly. Much of what is said about the Bill is different from what it seems to mean in practice. We have heard the Government talk about the decentralisation of power so decisions are made locally, but in the oral evidence session, even the union rep said that the Bill is more of a centralisation of power. I agree that creating new bureaucracy to replace old bureaucracy—particularly if that involves redundancies—does not help to save money or to make the system more efficient.
I tabled amendment 58 to make the duty on innovation more robust. It would make clause 6 specifically require the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of services, ensure that innovations are spread and adopted across the NHS, tackle barriers to innovation and consider the wider economic benefits of innovation. That is important, because when we talk to people in the life sciences industry, they tell us that one of the biggest challenges is the roll-out of innovation. They can develop innovations in the UK, but it can take a long time to get them on to the shop floor, which is a disincentive to innovating in the United Kingdom. That process needs to move more quickly.
As currently drafted, the clause does not make it clear what innovation is for or whom it is meant to benefit. Amendment 58 would make it clear that innovation should be to benefit patients, no matter their location or socioeconomic status. I welcome the principle of keeping innovation on the statute book, but innovation is an organic process, and it does not begin in the Department of Health and Social Care or in NHS England—that is a fundamental principle that I think the Government fail to understand across many areas. Innovation begins with the frontline workers: the scientists, the technologists and the people who have ideas about better ways to care for patients. I am encouraged that the Minister understands that.
The Government’s vision for ICBs is that they will have more responsibility and more freedom to innovate—although we will discuss whether the legislation actually delivers that later in the Committee’s consideration—and I hope that vision extends to other areas of health policy. The clause is not disagreeable, but it must be made more robust. If Committee members agree, I hope they will support amendment 58.
The Chair
I gently suggest to all Committee members that it would help me tremendously if they could stand at the beginning of the debate on a group if they wish to be called.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I will speak in support of clause 6 and against amendment 58. I work with a great many rare disease groups as part of my work as a Member of Parliament. Those people have specific health needs, and innovation is key to developing ways of dealing with their needs and to making their lives better, so innovation is at the heart of what we do.
We have many great institutions. In my region of the north-east, I will mention Newcastle University, which is doing a huge amount of research into a range of rare diseases and is working collaboratively with other institutions, particularly in partnership, to address those health needs. The clause allows the Secretary of State the breadth to encourage that innovation and to help to make it into a viable spin-off. We too often lose the benefits of the innovation that we create, and it is adopted in other countries.
Amendment 58 would put this important clause in danger of being too prescriptive, and sometimes, if we prescribe particular things, we lose the ability to do other things. I support the clause, and I do not support amendment 58.
Joe Robertson
The clause, and amendment 58, deal with innovation. Although the NHS is responsible for some great healthcare innovations, not only in this country but around the world, unfortunately, it is often an example of a complete failure to innovate, or even to use fairly basic technology that has been around for a long time—I am thinking of using computers for patient records, as paper records have lasted for far too long. Promoting innovation is clearly a good thing—it is essential—so I support the amendment. I will speak about the details in a moment.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I think this is the first time we have had a Robertson on Robertson intervention. It is a pleasure to break that duck.
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the need to change culture to embed innovation across the NHS. There is an example that we always come back to: fax machines. Fax machines were used in the NHS for far too long. It was mandated in 2018 that the use of all fax machines had to be stopped by the end of March 2020, yet in 2023, the NHS still owned 600. That mandation came up against a cultural barrier and it did not work, because 600 of them survived for three years after that.
In amendment 58, I see more mandation and nothing on culture. The problem with the amendment is that, by trying to mandate innovation too closely, we would miss the cultural point. We could undermine the Secretary of State’s power to say that all parts of the system are fair game for them. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that point?
Joe Robertson
I thank my namesake for his intervention. I do not completely understand what he says, because the amendment refers to cultural barriers. He is absolutely right that we have to be careful when we mandate things, but the strength of the amendment is that it has a broad application and does not seek to mandate specific detail. I accept that it has more detail than the Bill, but its strength is that it gives some direction without being overly detailed. I again draw his attention to the fact that it asks the Secretary of State and the Department to identify and remove cultural barriers.
Gregory Stafford
I will not keep the Committee too long. We need to look closely at what the clause is trying to achieve, both on innovation, which I support, and on the prizes. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East asked a number of pertinent questions about the prizes, and I want to expand on that before I talk about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
We have no idea what scale of prize we are talking about. Is it thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds or millions of pounds? Will the prizes be given to individuals or to organisations? Will they be given to NHS bodies? I think not, or at least not exclusively, because the clause suggests that they could be for research. Will they be given to the private sector—I know that Labour Members have antibodies against the private sector—or to university research functions? It is very unclear who the prizes will go to.
Even more interestingly, proposed new section 1CC(3)(b) says that prizes may relate to
“work done at any time (including work before the commencement of this section).”
So they could be given for something that happened prior to the Bill coming into force, but we have no idea how far back that could go. Are we talking months, years or decades? There is no clear outline about who will get the prizes, how much they will be, what innovations or technologies they will be for, or the point in time that is being referred to.
Then the clause says that the Secretary of State may set up a committee. I have been in enough Bill Committees to know that civil servants do not write something into Bills unless they have an idea of what they want to do with it. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what sort of committee it will be, how many people will be on it, how much remuneration they will receive and how they will establish themselves and fulfil the function that the Secretary of State gives them. If we do not know that, the proposal is so open-ended that I would have real concerns about letting it go forward in the manner in which it is currently written.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East suggested—I do not think he was joking—that the word “prize” made this sound like a game show. That is part of what we need to understand. Will the Secretary of State set up a competition in various areas of healthcare, technology, disease or treatment? Will they say, for example, “We want to find the best technology for dealing with cataracts”? Will a call go out for people to submit bids and say, “We have produced this amazing new laser treatment,” in order to win the prize? Or will it be entirely open-ended? Will people come into the Department of Health and Social Care to this new committee and say, “We have created this amazing piece of innovation—give us some money for having done so”? It is so unclear in the Bill. As I say, I am absolutely certain that the Minister knows the answer to those questions because this clause and subsection would not be in the Bill if she had no idea what she was hoping to achieve by them.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is describing something a little like “Dragons’ Den”, which is a very good TV programme—perhaps it will be televised or livestreamed. How will the Government ensure that there is no conflict of interest?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend’s point is correct. There is so little detail in the clause about how these prizes will be awarded and how the committee that will award them will be set up that we have no idea how conflicts of interest will be dealt with. That is another reason that the Minister needs to explain to the Committee how this is going to work. My hon. Friend mentions “Dragons’ Den”. I see her as the Deborah Meaden of our Committee, so I look forward to seeing that play out—I will not say what that makes me.
What I see from amendment 58, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham— I hope I am not misrepresenting her—is once again an attempt to codify, clarify and strengthen what is fairly woolly wording within the Bill. In particular, her amendment rightly emphasises the importance of
“timely adoption and spread of clinically effective innovations”.
Timeliness is so important to patients. We need innovation quickly. Again, it worries me that the prizes could be given for innovations that could have happened weeks, months, years or decades ago, according to the wording. We also need to ensure that innovation is not in isolated pockets, either in terms of geography or type of service. We need something that is consistently delivered across the healthcare system.
By highlighting the need to address things such as procurement, the regulatory sector and cultural barriers, my hon. Friend’s amendment would support a more proactive and enabling environment for innovation to flourish, not one that shuts it down, as some Labour Members have suggested. Crucially, paragraph (d) of the amendment represents a significant and commendable commitment to fairness and inclusion by prioritising equal access to new technologies, medicines and models of care regardless of geography or socioeconomic background. It would help to tackle long-standing inequalities and move decisively towards ending the postcode lottery that we often see in care quality.
The focus of the amendment would ensure that innovation benefits all patients, not just those in the most advantaged areas. It would ensure that rural and coastal communities are aligned with the urban. As someone who represents a semi-rural seat, I see those inequalities in service delivery, quality of care and innovation. The large towns in my constituency receive far more money and get far better services than the surrounding villages.
I have many concerns about the clause as it currently stands, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the Opposition’s questions. I entirely endorse amendment 58.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. We heard about the excitement in our constituencies around innovation—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned Newcastle University at the start and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned her visit to Imperial College. Those visits are inspiring. Other universities and centres of excellence are available, but they made the case for why this is so important to the Government’s approach to innovation. I will talk about that and then turn to the amendment.
The Government are fully committed to innovation. It is absolutely central to our ambitious priorities to digitise health and care, support prevention and early diagnosis, and enable a shift to neighbourhood care, to growth in our economy, and to regaining our place in the world as a centre for innovation, which was lost under the Conservatives over those 14 years. That is why clause 6 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of health services, including in how services are arranged and delivered.
The clause also incorporates the Secretary of State’s existing power to incentivise innovation and research through the payment of prizes, as we have discussed. That is a flexible tool that will allow him to stimulate breakthrough ideas and reward innovation across the life cycle, including an early-stage report.
On some issues that have been raised, the Conservative party knows that Ministers have to act reasonably as this transfers from NHS England, and we would obviously want to tailor a committee to the matter in question, including membership. The clause will allow that flexibility. The equivalent duty was on NHS England; I understand that it has not actually been used over the past five years, but it was previously suggested as a way of promoting innovation.
In practical terms, the Secretary of State already supports innovation in a number of ways, for example through the work of the Health Innovation Network, supporting workforce developments in schemes such as the clinical entrepreneur programme and providing funding support for developing and evaluating promising innovations.
Dr Johnson
The Minister talked about the flexibility of the committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon explained why it is helpful to have some direction. Could the Minister explain why there is no stipulation for the chief medical officer or the chief scientific officer to be part of the committee?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady if I am not correct in this, or if there is another reason, but in the existing duty and under NHS England, the committee’s membership needs to reflect the matter in the question. If there is anything to add to that, I will certainly come back to her. We are also committed to spending more on innovation, raising the NICE threshold to ensure that patients have access to more innovative medicines on the NHS. That is action, not just words.
The Government commend the intent behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, and she spoke well about that. As a clinician, I recognise her support for innovation, but we recognise that barriers remain to the systematic spread of innovation. That is a long-term problem that existed under previous Governments as well, and we seek to rectify it. The ministerial foreword to the “Life Science Sector Plan” published last year says:
“We are clear-eyed about the challenges. For too long, the journey from discovery to delivery has been too slow, too fragmented, and too often held back by outdated systems.”
That is why we need to remove barriers at every stage of the journey; however, the amendment is the wrong way to do that.
The experience of supporting innovation in the NHS suggests that we need flexibility in our approach to tackle emerging barriers as they arise. Specifying several areas of focus in the Bill would limit that flexibility; those are better set out in published strategies and guidance, which is what we are doing. The amendment could also cause unintended consequences. It would create a one-size-fits-all approach, requiring all of England to have equivalent access to innovations. While tackling unwarranted variation is of course vital, we should continue our focus on providing access to innovation that best meets local needs.
Instead of over-defining what we mean by innovation in legislation, we are taking practical measures to drive it on the ground. We are already building the 10-year health plan and the life sciences sector plan to deliver an ambitious set of actions, which address the areas raised by the amendment including procurement, aligned regulation and the alignment of our NHS innovation policy with sector growth policy. That echoes our approach elsewhere in the Bill of devolving power to local levels and giving more opportunity to systems and organisations to innovate, and more agency to use their resources to do so.
The NHS has a strong record of developing and adopting new treatments, technologies and models of care. The clause will build on that record, signalling the Secretary of State’s clear commitment to promoting innovation, and it will do so in a flexible way that will allow us to respond to challenges as they emerge. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment, and I commend the clause the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Prinsley
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) Training under subsection (1)(a) includes training in general health determinants as defined by section 107ZB of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the health and care workforce is adequately trained in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must exercise functions under this section with a view to ensuring that managers in the NHS, who have appropriate clinical training, must also undertake clinical care.
(5) The Secretary of State must record the proportion of direct clinical care provided by those with professional qualifications both in terms of the proportion of their areas and full time equivalent by pay grade, and the Secretary of State must increase the proportion.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS managers who are clinically trained must continue to undertake clinical care.
Clause stand part.
New clause 44—Medical training places—
“The Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32.”
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to double the number of medical school training places.
New clause 45—Data collection: clinically trained staff—
“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of NHS staff are qualified to deliver nursing and clinical care who delivering nursing care, or clinical care of any kind, and those who are not.
(2) Information under subsection (1) must be collected according to HCAS pay scales.
(3) Information under subsection (1) must include numbers of nursing and midwifery staff.
(4) Information under subsection (1) must be published quarterly.
(5) The NHS and ICBs are under a duty to comply with any requests from the Secretary of State for data for this purpose.
(6) Information under subsection (1) must include the proportion of time spent delivering clinical care as a proportion of the individual’s total working hours.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of clinically qualified staff who are delivering clinical care, broken down by HCAS pay band.
Peter Prinsley
As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) is one of the five medical doctors in the parliamentary Labour party. It is a great pleasure to move the amendment, which she tabled.
The amendment is about education and training. My hon. Friend would like us to consider whether there should be an additional subsection after proposed new subsection (1)(a), which is about ensuring that
“there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service”.
My hon. Friend would like to include within that specific training about wider health determinants, which, as we discussed earlier this morning, consist of things like housing, air quality, occupation, and substance abuse—tobacco, alcohol and so on. Her opinion is that that needs to be specifically incorporated into the legislation.
Gregory Stafford
I shall speak briefly to the amendment that was just moved by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. I do not mean this rudely, but it is a relatively motherhood-and-apple-pie amendment. The onus would be on the Secretary of State to recognise that smoking, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk and harmful substances are bad, but I think we all agree on that. If the Secretary of State, or any future Secretary of State, does not already recognise that, I would be pretty surprised.
I have a number of issues with the amendment, the first of which is that it expands some central duties without clear limits. Potentially, it could be a gateway to what I would describe as interventionism. Perhaps, too, it lacks some of the prioritisation or proportionality that I would like to see in the Bill—as I have said, however, I think that otherwise the training element is pretty good.
Moving to amendment 50, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I entirely support it. This amendment would be extraordinarily useful, because the NHS publishes independently audited forecasts of the workforce every five years, but the amendment would lead to better long-term planning. Regular, independently audited forecasts would help the NHS to anticipate staffing needs, plan training and recruitment, and use resources more effectively and with more efficiency.
Amendment 50 would also increase transparency and trust. One of the key things that we will need to do as a Parliament when the Bill becomes an Act is to convince the public that, when this new world of how the NHS is going to be managed and operated comes in, they can have confidence that the treatment they get is the best that it can be and that those who are being trained and working in the NHS get the training that they require and are being established as some of the best in the world.
Independent audits would make such forecasting more credible and give reassurance to the public and the stakeholders that the workforce planning is evidence-based and not potentially politically influenced, which is one of the big problems about having the Secretary of State in charge of everything throughout the Bill. The key thing must be improved patient care. Accurate workforce predictions will ensure that we have the right number of healthcare professionals available. We will see a reduction in shortages and more consistent, high-quality care.
I support amendment 54, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, because it ensures that clinically trained managers maintain patient-facing roles, making better use of scarce clinical expertise and improving workforce efficiency. It strengthens accountability, like amendment 50, by tracking and increasing the proportion of care delivered by qualified professionals, helping to optimise staff deployment and reduce pressure on frontline services. I have some concerns about amendment 33, but amendments 50 and 54 have my support, and clause 7, hopefully amended, will also have my support.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I rise to support clause 7 and amendment 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Having worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that education and training, especially mandatory training, is absolutely necessary. Some may argue that health staff have too much training, particularly mandatory training, but this amendment specifically concerns training
“in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.”
We may have staff, especially those working in mental health, who have training in some of those areas, but staff in A&E, where patients first present, may not have that training, and may be missing that curiosity. We have heard many incidents involving families living in mouldy houses or people exposed to air pollution. It is important that staff have the curiosity to consider where a patient has come from when they turn up at A&E, or, when planning a discharge, where they are being discharged to.
In the last few years, we have seen many internationally trained healthcare workers join our health sector who may not be familiar with the social and housing situation in this country. Whether this is to be a part of their initial training as nurses or doctors, or through mandatory training at work, the amendment is important because it could help to prevent illnesses and identify them earlier through professional curiosity. I support amendment 33.
Dr Johnson
I declare an interest as a member of the NHS workforce and an NHS consultant paediatrician. In England, around one in every 17 working people is employed by the national health service. That is quite a shocking statistic. It is the largest employer in the country and, indeed, in Europe. It has grown significantly over time, in part because the needs of the population have changed. Life expectancy is longer, which is something to be cherished—that is a good thing—but it brings challenges to the health service, as people are more likely to be living with multiple chronic conditions rather than easily treatable ailments. They require more tests, medicines and clinical care. Demographic change requires a larger NHS workforce, particularly in secondary care.
The previous Conservative Government not only recognised the scale of that challenge but took swift action to increase staffing levels across the board, adding more than 42,000 doctors and 55,000 nurses, health visitors and midwives. Conservative Ministers also supported the pipeline responsible for producing the next generation of medical practitioners. They funded 1,500 additional medical school places and opened five new medical schools, including in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford and Canterbury, and one just outside my constituency in Lincoln. Emergency care became the fastest-growing specialty, with the number of emergency care doctors doubling. That is what support for the NHS workforce looks like.
Conservative investments in the workforce helped to improve survival rates for cancer, increase the number of GP appointments and deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that there is an effective system for planning and delivering education and training to current and potential staff. Health Education England has been rolled into NHS England, so it is ultimately NHS England that has the duty to ensure sufficient and appropriately trained staff to meet NHS workforce needs. Now that NHS England is to be abolished, it is right that this duty is to be given to the Secretary of State through clause 7, although to some extent it is a statement of the obvious that that is part of his job.
The job of members of this Committee is to improve the Bill, not just wave it through, and that means recognising that the existing legislation had some inadequacies. Clause 7 states:
“The Secretary of State must exercise functions…with a view to ensuring”
several things about the workforce. It is not a cast-iron requirement; the Secretary of State must just think about it, but actually he should not just think about his job; he should get on with it. I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about legislation that creates obligations that are easy to proclaim and that are virtuous but are difficult to measure. Such legislation makes legislators feel good about themselves because they are writing nice things into legislation, but they are not really robust. What does
“sufficient people with appropriate education”
mean? What is “sufficient”?
One reason concerns are particularly acute is the Government’s shambolic record on workforce planning. They came to power saying that they had a plan, but their workforce plan has still not been published, almost two years since they came into office. I heard the Minister say “imminently”, but I had a written answer last week, I think, saying “imminently”. I appreciate that “imminently” is probably better than “soon”, but what does it really mean, and how soon can we expect the plan to be published? Does she mean that it is coming this week or next? Can she guarantee that it will be published before the summer recess? Has the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday put all this up in the air once again?
The Royal College of Radiologists has said that the shortfall in clinical radiologists has grown from 29% to 32% since 2024, and the Royal College of Nursing has released data showing that the growth in the nursing workforce slowed last year to its lowest level in eight years. Newly qualified midwives are finding themselves with no jobs to go to in the health service, despite the fact that there is a maternity staffing crisis in some areas. Will the Minister explain the reason for the delay? She said earlier in this sitting that it was not NHS England, but what is causing the delay?
We were told that stakeholders wanted more time to have conversations, test ideas and work together. One would think that after the many months of deliberation, Ministers would have put together an exceptional workforce plan, but the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, Unite the union and several other organisations wrote to the Health Secretary earlier this month to urge for the plan, which they have but which has not been published, to be “paused”, because they are
“concerned that the current direction falls significantly short of the scale of workforce growth required to meet patient need and relies too heavily on assumptions about the current state of NHS services, productivity and technology that are not borne out of frontline experience.”
I recently tabled a question asking who had been given advanced sight of the workforce plan, and I received confirmation that the royal colleges and unions have been involved. As I mentioned, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We now have a situation where a workforce plan is being delayed, and it has been brought before other organisations for discussion rather than elected Members of this House. It is taking far too long. In the meantime, things are going backwards. It is simply not good enough. Ministers are now about to roll out a plan that has mortified seemingly everyone who has seen it, while expecting members of the Committee to rubber-stamp a rather flimsy legal duty.
In May, the Financial Times reported that plans drawn up under this Government would see recruitment cut back. The article reads:
“A workforce plan being finalised by health officials says the NHS in England will have to use technology to get by with hundreds of thousands fewer staff than envisaged under the previous Conservative government.”
Is that clinical staff? Are we going to have fewer doctors? It is not clear because we have not seen the plan and it has not been published. A draft of the plan seen by the newspaper said that the NHS
“does not need anything like the…numbers…set out in its 2023 workforce plan.’
Will the Minister confirm whether those press reports are accurate? She previously said that her plan
“will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 737-738.]
Does that mean fewer people and more AI?
Health Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Members may remove their jackets and, because of the health warning—exceptionally—if Members or civil servants wish to remove their ties, they may do that as well. Please understand that that is not a precedent.
Clause 7
Education and training
Amendment proposed (this day): 33, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) Training under subsection (1)(a) includes training in general health determinants as defined by section 107ZB of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”—(Peter Prinsley.)
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the health and care workforce is adequately trained in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must exercise functions under this section with a view to ensuring that managers in the NHS, who have appropriate clinical training, must also undertake clinical care.
(5) The Secretary of State must record the proportion of direct clinical care provided by those with professional qualifications both in terms of the proportion of their areas and full time equivalent by pay grade, and the Secretary of State must increase the proportion.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS managers who are clinically trained must continue to undertake clinical care.
Clause stand part.
New clause 44—Medical training places—
“The Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32.”
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to double the number of medical school training places.
New clause 45—Data collection: clinically trained staff—
“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of NHS staff are qualified to deliver nursing and clinical care who delivering nursing care, or clinical care of any kind, and those who are not.
(2) Information under subsection (1) must be collected according to HCAS pay scales.
(3) Information under subsection (1) must include numbers of nursing and midwifery staff.
(4) Information under subsection (1) must be published quarterly.
(5) The NHS and ICBs are under a duty to comply with any requests from the Secretary of State for data for this purpose.
(6) Information under subsection (1) must include the proportion of time spent delivering clinical care as a proportion of the individual’s total working hours.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the numbers and proportion of clinically qualified staff who are delivering clinical care, broken down by HCAS pay band.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Before the lunch break I was saying that, in essence, clause 7 states what the Secretary of State’s job is. It moves the function of planning the workforce from NHS England to the Secretary of State, which is a reasonable thing to do. I talked about the previous Government’s record on opening new medical schools and how that has helped with the number of clinical staff.
We also talked about workforce planning. The Government are due to produce a workforce plan, but it is not clear when it is due to come out. It was due to come out at the end of last year, but it did not; it was then due to come out in the spring, but now it is the summer. Given the Prime Minister’s resignation, it is not at all clear when it will come out. Will the Minister let us know whether it will come out before the summer recess, this week or whenever?
I quoted some of the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, and others. Those concerns include the workforce plan. Those organisations have seen what we have not seen, so they have been asked to comment on something that we have yet to see. That brings me to new clause 44, which is in my name.
Before the general election, Labour promised that it would double the number of medical school places. The now Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to double the number of medical school training places, as did the now Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. Once the general election had passed and Labour was in government, the promise was reiterated. At oral questions in October 2024, the now former Health Secretary said:
“This Government are committed, as we were in opposition, to doubling the number of medical school places”.—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 683.]—
but there has not really been any progress.
During a debate this year on the junior doctors’ foundation programme, I asked the Minister for Care whether the Government’s intention was still to honour that pledge. He said:
“Yes, that is the Government’s intention.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 133WH.]—
only to later submit a written correction stating that the Government had never committed to doing so. Are they going to, or not? It is not clear.
Labour promised to double the number of medical school places, but now that pledge appears to have been airbrushed out of history. Can the Minister please explain why she and her colleagues deemed the workforce pledge essential before the election but not after it? Can she tell us whether it is Government policy? In essence, my new clause 44 asks Members on the Government Benches to vote for what they promised before the election and have promised since.
New clause 44 is very simple: it stipulates that the Secretary of State must double the number of medical school training places by 2031-32. That is what Labour promised, so it should be fairly easy for Labour Members to vote for it. I hope that the Committee will support the new clause, which only requires Ministers to do what their party promised before it came into government.
If the Government are not keen on committing to clear targets, they can at least commit to full scrutiny of their workforce plans. Of course, there is a risk that the House has been misled. Either the promise was made or it was not. The Minister for Care said that it was promised and then submitted a written correction to say that that was inaccurate and that it was never Government policy, but if it has been stated by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, representing the Government, then it is Government policy. Can the Minister help to clarify that point? If the House has been misled by either her former boss or the Minister for Care, perhaps she can clear that up for us. Perhaps the vote will help.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister agree that if we doubled the number of medical students, we would simply not be able to accommodate those people as young doctors unless we also doubled the number of training places? After five or six years, those medical students become young doctors. If we are to correct any problem with the medical workforce, it is insufficient to simply state that we will double the number of medical students.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right. When all the new doctors that the Government have promised have been trained, they will need jobs and postgraduate medical training, and there are issues with that. Nevertheless, the Government asked the public to vote for them on the basis that they would double the number of medical school places. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues produced little videos to that effect, which can be viewed on Twitter. They toured the newsrooms saying, “Please vote for us, we’re going to double the number of medical school places.” They suggested that there would be a revolution in Government to make sure that there were enough doctors. This is important—more doctors would help.
All new clause 44 does is ask the Government to commit to doing what they have said that they will do—or to say that they will not. Either way, we have had the Secretary of State saying one thing and a Minister saying the opposite and then correcting it, so we need clarity. The public deserve that. The Minister herself said that they would double the number of medical school places so that we have the doctors that our NHS needs. If they do not double the number of medical school places, it follows that they will not have the number of doctors that the NHS needs. Presumably that is in their workforce plan, but it needs to be cleared up.
Amendment 50 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS workforce every five years. The logic is straightforward: if the Government believe that their plans are sufficient, they can be compared to an impartial assessment of the workforce. The previous Government published a workforce plan in 2023, setting out how to tackle existing and future workforce challenges over several years. That included doubling the number of medical school places. Yet three years later, this Government are on course for a new plan that is reportedly far less ambitious—we will find out in a minute.
The workforce affects whether patients can be seen on time, maternity wards are safely staffed and elderly patients get the dignity they deserve. It is the difference between the NHS meeting the challenge of an ageing population or slipping into decline. If Labour Members are confident that the Minister’s workforce planning is robust, I expect that they will support my amendment, which requires an independently audited forecast. If they are not willing to support it, that suggests that they know this Government cannot be trusted to deliver the workforce that patients need.
Amendment 54 and new clause 45 were also tabled in my name. Amendment 54 would require the Secretary of State to look at the amount of clinical work that NHS managers undertake. As a clinician, I have increasingly noticed that highly qualified clinical practitioners come in, become the person on the ward who can be relied on, and then go off because they get promoted to a nine-to-five job that is easier and pays more, but does not deliver clinical care.
The chief medical officer, for example, still delivers clinical care, and the amendment probes the Government to consider how many nurses and clinicians in hospitals are delivering clinical care. I asked that in written questions, and the Government did not know the answer. It is materially important information, particularly when looking at the Dash report, which talks about an explosion in the number of people who are clinically trained but not providing clinical work—instead, they are creating guidelines and monitoring whether other clinicians are doing the work. If more of those people were engaged in clinical activity, that might improve the quality of both the guidelines and care, because more junior staff would have senior staff around to help them.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I strongly support the argument that clinical staff, even if they progress into a senior role, should carry out some sort of clinical practice. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is what went wrong over the past few years, especially when NHS England was created? Many senior clinicians who were moved into management posts had no contact with clinical areas. That is what this Government are trying to fix by abolishing NHS England.
Dr Johnson
I am talking predominantly about clinicians working in trusts who are trained and very experienced, but then move to work in the same trust but in a more managerial role that does not involve clinical care. I am not saying that every single person needs to be delivering clinical care—there may be exceptions, of course; people do have career changes—but I encourage the Government to reflect on the number of posts being created that take people away from the clinical arena, and on the effect that that has. When the Minister is presented with the number of nursing or midwifery-qualified staff working in a particular department, that may not reflect the number who are delivering clinical care and, by their own admission, the Government do not know which is which.
Amendment 33 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the workforce is trained on the wider determinants of health, such as housing standards, air pollution and the use of harmful substances. In my many years as a paediatrician, I have yet to meet a nurse, doctor, surgeon, porter or care co-ordinator who does not know that damp and mould are bad for people’s health, and I have yet to meet a fellow employee who does not know that air pollution causes asthma, or that tobacco use increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and a whole host of other ailments.
Considering the many pressures on NHS workers, I do not believe that mandating a new programme on health determinants is a good use of time. I fear that it is rooted in the agenda of creating more and more mandatory training, and I would actually encourage the Minister to look at rationalising mandatory training to that which is absolutely necessary. Control of the curriculum for such staff is dealt with separately, so I object to amendment 33.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 7 says—I abbreviate:
“The Secretary of State must exercise functions…with a view to ensuring that…there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service, and…there is an effective system in place for the planning and delivery of education and training of people to meet those needs.”
That is all very nice—who couldn’t agree with that?—but amendment 50, tabled by the shadow Minister, would add a means by which the public, in the interests of transparency, could make an assessment of that by requiring the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years. That seems entirely sensible, it is something that I am sure any Government would want to do anyway, and it would add meaning, assessment and transparency to what is already in the Bill.
New clauses 44 and 45 would do something similar in relation to the number of medical school places. As the shadow Minister said in response to an intervention, new clause 44 seeks to do only what the Government have already said they want to do. Hopefully, the Minister can give us some clarity on whether that is still the Government’s intention and, if it is, what aversion she has to including it in the Bill.
Separately, new clause 45 seeks to establish a benchmark of data collection. Of course, duties and requirements placed on a Secretary of State, such as those in clause 7, can be delivered only if we start with the proper collection of data and, in the interests of transparency, publish it. For that reason, I also support new clause 45.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank hon. Members for bringing this discussion before the Committee. The Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS has the right people in the right place and with the right skills to care for patients when they need it. We will be publishing our 10-year workforce plan imminently. I cannot give the shadow Minister any more details on that at the moment, but it will set out the action to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan. High-quality education and training for the NHS workforce will be fundamental to that, and clause 7 is in keeping with that commitment.
Before turning to the clause, I will address some of the issues raised during the debate and in the amendments. I understand the intention behind amendment 50, but I cannot accept it. The 10-year workforce plan will set out the staffing needs of the NHS for the next 10 years. That goes further than the amendment calls for and will be updated every two years in line with our manifesto commitment to publish regular, independent workforce planning. It is only because the Government have set such a clear direction for the service through the 10-year health plan that we can credibly set out a sustainable approach to staffing the NHS over the long term.
As hon. Members will understand, workforce planning is a complex topic. It is closely related to the wider service planning, which is why we have engaged so widely with independent experts to develop our forthcoming workforce plan. To divorce the process of workforce planning from service planning in the way that is suggested by amendment 50 would not produce a more reliable or useful set of forecasts. However, it would reduce the potential for innovation and reform of the kind that is needed and which the Government have set out so clearly in the 10-year plan for the NHS. I can only conclude from listening to Opposition Members that they really did learn absolutely nothing from their time in office or, indeed, from the problems with their workforce plan, which focused on headcount but notably did not reform care, did not look at new patterns of care, did not look at retention or training, and created some of the bottlenecks and problems that we have had to deal with.
Our commitment will be guided by the workforce plan, which is why we cannot accept new clause 44. Decisions on training numbers must be guided by workforce need, and that will have to be considered as part of the forthcoming plan. Adding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, whatever the Government’s position on the number of medical school places that will be required in the future, fixing a number in primary legislation would be unhelpful as it would limit our ability to adjust target training numbers subsequently to reflect any changes in workforce need.
I was asked about correcting the record. The last Government did double places in their 2024 workforce plan, and I commend the movement of medical schools across the country. If the former Secretary of State is reported in Hansard as having said something contrary to the correction of the record by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, we will of course pick that up.
Amendment 54 and new clause 45 look to reduce flexibility and increase bureaucracy for a workforce that is simply trying to deliver what is best for patients. On amendment 54, I think we can all agree that we need strong leadership and management to deliver national priorities, including the 10-year plan’s three shifts. Having a clinical voice in management positions is vital and many of our board-level and senior leaders are also clinicians. While some choose to carry on with clinical practice, others might prioritise their managerial role, and it is right that they should have that flexibility. Prescribing that all NHS managers with clinical experience must also undertake clinical care risks reducing board capacity and expertise, including clinical leadership, and disincentivising opportunities for management experience at a time when the NHS has seen a reduction in the number of managers per NHS staff from 2010 to 2025. We do not think that simply prescribing that requirement would benefit clinicians, managers or, crucially, the wider health service, so we oppose the amendment.
New clause 45 would require the collection of further data on the proportion of time spent on clinical care. Detailed statistics on the number of staff working for NHS provider trusts broken down by profession and pay band are already published by NHS England on a monthly basis. Adding requirements to that is not simple. There is not a centrally held collection of data about NHS staff time, and setting one up would have costs both centrally and for NHS trusts to collect specific data. It is also not easy to separate out clinical care meaningfully. Clinicians spend time in supervision, education, safeguarding, quality improvement and clinical leadership, and the amount of time they spend on different activities can vary from month to month. The new clause risks putting more burdens on NHS staff if they are being asked to record what they are spending time on beyond existing procedures. We therefore cannot accept it.
I turn to amendment 33, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, on workforce training. It would require the Secretary of State to intervene in the content and design of healthcare programmes. Standards of proficiency, conduct and performance of registered professionals are the statutory responsibility of independent healthcare regulators, although universities and practice partners develop the specific content and design of programmes to meet those standards. It is vital that the independence of regulators and universities is maintained to respect their expertise in designing standards and curricula that ensure public safety.
We have published our 10-year health plan setting out major NHS reforms, including moving from sickness to prevention. Supporting healthcare workers to address the wider determinants of health will be essential to delivering that shift. That is why we are providing the “All Our Health” e-learning on critical public healthcare topics for people working in the health and care sector, and revitalising the “making every contact count” approach to ensure that every contact that a person has with the healthcare system supports a shift to prevention.
I assure colleagues that our upcoming 10-year workforce plan will set out plans for ensuring that we train the staff we need so that we have the brightest people and the right skills to support patients. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, I turn to clause 7. The Secretary of State already has an overarching duty in relation to the education and training of the NHS workforce. Currently, that duty is partially delegated to NHS England. NHS England also has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of appropriately trained healthcare workers across England. Clause 7 will simply merge those existing duties into a single, robust education and training duty on the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State will be entirely responsible and accountable for exercising relevant functions with a view to ensuring that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of healthcare education and training, and that we have enough healthcare workers with the right training to meet England’s health service needs. Bringing those duties directly under the responsibility of the Secretary of State will reduce bureaucracy, streamline oversight and enable the Government to provide national strategic leadership across the NHS workforce.
I reassure colleagues that accountability will not be diluted. Bringing these responsibilities into the Department will create clearer, stronger lines of accountability with the education and training of the NHS workforce. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will continue to be accountable to Parliament for the health service in England, including for the planning of education and training and ensuring sufficient numbers of trained healthcare workers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Prinsley
I am happy with those assurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 33.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
Clause 8 will give the Secretary of State the power to direct integrated care boards to exercise his or her functions. This power, similar to that currently employed by NHS England, will promote subsidiarity by enabling such functions to be delivered at the lowest appropriate level. The clause builds on the existing section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006, which allows the Secretary of State to direct ICBs but only in respect of public health functions.
With our plans to abolish NHS England, the Secretary of State will again have broad powers and responsibility relating to the health service, and so this power encompasses a wider range of functions. Unlike the delegated frameworks set out under sections 65Z5 and 75 of the 2006 Act, which are entered into voluntarily, any integrated care board directed under this power would be obliged to carry out the stated functions.
I reassure the Committee that, while the ICB will be legally responsible for how it discharges a function, overall accountability will remain with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Secretary of State might also use directions to place restrictions on the onward delegation of any functions, preventing delegation where it may be inappropriate. Finally, any directions must be published, ensuring transparency and allowing proper accountability.
This measure will empower the Secretary of State to assign functions to ICBs where most appropriate. It aligns with and facilitates our broader direction of travel towards flexibly planned and delivered local services. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 8 is essentially about the control that the Secretary of State has over ICBs. When we discussed the clause abolishing NHS England, we talked a lot about the balance between democratic accountability on the one hand and independence from political interference on the other.
The Government suggest that the Bill is a decentralising Bill. What this clause does is essentially to recentralise by default. As the Minister has just said, the Secretary of State can change what the ICB is doing if they think that it is inappropriate. What does “inappropriate” mean exactly, and how will that power be used? It may be used very infrequently—perhaps the current and previous Secretaries of State think that the power would be used infrequently—but equally it could be used in response to considerable pressure from MPs, lobbyists and campaign groups. Instead of issuing directions sparingly, we may end up in a position where the Secretary of State is issuing day-to-day instructions.
The Government want ICBs to take greater responsibility for commissioning decisions, but then they want to be able to undermine them by direction from the Health Secretary. The Health Secretary will never have as good a grasp of the situation in the local geographic area as local leaders, but he has the power to tell them what to do and issue blanket instructions with different characteristics. That will be inherently inefficient. ICB leaders will be under pressure, knowing that if they make a particular decision they can be removed or be told to do something different. They have the job and they have the power, but they haven’t really—all at the same time.
There is also the plan, as the Minister outlined, to make directions something that the Government publish. The clause says that directions must be published by the Secretary of State, but only
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
The intention behind requiring the prompt publication of directions is to reduce the surface area for back-room pressures, but the lack of a clear timeframe makes it rather a weak measure.
We currently have a Government who seem open to greater use of the private sector, whether in financing projects or in delivering out-patient care. Well, our Prime Minister resigned yesterday, and there is no guarantee that the Government of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will take the same approach. Will the Minister confirm whether the powers in clause 8 could be used by a Health Secretary to instruct ICBs to stop using a specific type of provider?
I would not dispute the idea that the Secretary of State needs to be able to exercise some control over the health service now that NHS England is being abolished, but the clause seems contrary to the Government’s stated vision for health management. I am not sure whether it is in the best interests of patients.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I agree heartily with the shadow Minister, and a couple of other things concern me about clause 8.
On the one hand, the clause appears to bring more centralisation, but on the other hand it pushes things down to an ICB level at the same time. I am worried that if we have individualisation of ICBs, we will only exacerbate the disparity of services across regions. I would be interested to understand from the Minister how the Secretary of State’s functions will allow the independence of ICBs and, where an ICB understands its local population well, ensure that patients do not end up in a postcode lottery based on which ICB area they happen to live in.
The danger here is that if the Bill does not deal with those problems and close regional gaps, it is not immediately clear from the clause how the Secretary of State could intervene to ensure that ICBs have the autonomy to make decisions based on their local populations and ensure at the same time that patients do not receive a worse service just because they happen to live in one ICB area rather than another.
Karin Smyth
I recognise that this is a subject of some debate; we may discuss it further when we come to the part of the Bill on ICBs. The abolition of NHS England and transferring all its functions to one body has a consequence, which is that the Secretary of State retains that accountability and power. We are keen to have that power clear but flexible in order to empower local systems. That remains the intent.
The power is necessary for the Secretary of State to update national commissioning standards, for example. The ICBs will have wider roles as strategic commissioners. We expect them to take on formal responsibility for a number of services delegated by NHS England. That allows us to issue a common set of commissioning standards, on the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon about variability in different places. There need to be common standards across the piece: eligibility criteria, the treatments the provider should use, and national reporting requirements. ICBs having those standards means that there will be a reduction in unwarranted variation in some of these events.
The shadow Minister raised the timetable. The Opposition will recognise that there needs to be flexibility for the Secretary of State and Ministers to respond to unforeseen or changing events. That is why it is purposely broad, because the range of events that can impact the NHS is clearly very broad. We cannot predict the future.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said that the Bill needs to deal with all these problems. The Bill needs to give enough flexibility to the system and devolve as much power to the system. The Bill needs to make sure that the powers are in the right place, but it is for the local systems to respond to their local needs within that framework. They will be held accountable, for example through the NHS oversight framework and through ICBs’ normal accountability frameworks.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is talking about flexibility. I understand that if a Minister is responding to an unforeseen circumstance, he or she may be very busy, but where a direction has been made, it should not take very long for a member of staff to publish it, because it will already have been written and sent. I understand that a Minister might take a day or so to sign it off because they are so busy, but it should not take months. The addition of a deadline is therefore not an unreasonable request.
Karin Smyth
With due respect to the hon. Lady, it is not a matter of the Minister being busy, whether that is me or anybody else. It is about the operational running of a £200 billion organisation with 1.5 million staff treating millions of people every day. I am sure we all remember from our own experience incidents and unforeseen events that have happened in the local system, and sometimes very tragic events that have required the Secretary of State to take action. We are trying not to increase the number of reports and documentation and to rid the system of bureaucracy by putting something out in that timeline.
Karin Smyth
No, I have finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Secretary of State’s power to provide assistance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Karin Smyth
Clause 9, which will insert new section 12DA into the National Health Service Act 2006, will give the Secretary of State a clear statutory duty to provide financial, staffing or other practical assistance in connection with the health service. The power may be used to support persons providing, or proposing to provide, services as part of the health service or which are beneficial to the interests of the health service. It may also be used to support public authorities where the assistance relates to education or training for people employed, or considering becoming employed, in activities connected with the provision of health services. The assistance may include financial assistance, the services of civil servants or other resources of the Secretary of State, and it may be provided on agreed terms, including terms about payments by or to the Secretary of State.
The clause will support the wider purpose of the Bill by enabling a small centre to act in a supportive and enabling way towards the wider system. Where appropriate, the Secretary of State will be able to provide assistance directly to those delivering or supporting health service activity. The clause is needed because the existing statutory framework does not include a clear power that enables the Secretary of State to provide practical support across the full range of health service activity. Relevant support may be financial, practical, staffing-related or connected with education and training.
Without this clear power, there is a genuine risk of confusion about the basis on which such support may be offered, particularly where the Secretary of State is acting to facilitate the delivery of services by others. The power is permissive and facilitative: it does not require the Secretary of State to provide assistance, and it does not require any person or body to accept it. The power is also limited by its connection to the health service and matters relevant to education, training or activities considered beneficial to the health service. Its exercise remains subject to ordinary public law principles and public financial controls. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
In a system as large as the NHS, covering an area as diverse as England, it is necessary that the Government be able to deal with unexpected situations. The pandemic may be half a decade behind us already, but the Committee will remember that the previous Government had to act quickly and part with a lot of money in a short time. In such instances, it is essential that Ministers have the power to provide financial assistance. It is not only about crises, however; ordinarily, there are occasions when a Government will want to roll out a new prevention programme or address deficiencies in care in particular areas. I know that health policy is always evolving, and the case for flexibility is clear. The Health Secretary may need to be able to provide financial assistance in pursuit of supporting the health service.
I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with the existing legislation. Section 12D of the National Health Service Act 2006 gives the Secretary of State, NHS England, an ICB or the local authority the ability to make direct financial payments as an assistance to persons or bodies. Clause 9 would new section 12DA of the Act, under which the Secretary of State would be empowered to provide assistance to any person or body carrying out, or proposing to carry out, activities that they deem beneficial to the service.
This is where semantics are important. The existing legislation allows the Secretary of State to make payments, but clause 9 is different: it would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance and to make available persons employed by the civil service or any other resources that the Secretary of State has. This is a remarkably open-ended power that would allow the Secretary of State to spend taxpayers’ money while bypassing standard scrutiny. When NHS England spends money, there is transparency: the public can see how much has been spent on different types of care, ranging from hospitals to public health programmes. The public can see how much money has gone into trusts, into the independent sector and into procurement.
Transparency builds trust in the system and disincentivises wasteful spending. Where will parliamentarians or the public be able to see the financial expense of civil servants, or literally any other resource that the Secretary of State may offer in support? For the first time, the Health Secretary will have the power to insert politically directed civil servants into elements of the health service that are not under public ownership.
As clause 9 is drafted, the Secretary of State could provide civil service labour to private or mutual health providers that work within the NHS. Will the Minister elaborate on how that would be used, and how it would be beneficial to the taxpayer and the health service? The number of civil servants taking home more than six figures has increased under this Government. Their time should be focused on delivering public services, not propping up providers, especially ones that are private businesses.
It is also unclear where the legal liability lies under such arrangements. If something goes wrong and the human resources provided by the Secretary of State are responsible, is the Secretary of State responsible or the entity into which those staff have been inserted? Can the Minister clarify that?
It may be politically beneficial in the short term to provide state support, but it can be costly to the public purse and damaging to markets in the long term. By allowing the Health Secretary to issue assistance in the form of free civil servant labour, clause 9 effectively creates a new type of off-the-books subsidy. How can Members of the House or NHS providers tell whether assistance is operational support or a de facto subsidy? It could undermine the idea of a level playing field for firms contracted to deliver NHS services.
There is also the question of when assistance crosses from operational support into running a provider or firm. We do not necessarily want to be in a position where the Bill is used to bail out failing private firms with NHS contracts. I return to the phrase
“any other resources of the Secretary of State”.
It is difficult to understand why the legislation was written in this way, allowing financial assistance, the provision of labour, and then the use of absolutely any other resource at the Health Secretary’s disposal. As with several other provisions in the Bill, it seems another sign that the legislation was rushed. Instead of circumscribing power tightly where it is needed, the Bill gives huge sweeping powers while claiming that it decentralises.
The Minister has described clause 9 as a discretionary power intended to support the effective functioning of the health service and its workforce. Although that may be what she sought to achieve, that is not the reality. The clause paves the way for arbitrary and unaccountable deployments of state resources, and that should concern all hon. Members.
Gregory Stafford
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
I am particularly concerned about subsection (2)(a) of proposed new section 12DA. On examination, this provision raises significant concerns about the control of public expenditure and the efficient use of resources within the health service, and I find it rather vague. There is no definition of the terms used, no indication of scope and no express limitation on how the power is to be exercised.
When read together with subsection (1) of proposed new section 12DA, the effect, as I read it, is to allow the Secretary of State to provide funding to an extremely wide category of recipients. That includes not only public bodies and established NHS providers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, private entities, charities, individuals and any person engaged in activities that the Secretary of State considers to be beneficial to the health service.
That breadth is not accompanied by a corresponding statutory safeguard. The clause does not set out criteria for eligibility, priorities for funding or principles to guide decision making. It does not impose limits on the sums that may be disbursed, nor does it require any structured process for allocating funds. There is no express provision for transparency, such as publication of decisions or reporting obligations to another body such as Parliament. That absence is significant.
Control over public expenditure ultimately lies with Parliament, yet the clause delegates a wide and flexible spending power to the Executive with little direction as to how that power is to be exercised. While it may be said that Treasury rules, audit requirements and general public law principles continue to apply, those are external controls and they do not substitute for clear statutory discipline within the provision itself.
The practical consequences of such a broad power need to be considered. The NHS is already under considerable financial strain; as we all know, demand is rising and resources are constrained, and there is a continuing need to ensure that funding is allocated in a way that delivers measurable improvements in outcomes. In that context, certainty, prioritisation and efficiency are essential. By framing this power in such open terms, the clause risks undermining those objectives. It will create the possibility of fragmented funding decisions, with resources distributed across a wide range of initiatives without clear and consistent frameworks, and it may lead to duplication of effort or to supporting projects with benefits that are uncertain or difficult to evaluate. Without clear criteria or structured oversight, it will become more difficult to ensure that funding is directed to the areas of greatest need.
Karin Smyth
In concluding the debate on this part of the Bill, the Opposition have helpfully made most of my arguments for me. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham opened with reference to the pandemic and the unusual circumstances in which we have found ourselves. It is obviously important that this Government learn the lessons from that pandemic in the round, that we are prepared and that, as NHS England is abolished, those powers come back to the Secretary of State so that we can respond to any eventuality that comes before us.
As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, there are existing standards and rules of procurement. Any spending that happens through the Department and the NHS will be publicly recorded and published in the Department of Health’s consolidated accounts. Those come before Parliament, so there is direct transparency through the parliamentary process in the usual way and, as we all know and as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, Treasury rules apply.
The point about the use of civil servants has been made. Again, it is really important that we recognise that we are bringing together NHS England, NHS staff and civil servants in the Department. It is right that the Secretary of State, in whatever eventuality comes before him or her, is able to deploy the right person for the right job, be they a civil servant or someone currently under NHS staff terms and conditions, to support that work going forward. The clause is necessarily flexible and broad to provide for those eventualities, and to enable the necessary assistance to be deployed. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Secretary of State’s duty as respects variation in provision of health services
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, leave out from “interests” to end of line and insert “of patients”.
This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to vary the balance between the public and private sectors in the NHS where it is in the interests of patients to do so.
Dr Johnson
This is perhaps the oddest provision in the Bill. Since time immemorial, the Labour party has accused its political rivals of wanting to privatise the health service. In the early 2010s, the then shadow Ministers indulged the idea that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was a Trojan horse for privatisation. Several years later, after the Minister had herself joined the House, claims continued. The then leader of the Labour party urged the previous Government to
“undo the very damaging privatisation of so much of our NHS”. —[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 960.]
In the 2019 election, the public were even presented with a dodgy dossier—not Labour’s first—that purported to show that the NHS was on the table in negotiations for a trade deal. We now have a trade deal and the NHS is still intact.
Even though Members know full well that no sensible opposition party is advocating for abandoning our NHS system, they keep saying that Governments have been selling off the health service through the back door. Today, private providers deliver only about 10% of NHS care and the system continues to be free at the point of use.
That brings us to the deep irony of today’s debate. After years of peddling the NHS privatisation myth, the Labour party has introduced legislation to make privatisation possible. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted a safeguard against privatisation, section 12E, into the NHS Act 2006. That section prohibits the Secretary of State from exercising his functions for the purpose of “causing a variation” in the proportion of services provided by the public or the private sector.
Clause 10 substitutes the text in that section and makes two small but significant changes. The first change is to expand the type of providers beyond public and private to
“different kinds of legal entity”.
That is probably a good change, because it encompasses the mutual and voluntary sectors, which do have an important role to play in health provision going forward.
The second change is what has caused alarm. The Secretary of State cannot alter the provider mix unless they deem it to be
“in the interests of the health service.”
Could the Minister set out some scenarios when it would be deliberately beneficial to privatise provision or, indeed, when it would be beneficial to deliberately nationalise provision? I cannot recall an instance where Ministers needed to privatise an entire service to ensure patients did not lose access to care.
In February, the Minister of State for Secondary Care told the House that lessons had been learned from private finance initiatives. Yet the Government announced that 80% of neighbourhood health centres will be privatised through public private partnerships. The Government are able to use these partnerships to loan money outside their limits, but it tends to be more costly than public sector borrowing. Essentially, it is borrowing, but not borrowing on the balance sheet.
What is the effect of these private initiatives? I remember receiving my own office on being promoted as a doctor to consultant. It is quite an exciting moment; before that, resident doctors share an office. I had my own space, my own desk, my own computer and a big whiteboard for notes. When I asked whether I could place the whiteboard on the wall, I was told I could not—it was £800 to stick it on the wall under the private finance initiative contract.
So my great big whiteboard sat there, propped against the wall. Periodically, I would move a piece of paper, knock the bottom of the whiteboard and it would tip and fall on me when I was sat at my desk. I did suggest putting it up myself, but that would also incur a charge through the PFI contract—for modifying things without getting them to do the modifications—so I just had to sit there with it propped up against the wall, ad infinitum.
The Government are on the hook for more than £100 billion of payouts, simply for the use and maintenance of PFI facilities. The Labour scheme was a shambolic waste of taxpayers’ money that could have been spent on improving care. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) asked the Minister about public private partnerships, she told him she was
“very proud of the capital investment under the last Labour Government”.—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 386WH.]
But is clause 10 simply a mechanism for Ministers to develop further private finance initiatives? If Government spending is under pressure, may Ministers seek to shift provision even if it proves more costly in the long run?
There is another side to the conundrum of clause 10. Instead of a Health Secretary intent on privatisation, what if we get one intent on squeezing out private sector provision? Who our new Prime Minister will be, we do not know, but one of the candidates has called for the country to abandon 40 years of neoliberalism. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on what that means, since the tax take as a percentage of GDP is the highest it has been in 40 years. To me, it signals a potential hostility towards choice and competition. We do not want to be in a situation in which the decision is made to alter the provider mix in service of ideology, rather than in the best interests of patients.
I am aware of several private firms that provide services to the NHS and are concerned that clause 10 could be wielded against them. If a future Health Secretary decided to reduce private provision on the basis of ideology, what would happen to the 10% of planned activity that is currently delivered by for-profit entities? NHS providers could not feasibly handle such a surge in demand, waiting lists would increase further, and patient choice would suffer. It would also be expensive. If private providers fear that the NHS is no longer a reliable customer, and that they may suddenly lose their contract if this clause is invoked, they will charge a risk premium on their services—that is what firms do when they face shifting regulatory goalposts. That would only damage the public purse.
Under clause 10, it would be legally possible for the Health Secretary to alter the provider mix. As a result, it would be worth it for several types of providers and ideologically motivated groups to spend vast sums of money hiring lobbyists to convince Ministers that their sector deserves favourable treatment and that they serve the interests of the NHS. Organisations would invest less in resources and more in influencing the rules, which is not a good outcome either.
All those issues are compounded by the fact that clause 10 is imprecise. What does the Minister define as
“the interests of the health service”?
I am not trying to catch the Minister out; I just want to illustrate the problem with legislation drafted in such terms. It is difficult to prove that the Health Secretary has not acted in what they thought were the best interests of the health service. What could that refer to? It could refer to the interests of patients, to the interests of NHS staff or to the financial stability of the health service—it is entirely subjective. What is the health service there for? It is there for patients, which is why I tabled amendment 53.
Amendment 53 would revise clause 10 to specify that the Secretary of State must not alter the provider mix unless doing so is in the interests of patients. I would like to place patients at the centre of the Bill’s changes, in recognition that we do not have the numbers on the Committee to change the clause altogether. My revision would make it harder for the Health Secretary to justify altering the provider mix if it harms patient access or reduces their choice. It would make NHS providers less fearful to know that the Health Secretary would be subjected to a better defined legal threshold.
Gregory Stafford
The shadow Minister has outlined a couple of hypotheticals for the future, when we have a different Prime Minister and a different Secretary of State. One might go down a route of more privatisation, another down a route of removing the private sector from health service provision. My concern is more practical and for the here and now: if the clause stands part of the Bill, it must be because the Government have some desire to do one of those two things now. Would it not be a good idea to hear from the Minister which of those two options it is?
Dr Johnson
It does raise questions about the point of new section 12E. That provision was not there before; there must be a reason for adding it. Either the Government want ideologically to reduce the amount of private provision in the NHS, or they want to increase it. The clause gives them the power to do both.
Labour politicians very often tell the public that the NHS is being privatised. Data has shown that that is not happening, but that did not matter; they found the myth politically advantageous and repeated it ad nauseam. Now, the Minister and her colleagues are in office—they have the levers of power—and are proposing to change the law to make it easier to change the provider mix. That is not only ironic but deeply misguided.
I tabled amendment 53 to require any changes to the provider mix to be in the interests of patients. If the Minister is unwilling to support that, will she offer a compelling explanation why? Clause 10 has alarmed stakeholders across the health sector and the political spectrum. That really ought to tell us something. I look forward to her response.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I have concerns similar to those of the shadow Minister about clause 10. Proposed new section 12E allows Ministers to vary the proportion of activity by provider, and I am interested in the rationale behind that. The powers to retain the provider mix were put in place because of concerns that the NHS would be privatised by the back door, so the requirement to maintain the mix is there for a reason.
As we heard earlier when discussing ophthalmology, there are risks to using private provision for certain NHS activities, as there can be unintended consequences—a bit like the deregulation of buses. In ophthalmology, private providers do thousands of cataract operations very efficiently, but the less exciting and more critical work of preventing people from going blind, which is done in NHS hospitals, is under threat because so many people want to work in easy and profitable areas. I am concerned that that will occur in more areas of the NHS if the Bill allows more privatisation. Although I do not have an ideological problem with the NHS contracting out to private providers—that has worked well to bring down elective waiting lists, for example—the provisions to protect the mix are important.
I am not sure that amendment 53 really moves us forward; it just requires the Secretary of State to consider who benefits from the change in mix.
Peter Prinsley
It is true that the situation in ophthalmology is now quite serious, but is the hon. Lady aware of the problems in radiology and pathology? Some hospitals are unable to recruit histopathologists or significant numbers of radiologists, who provide key services, because the personnel necessary to run those services have been attracted into a private system, although they are contracted to the NHS. That jeopardises the ongoing services for urgent and emergency care.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman outlines an unintended consequence of the NHS contracting out to private providers. There are ways to get the pricing of those services right, but the clause could introduce that unintended consequence.
Why is this proposal included in the Bill, and what does the Minister see it being used for? Is there a risk that a future Government might use it to bring much more privatisation into the NHS? The general public consensus is that that would be a bad thing. What safeguards can she put in place to ensure that does not happen?
Karin Smyth
I will respond to that question before picking up the other comments. If I do not address all the Committee’s comments, I will come back to Members.
Everyone would expect this, but let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to a free-at-the-point-of-use, taxpayer-funded service. We also think that unless it is reformed and changed, it is an existential problem for the British public, who will not continue to support the service. As Members know, one Parliament can never bind another one, so I cannot predict what a future Government will do. There is talk from some of our Reform colleagues about an insurance-based system. There are people who were in the Conservative party but have moved over who think that, so obviously I cannot—
Karin Smyth
I will make some points, and then I will be happy take the hon. Lady’s intervention if I do not address what she was going to say.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined some of the history. This clause seeks to strike a balance. The governing principle behind it is that the decisions of the Secretary of State must not vary the proportion of providers by the type of legal entity that they are. Decisions must be taken according to what serves the health service and the people who depend on it. The clause permits, by way of exception, the balance between sectors to be varied purposefully, but only where doing so would be in the interests of the health service. That would, for example, prevent the Secretary of State from deliberately choosing to grow the proportion of NHS services delivered by private providers for solely ideological reasons.
I understand the concern that drives the amendment. It is that the exception might be relied on to support the convenience of those already providing the service, without taking into account what is best for patients, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. That is not the Government’s position, and the clause does not lead to that outcome. The test that it creates is whether the interests of the health services are served.
As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham also said, the definition of the health service—as defined under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—is not separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness. A decision to rely on the exception must be justified by reference to that duty; one taken merely because it was easier or more convenient for existing providers or any other group, with no such justification, would be unlawful. The protection that she seeks is, in substance, already secured by the clause.
The amendment would also create another difficulty. Section 1 of the 2006 Act reaches the entire population and includes the prevention of illness before anyone becomes a patient at all. The “interests of patients” reaches only those already receiving care, which is a narrower test than I think the hon. Lady intended, and would allow a Secretary of State who was so minded to provide a landscape that ignores vital preventive health and wellbeing concerns. I hope that she will take from my remarks an assurance that the clause already meets her concerns.
The hon. Lady also highlighted the example of PFI—a subject of much discussion over many years—and of being unable to change her whiteboard. That is absolutely one of the lessons that needs to be learned from the way in which some past PFIs were procured and dealt with. For example, as a new Government, we outlined proposals for a new model of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres, among other things. The previous Government could also have learned the lessons and done something about that, but they chose instead to completely halt the building of any kind of facilities. That is one reason why we are in such a shocking state at the moment. The new proposal outlines, as I think the Opposition know, an 80:20 funding route, exactly to make the point about which is the most efficient way forward. That will absolutely drive measures for growth and create more jobs in the sector.
Gregory Stafford
I want to take the Minister back to her rejection of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on the basis that—I paraphrase—she felt the definition of “patients” was too limiting because it would not count people who had not entered the health system at that point. The clause itself, however, refers to the benefit for the health service. Is the Minister suggesting that the health service, as defined in the Bill, includes what happens before people enter what I would describe as the health service? Is it something before that point? She seems to be saying that our definition is too narrow, but her definition in the Bill must apply to those who have entered some kind of formal setting. Or is the health service wider than that?
Karin Smyth
I refer the hon. Gentleman back to my comments. The health service is defined under section 1 of the NHS Act 2006 as not being separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness—so, yes.
At this juncture, I will explain a number of other features of the clause. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it builds on section 12E of the 2006 Act to cover the Secretary of State’s health functions, powers and duties. It recognises that, with the abolition of NHS England, the Secretary of State has a far more substantial role to play—as a commissioner of services, for example—than previously. I also put on the record that whenever the Secretary of State takes a decision in this space, the general NHS procurement requirements and other statutory duties will continue to apply.
Finally, the NHS relies on privately owned providers, as well as charities and community organisations, to provide a range of important NHS-funded services across the country. As such, it is important to ensure that, where there is a mixed-market provision between public and private for providers of a particular service, the Government’s powers are not used to distort the provision and potentially discourage important investment from outside the NHS. Conversely, they should not be used purposefully to favour independent providers over NHS providers for reasons unrelated to the quality or efficiency of NHS-funded healthcare.
Dr Johnson
If I heard the Minister right, she said that the clause did not provide for changes on the basis of ideology. However, it says that changes are not to be made
“unless the Secretary of State considers that to do so is in the interests of the health service.”
A Secretary of State whose ideology is that the private sector is bad, good or whatever else could well believe that it is in the interests of the health service to be private or not private. How does the clause prevent an ideologically driven Secretary of State from changing the health service on the basis simply of his ideology, rather than of patient or clinical need?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady tempts me to delve into the politics of future Secretaries of State. They will respond according to the manifesto on which they are elected by the British public. That is the point of a democratically accountable public service. I think that the clause strikes that balance, as I have said. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 11, page 8, leave out lines 15 to 30.
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from removing the Chief Executive of an integrated care board.
Dr Johnson
Clause 11 is particularly interesting. In August 2025, Alan Milburn was asked about the abolition of NHS England on the Health Foundation podcast. He said that the Government wanted to see a model that was “more delegated…more devolved” and “more diverse”, which necessitated the centre being smaller. Considering that he is a former Labour Health Secretary and a non-executive director at the Department of Health and Social Care, I do not doubt his understanding of what the Government wanted to achieve.
When the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), announced the 10-year plan to the House, he also talked about dissolving power. He spoke of a
“brave new world of devolution of power, resources and control”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 469.]
That was repeated in the Government publications that accompanied the Bill:
“Empowering ICBs as strategic commissioners will support putting patients at the centre of care by devolving decisions to a local level where different services can better integrate… Reforms to the NHS FT model will give providers more flexibility to design and deliver healthcare around local needs.”
Between the announcement of the abolition of NHS England and the publication of the Bill, Ministers articulated a vision for a more decentralised system. There is expert consensus that decentralisation boosts performance, reduces health disparities and fosters innovation. After listening to remarks this morning, I have no doubt that Members are clued up on the importance of innovation to the health service, but a problem—a philosophical contradiction—at the heart of the Government’s reform programme and the Bill is that Ministers talk about decentralisation while these provisions constitute a recentralisation of power.
Helen Morgan
I mentioned in Committee last Thursday that the Liberal Democrats are worried about the risk in the Bill of political capture and the Secretary of State’s ability to meddle in day-to-day operations. As I am sure the Minister is aware, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo this month, Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive officer of NHS England, warned that the Bill may give Ministers too much control and that there has to be operational freedom; otherwise we will grind to a halt.
I want to probe the process by which we got to this point. Originally, there was discussion about whether the seven NHS regional teams should become independent arm’s length bodies to mitigate such a risk. NHS leaders argued that this would mitigate the risk of direct political control of the service and pointed out that the 10 regional strategic health authorities had played a useful role in running the service efficiently before the creation of NHSE. That proposal was rejected by Ministers, and it is not entirely clear why. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.
It is now being reported that a fresh attempt is being made to argue that regional teams should be hosted by an NHS organisation—probably an ICB—to protect their employment terms and, as staff would remain public rather than civil servants, provide some brake on political control. Can the Minister shed any light on all this? Does she recognise the importance of maintaining operational freedom in NHS decision making?
We have discussed the reality that current Parliaments cannot bind future ones, and I take that point on board. However, current Parliaments do set precedents and establish the legal frameworks within which future Governments initially operate until they change the law. With the potential for more extreme Governments, there is a risk of discrimination and political considerations entering what should be clinical decision making—for example, decisions on whether to place a trust into special measures or what services are offered, such as sexual health, IVF, outreach to migrant communities and so on.
We are concerned not about the current Secretary of State, or indeed the shadow Secretary of State, but about the risk of those sweeping powers being placed in the hands of an extreme Government. If we imagine for a moment that an incoming Government decided that they did not approve of diversity on an NHS board, for example, and replaced an executive with their own candidate, that would be a horrifying situation. I think we would all agree on that. It would be useful to include safeguards now and set a precedent that such action would not be acceptable under this Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a future Government could come along and change that, they would have to be transparent about their reasons for doing so.
The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, claimed that he was taking powers back into DHSC in order to give them away to the system, but this Bill has a lot on taking those powers and very little on giving them to the system. How can we be sure that that will actually happen on the ground, and that ICBs, hospital trusts and other health trusts will have the opportunity to flex their local muscle and ensure that services are best shaped for the local population? The NHS Alliance has called for an operationally independent regulatory function in DHSC to oversee NHS organisations, or for an independent panel to make appointments. Will the Minister consider such practical changes to ensure that political capture is not an unintended consequence of the Bill?
Gregory Stafford
I rise to support amendment 47, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and to ask a few questions about clause 11. I completely understand the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is probably the most politically impotent of all Secretaries of State: as my hon. Friend said, they pull levers and not much seems to happen, because they do not have the control over the health service that the public think they do—or indeed, that Members of Parliament think they do, judging by the number of us who stand up and demand that the Secretary of State do things in our local areas.
I understand the Government and the Secretary of State’s desire to change some of that, but there is concern about the potential politicisation of NHS leadership. Integrated care boards were established in various forms under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 precisely to remove politicisation to ensure that decisions in our healthcare service were made for the benefit of patients on the basis of clinical evidence and the needs of the local population, not on the whim of any Secretary of State or Minister. More importantly, ICBs were brought in to make sure that local health systems, local authorities, clinicians and communities made decisions based on local need.
Those politically independent ICB chief executives were expected to exercise professional judgment, make difficult decisions about priorities and resources and sometimes deliver messages that Ministers, and indeed local Members of Parliament, found uncomfortable. If those leaders know that their continued employment ultimately depends on the confidence of the Secretary of State, there is a real risk that the independence of their judgment will be weakened and that patient safety will diminish.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tackles a core question: should an ICB chief executive focus solely on what is best for patients and the local health economy, or should they have to consider whether their decisions may attract ministerial displeasure? Even if the power is rarely used, and even if, as my hon. Friend said, there are currently some guardrails in the clause, its existence will change behaviour—it must do. Leaders will become more cautious, perhaps more risk-averse and potentially less willing to challenge national policy when local evidence points in a different direction.
ICBs have benefited from the ability to speak truth to power. A system in which senior NHS leaders fear dismissal by Ministers risks discouraging precisely that kind of honesty. Do not get me wrong: there are good ICB chief executives and bad ICB chief executives, ones who understand their role well and ones who feel that they do not need to engage at all with their local communities. I have a very good ICB in what is currently Surrey Heartlands, soon to be a larger organisation, and an ICB that does not do the job as well—I will not name it, but any student of geography will be able to work out which one it is.
Secondly, excessive ministerial power blurs the lines of accountability. The Minister, in her defence, has argued that Ministers need powers because Ministers are accountable. I get that argument, but one of the most important principles of effective public administration is clarity of responsibility. If the Secretary of State gains extensive powers to appoint and dismiss local NHS leaders, it will become increasingly difficult to know who is actually responsible for outcomes. When performance improves, Ministers will claim credit; when performance deteriorates, local leaders may be blamed. If Ministers possess the power to select and remove those leaders, they will inevitably become more directly responsible for those management decisions, so far from increasing accountability, this might dilute it by creating uncertainty about where true authority lies.
Thirdly, there is a constitutional concern. Whether one likes it or not, the previous Act created a balance between democratic accountability and operational independence. Parliament rightly determines the funding, priorities and legislative frameworks, and Ministers rightly set national policy, but operational decisions have been made by healthcare professionals and the statutory bodies established for that purpose. That distinction exists for a good reason. No Secretary of State, regardless of ability or commitment, or indeed their own background in the health service, can personally manage every NHS organisation in England, and I do not think they should. The more powers we concentrate at the centre, the greater the temptation for Ministers to become involved in operational matters that are better addressed through professional expertise and local knowledge. My hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to preserve that distinction in a singular and precise way. It recognises that Ministers should govern the NHS and be held accountable at the top by us as Members of Parliament and our constituents, but should not seek to manage every aspect of it.
Fourthly, there is a practical problem. Supporters of ministerial intervention often point to examples of failure and ask what should happen when an ICB is underperforming. That is a fair question, but the answer is not that the Secretary of State must personally possess dismissal powers. A range of mechanisms already exist: ICB boards have governance responsibilities; NHS England has oversight powers; professional regulators oversee the conduct of clinicians; there are provisions in employment law for procedures when it comes to misconduct and capability issues; and auditors and inspectors can identify failings. It would be far better if the Bill strengthened those provisions to ensure that accountability was brought forward, rather than giving the Secretary of State the ability to fire and hire as he or she sees fit.
Of course, none of those mechanisms of accountability will disappear if amendment 47 is adopted. The amendment would not create any kind of immunity from accountability; it would simply ensure that accountability is exercised through the established governance structures, rather than through direct ministerial intervention on a chief executive. Indeed, one might ask whether a Secretary of State is really the best person to assess the performance of an individual ICB chief executive. Such judgments often require detailed understanding of local service pressures, workforce challenges, demographic factors, financial constraints and so on. Those are matters better evaluated by individual organisations with operational expertise than by politicians operating at national level.
Fifthly, I think the clause as drafted would present a risk to recruitment and retention. The NHS already faces significant leadership challenges. Senior leaders are expected to manage enormous budgets, oversee complex organisations and make difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. If we create a system in which their tenure can ultimately depend upon ministerial whim, we may deter talented individuals from seeking those positions. As my hon. Friend said, the NHS needs leaders who are willing to innovate, take calculated risks and make difficult long-term decisions. It does not need a culture in which leaders are constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering whether a politically controversial but clinically necessary decision could threaten their position. Strong organisations attract strong leaders when governance arrangements are stable, predictable and professionally driven. They do not attract them through uncertainty and political intervention.
Sixthly, we need to consider the precedent being established. Powers granted to one Secretary of State are inherited by the next, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. Members may trust the intentions of the current Minister—I certainly do. They may also believe that these powers would be exercised responsibly—and at the moment I think they would be. However, legislation must be judged not on how it is going to be used by one individual, but on how it could be used by any future holder of the office. Therefore, the question is not whether the current Secretary of State or Minister would misuse the power, but whether Parliament wishes to establish a framework in which future Secretaries of State possess the ability to remove local NHS leaders whose decisions, views or priorities may conflict with their political objectives. That is a much more serious question.
Finally, we must remember what ICBs were trying to achieve, even if we do not think that they have achieved it or performed in the way that we wanted them to. If we go back to the principle of why they were set up, they were designed to encourage collaboration rather than some sort of command-and-control structure. They were intended to bring decision making closer to patients and communities. They were established to support long-term planning across local health systems. Those objectives, I am afraid, are very difficult to reconcile with a model in which local leaders remain subject to direct ministerial dismissal. Partnership working flourishes when organisations have confidence in their independence and responsibilities. It is weakened when authority is increasingly concentrated at the centre.
For all those reasons, I believe that amendment 47 in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raises an important principle. It is not about protecting poor performance or shielding individuals from accountability; it is about ensuring that accountability is exercised through proper governance structures rather than political control. Expanding ministerial powers to hire and fire local NHS leaders risks undermining all of those principles.
Karin Smyth
We have a clear political and—as I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said—philosophical division here. This Government believe in democratic accountability, in politics and in good government. I understand that both Opposition parties were architects of the 2012 Act, which created this huge, independent body to run what has become a £200 billion service that clearly has not worked, and that they want to hold on to some of that, despite not opposing the Bill on Second Reading and, actually, not really opposing the abolition of NHS England—I think we will keep returning to that—but we believe that, ultimately, the Secretary of State needs to be accountable for the service, which is not working as the British public deserve or expect.
The hon. Lady asked me to go into good variation and bad variation. Our drive has been to understand the variation. I know from Members of Parliament who have come to me in the past two years, and we understand from looking in detail at the variation across the service, that there is often no rationale for the variation. Local people do not understand why services work better in one part of their county, even, than in another. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon alluded to that when he mentioned some places in his area that are working better than others. That is why—and I personally wanted to drive this very strongly—we are getting more information out, releasing the outcomes framework and releasing information to all Members of Parliament about where and how the current data shows their local systems are performing. That is what local people need, and in my view good local parliamentarians, of whom there are very many, should be able to go back to talk to their local systems and chief executives about why that is—not to berate them, but to understand it. There might be a very good cause for the variation; there might be structural reasons or geographical reasons, and they might be long-standing reasons. That is what we seek to do in order to regain the trust and confidence of the British public, and that is why we are publishing those documents.
I stand by my comments that my approach is more local than centralised. This is about changing the culture, which we seek to do by making that happen more locally. I absolutely get the points about operational freedom and the balance that we will seek when we release the operating model, which is being worked on in the Department, as we bring the new system into being, alongside the Bill.
However, we want to be very clear that when an ICB has failed or is at risk of failure, and that failure is significant, it is right that the Secretary of State has the tools to minimise the impact on patients and the public and to act swiftly to put things right. The public rightly expect that, in such circumstances, Ministers will take the necessary steps to protect patients, taxpayers and the public. In some cases of significant failure, that may include directing an ICB and removing the chief executive.
I am sure that all Members here today will agree that effective performance management of ICBs will continue to be essential once NHS England is abolished, not only to support the provision of a quality service, but to reassure the people served by ICBs that when things go wrong, they will be put right.
Helen Morgan
I could not agree more with the Minister that when there is an obvious failure, either in a local system or in a trust, we would hope that the Secretary of State will intervene. She will know from our experience in Shropshire that, when a system is failing or underperforming, that intervention is welcome. But the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to intervene even when things are going well, which is quite an extension of power. Will the Minister comment on that?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will come on to the power.
As hon. Members are aware, NHS England currently holds similar powers, so it makes sense for these powers to be held by the Secretary of State once NHS England is abolished. I want to be clear—I hope that this will address the hon. Lady’s point—that our intention is to use these significant failure powers rarely and not as a first port of call. It is far better to work closely with ICBs and their leaders to spot issues and work collaboratively to resolve them before they have the opportunity to become significant, but it would be irresponsible not to have the power to intervene as a last resort.
I want to address the other elements of clause 11. The first part of the clause establishes a general power for the Secretary of State to direct integrated care boards about the exercise of their functions. Using that power, the Secretary of State could direct a singular ICB, a group of ICBs or all ICBs, depending on the scope of the direction. This power is a necessary step in restoring democratic control over the NHS. The public rightly expect Ministers to be able to set priorities, drive improvements and set out how they expect the NHS to operate. For example, we expect to use the power to set up and update national commissioning standards.
The power is particularly relevant given the wider commissioning responsibilities ICBs will have in their role as strategic commissioners following the abolition of NHS England. By setting standards for all ICBs, the power will help reduce the unwarranted variation in the way that ICBs discharge their functions. It is also an important tool for enabling Ministers to respond to changing events. The lack of such a power has slowed the ability of NHS England to respond to unforeseen challenges within the health system.
I can also give the Committee an assurance that the clause includes a considered set of limits on the scope of the power. The Secretary of State will not be able to direct ICBs to appoint a particular individual, issue a direction about the services to be provided to an individual, or direct the use of a drug treatment or diagnostic technique where that is inconsistent with NICE guidance or recommendations. Equally, to maintain transparency in the health system, directions made under the general power to direct ICBs as to the exercise of their functions will be required to be made in writing and to be published as soon as reasonably practical. The power will enable the Secretary of State to uphold the standards that patients expect and deserve, while also protecting the principles of fairness and impartiality at the heart of the NHS.
We have already addressed much of the second part of the clause, but I should note that we have purposely placed the powers to intervene in cases of significant failure outside the general power of direction over ICBs. That is because it is important to be clear that those powers are expected to be used only rarely and in situations where an ICB is failing or at risk of failing.
I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham feels able to withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
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
Fly-tipping: Residential Areas
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Any hon. Members who wish to take off their jackets have permission to do so. I call Melanie Onn to move the motion.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping in residential areas and associated impacts.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to see so many colleagues here to participate in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and colleagues who supported my application.
Fly-tipping is often discussed as an environmental or waste management issue and a question of local authority enforcement. It is, of course, all those things, but in communities such as mine and across the country, it is more fundamental. It is about pride, belonging and whether people feel good about the place they call home. Residents often tell me they are tired of seeing mattresses dumped in alleyways, household waste abandoned on street corners and green spaces treated as rubbish tips.
Those are not isolated incidents; they become part of the everyday experience of a neighbourhood. The impact goes far beyond the physical waste itself. Surveys on environmental decay reveal that 86% of people living in heavily littered or fly-tipped neighbourhoods feel embarrassed by their area. It is terrible that people should feel that. That statistic ought to concern us all. Environmental degradation damages mental wellbeing, erodes civic pride and fuels a cycle of hopelessness that can leave residents feeling disconnected from the communities around them.
People deserve to feel proud when they walk down their street, and to feel that their neighbourhood matters. When fly-tipping becomes commonplace it sends exactly the opposite message. It tells residents that standards are slipping, that nobody cares and that decline is somehow acceptable. Once that perception takes hold it can be incredibly difficult to reverse.
We must also be honest about some of the pressures that have contributed to the problem. Across the country, councils have faced difficult decisions about waste services. Public waste disposal facilities have been reduced in some areas, opening hours have changed and restrictions have become more complicated. Residents frequently tell me that local tips can be difficult to use, with limitations on what can be taken, who can take it and how often visits can be made. None of that excuses criminal behaviour; those who dump waste illegally are responsible for their actions. But if we are serious about solving the problem, we need to understand all the factors that contribute to it.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many of my residents are sick of persistent fly-tipping blighting our community. This Government have passed laws that allow us to prosecute fly-tippers, but residents are also frustrated by the cost of cleaning up this mess. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative not only to clean up our communities but to make the fly-tippers pay for it?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why on earth should everybody else pay for the mess that others create, particularly hard-pressed communities that are already struggling? Adding to their council tax burden or imposing additional costs is not fair.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
In my constituency, fly-tipping remains a significant problem for local communities. Waste is dumped, and the council acts properly to remove the waste but it comes back again. As has been mentioned, the problem is even more challenging when waste is dumped on private land, and the landowners have to endure the cost burden of removing sometimes hazardous quantities of waste. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need stronger enforcement, which should include greater use of CCTV to catch perpetrators and tougher penalties for offenders, which seems to be the only way to deal with this serious antisocial behaviour?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points. In every community there are hotspots that people go back to again and again. There is provision for local authorities to use CCTV, but it has to be monitored; there is no point in having CCTV if it is not. Local authorities also have powers to use drones to follow vehicles that are committing the crime of excessive tipping. My hon. Friend is also right about the cost to private landowners. Other hon. Members might talk about more rural communities, the impact of fly-tipping on rural land and the environmental waste their constituents are then required to clean up. It is incredibly challenging to deal with hazardous waste.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On rural and private land, the Environment Agency in my constituency has said that there is a gap in regulation when it comes to privately owned sites that are used for one purpose initially but gradually accumulate waste and become fly-tipping destinations. The Environment Agency has no power to act against that because it is private land, and councils are also struggling to find the right approach. Does the hon. Lady consider that as a significant issue in rural constituencies such as mine?
Melanie Onn
It is interesting that the hon. Member says there might be a gap in regulations, and I suspect that that is the case for not just rural private land but all private land. I have the same thing in my constituency, where there are alleyways or unadopted areas that are frequently fly-tipped. I was going come on to local authorities later, but I will just repeat myself—why not; this place is all about repetition, isn’t it? In those alleyways and on other private land, local authorities will say, “We don’t have responsibility for that.” I do think that the Environment Agency would be much more concerned about the dumping and fly-tipping of hazardous waste, which has a broader environmental impact and falls into its area of responsibility.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It speaks to the timeliness of this debate that so many people want to contribute. On that specific point, my local authority of Bromley does very well cleaning up fly-tipping, but it is sometimes a bit hamstrung because the waste is tipped on to housing association land. Residents perceive that to be the council’s responsibility, but it cannot do anything about it. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts about that?
Melanie Onn
The responsibilities of housing associations on their land is a similar issue, as they are facing financial challenges of their own. That is why we end up relying so much on communities to come together and do the clean-up. There needs to be a much more holistic solution, but we cannot always rely on communities to step in to do something that has such a fundamental impact on them and the way people live their lives. I am sure that housing associations have an opportunity to work more closely with local authorities to try to come up with an improved solution.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The hon. Member—my Member of Parliament—is being very generous in giving way. Her comment about the community is very relevant. To give one example, there was an action day in Immingham only two or three weeks ago, which involved not only local authority councillors but, in our case, Lincolnshire Housing Partnership. The important thing I want to stress is that the funding was made available by Phillips 66, so does she agree that the private sector can make a contribution by supporting community groups?
Melanie Onn
I am very grateful for my constituent’s contribution. It is an excellent one, as always. He makes a very valid point; Phillips 66 is a great contributor to community activities across our areas, but I would not like us to rely on that all the time. It is a really welcome contribution and incredibly helpful. We are very grateful and community groups will be very grateful for any funding that they can get, but the fact that we have to rely on it so much speaks to our need to get a grip on this issue.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that recently we had a big fly-tipping issue in Weelsby woods. That is just around the corner from where he lives, so he will know it very well. We saw an unauthorised encampment there, with a huge amount of waste left behind. There was no concern for the fact that it is one of our valued green spaces that families regularly attend. The images of what was left behind shocked local residents. What should have been valued green space was turned into a disgusting dumping ground. That demonstrated something important about our local communities and how they pull together, because when the council sent teams to clear the site, volunteers also stepped up to help. It was an encampment for only three or four days, but there were several tonnes of waste from lots of tree work that had been undertaken; all the waste from that had been dumped in the park. Although that incident highlights the scale of the challenge, it also highlighted the strength of community spirit across Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and Brigg and Immingham.
Before discussing policy solutions, I want to place on the record my thanks to the many local campaigners, volunteers, community interest companies like Empower and council staff who devote countless hours to improving our environment. I am referring to people like Zac from PickWalks, whose efforts have inspired countless residents, including lots of children, to take greater pride in their local area; and Frank Sparkes, who has become well known locally for his tireless work cleaning up the North Wall. He also taught me how to tie a fisherman’s net at the weekend, so thank you very much, Frank. I am not sure I can remember that or repeat it, but he was excellent.
I am referring to people like Jim Elliott, who has become known as the canoe river cleaner for spending his time removing rubbish from our waterways by canoe. I joined Jim on the water and quickly discovered that clearing litter while in a canoe requires considerably more skill and balance than I possess. Jim made it look effortless, but I think he spent just as much time trying to keep the boat upright as he did collecting the rubbish. I am referring also to our local Wombles litter-picking group, which quietly and consistently makes a difference every week in our local area, and to members of our local Labour group, who have been working alongside these residents and volunteers, have cleared 11 rubbish-filled alleyways across the constituency and continue to organise clean-up operations throughout the area. That is tough work; it is not just turning up for a photo opportunity. They are grafting to clear the alleyways, and their efforts demonstrate something important—people care deeply about the area in which they live. The challenge for us as policymakers is ensuring that those residents are supported, rather than being forced to fight the same battles over and over again—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made earlier.
That is why I welcome the action already taken by the Labour Government. For too long, fly-tipping has been treated as a low-level nuisance rather than the serious offence that it is. This Government’s new approach rightly recognises that waste criminals should face meaningful consequences. I particularly welcome proposals for clean-up squads. Under those plans, local authorities will be able to issue conditional cautions requiring offenders to undertake community payback—unpaid work cleaning streets, parks and public spaces, including the areas where they have dumped. That sends an important message about accountability. I welcome the plans that will allow councils to recover money directly from offenders to fund clean-up operations and ensure that taxpayers are not left carrying the cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley also mentioned in his intervention.
Councils already have the power to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping, but Ministers are encouraging local authorities to go further and use the power that they have to crush vehicles used in these offences, increase public awareness of enforcement action and make better use of technology such as CCTV, drones and automatic number plate recognition. Those are practical tools that can help to identify offenders and improve conviction rates. I welcome the fact that repeat fly-tippers now face the prospect of penalty points on their driving licence, with the possibility of disqualification for those who repeatedly offend. For some offenders the threat of losing their licence may prove a far more effective deterrent than a fine alone.
Those important reforms deserve recognition, but we can still go further. First, we need much stronger public awareness about waste carrier licences. Many residents unknowingly and unwittingly hand over waste to individuals who are advertising cheap disposal services online or through cold calling. They assume that the waste will be disposed of legally; instead, it often ends up dumped in alleyways, fields and green spaces. Too many people simply do not know that they have a responsibility to check that waste carriers are properly licenced. Public education must become a central part of our strategy.
Secondly, we need to address the cost and availability of bulky waste collection. If we want people to dispose of waste responsibly, the legal route must be straightforward, affordable and accessible. I would like consideration to be given to a more universal approach across local authorities so that residents can dispose of bulky household items without facing excessive costs or barriers. There could be joint bulky waste disposals between residents as well.
Thirdly, there is a role for landlords. In areas with a high turnover of private rented accommodation, waste accumulation often becomes a recurring problem during tenancy changes. Landlords should work much more closely with local authorities to ensure that proper waste disposal arrangements are in place and to prevent alleyways and communal areas from becoming dumping grounds. It will work in their favour too; it is much easier to rent a property in an area that looks like it is being cared for.
Finally, we need to look carefully at the enforcement processes. Local authorities frequently tell us that gathering evidence, issuing penalties and pursuing court action can be lengthy, expensive and resource intensive. If we want councils to make greater use of enforcement powers, we must ensure that those powers can be exercised efficiently and effectively. Reducing the cost, complexity and evidential burden associated with prosecutions would help authorities to take action more quickly and consistently.
Earlier we touched on the “not on our land” approach from local authorities. If local authorities are not in a position to keep an area clean, what are they for? They are there for local people and to take care of our local areas. If local authorities support devolution and want power to be in the hands of those who know their areas better, then they should also be concerned about those areas and not be so quick to say, “There is nothing that we can do about that.”
I do not know if colleagues have found the same but in my local area, when fly-tipping is on private land, the local authority has often advised local councillors to utilise their ward funding to come up with a solution. In some cases, people are turning to private companies, as my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham said. That is not what ward funding is intended for. It could all get sucked into tidying that up when it should be used for much more productive, proactive and positive actions.
As for the cost benefit, we could have economies of scale. If local authorities, housing associations and other public bodies that have an interest in keeping our areas clean, tidy and safe came together, it would prove a much more effective use of public money. It does not matter whether it is ward funding, local authority money or housing association money; it is all public money, so let us use it as effectively and efficiently as we can.
I will conclude to allow the many colleagues who are interested to contribute to this debate. Fly-tipping is often seen as a hyper-localised issued, but its consequences are national. It affects how people feel about their communities; it affects mental wellbeing, health and environmental health; it affects perceptions of safety and security; it affects tourism, investment and neighbourhood confidence; and most importantly, it affects whether people believe that their community is valued. The people of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes have a right to expect to live in neighbourhoods that they can be proud of.
The volunteers, campaigners, CICs and council staff who I have mentioned are already doing extraordinary work. The Government have taken welcome and significant steps to strengthen enforcement and hold offenders to account, but by improving awareness, strengthening disposal options and supporting councils in tackling the wider causes of waste crime we can go further still. I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that communities across the country are cleaner, safer and places that people are proud to call home.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they want to participate in the debate, they should bob at the end of every speech. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am. Doing the simple arithmetic, that means there will be a time limit of four minutes on speeches.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate.
In Manchester alone last year, there were around 15,000 reports of fly-tipping. That is more than 40 incidents every single day. In my constituency the situation is particularly bad. In Levenshulme, there was one fly-tipping complaint for every four households. In Longsight, there were more than 1,000 incidents last year, the highest in Manchester, with Levenshulme close behind on 952. Behind every single one of these reports is a person who cares about where they live and who deserves so much better than having to live with illegally dumped waste in their backyards. The chances are that it is even worse than the numbers show. I regularly speak to constituents who, understandably, have lost all faith in reporting at all, because, too often, it does not lead to any action and the waste remains in our alleyways, in our kids’ parks and on our street corners.
This is not about blaming communities. It is about ensuring that people have clean, safe streets wherever they live, regardless of their postcode. Tackling fly-tipping means proper enforcement against rogue waste operators and fraudulent businesses, but it also means giving local authorities the money that they need to actually deal with it, and that is where things just do not add up. In Greater Manchester, we have seen huge development in recent years, with property and construction firms making huge profits. Yet very little of that wealth is being returned to the communities that made it possible. I see clean streets around glossy new developments, while surrounding areas and neighbourhoods are left littered with waste.
A YouGov and Oxfam survey found that 78% of people support a 2% wealth tax on net assets over £10 million. If we are serious about fairness and cleaning up our communities, properly taxing extreme wealth is part of our solution. That is how we give councils the tools and the money they need to fix problems like fly-tipping. Today, I ask the Minister whether they will discuss with the Chancellor how to ensure that people who are getting super-rich from property development contribute fairly to the communities they profit from to fund the clean-up of issues like fly-tipping.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for bringing forward this important debate.
Fly-tipping is not only damaging to our environment—it makes our communities worse places to live. No one wants to walk past those huge piles of rubbish. I represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, which hosts some of the most beautiful spots in the country. I have a national landscape, a national park, the beautiful Lune valley and of course Heysham and Morecambe, which look out across the beautiful Morecambe bay. Morecambe’s town motto is “Beauty surrounds, health abounds” and I would like to preserve that beauty for my constituents.
Rural constituents contact me about this issue, but as the debate is focused on residential areas, I will limit myself to talking about problems raised with me in towns like Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth. I put on the record my thanks to the local Wombles groups and the litter-pickers, who go out every week in all conditions to help tidy up our community. Residents in Morecambe regularly tell me about their frustration at rubbish left in alleyways and ginnels. They worry about letting their kids go out to play because of broken glass. They are worried about rats—not to mention the expense. Millions of pounds are spent in England every year just to clean up waste.
I asked my constituents what more could be done to tackle fly-tipping and an overwhelming number of people cited the cost of properly disposing of rubbish as a driver for fly-tipping. Private waste companies and council removal services are expensive and people without a car just do not have any other option, so if money is tight, there is a strong temptation to do the wrong thing and avoid disposal fees. Although I might get very grumpy at the outcome, we have to take an approach of what works and what might prevent the problem. Suggestions from my constituents included regular neighbourhood skip days, where people could use council skips, three bulky item pick-ups per year, keeping the restrictions on van trips to the tip but removing the need to book so that people can go on spec, community waste points and incentive schemes. I am really interested in the Minister’s comments on prevention.
Prevention will not fix the problem entirely; we need enforcement. I am really pleased to see the Government publish the waste crime action plan, which takes a zero-tolerance approach. The Environment Agency receiving an extra £45 million over the next three years is important to boost enforcement. I really like that fly-tippers will face being ordered to clean up their mess and will be required to repay the cost of their illegally dumped waste. That is really important. They could also face penalty points on their licences and, if they are a serious repeat offender, even lose their licences.
Constituents talk to me about cameras. I know that some councils have been using drones as well, and we have to look at all the ways that we can tackle this issue. Lancaster city council covers the Lancashire part of my constituency, and it found that across the whole of their district, fly-tipping is prevalent in five wards. Those are the five most deprived wards, so people who already face a lot of challenges also have to deal with their neighbourhood looking like crap. It is just not fair. What surprised me was that the city council said that some people told them that they did not know that fly-tipping was illegal—they did not know that it was a criminal offence. I am slightly suspicious of that.
To close, the waste crime action plan allows for tougher enforcement, which is very welcome, and for more resources for that. We also have to make sure it is easier for people to do the right thing in the first place, encourage a sense of pride in people’s local communities and ensure that people take personal responsibility for their actions.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for not just securing this debate, but articulating each and every point that impacts the agenda of fly-tipping. It is prevalent not just in my constituency, but across the whole city of Birmingham, and, as has been said, across the whole country. The hon. Member said that repetition makes any argument more persuasive, but she has touched on all the key points that I was going to speak about.
Fly-tipping is an eyesore. It damages the appearance of streets, parks and green spaces. It attracts vermin, impacts on health and obstructs pavements. Children and vulnerable adults are all impacted. Within certain parts of my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr specifically, there is an ageing community. While they take pride in their neighbourhood, unfortunately the fact that they are old and vulnerable means that they cannot deal with the issues like fit and able people can.
The ageing community owns properties that have private land at the rear, and unfortunately that has been abused. Not by them—they have been very proud of their back spaces—but by rogue waste collectors who have identified that particular location and regularly fly-tip there. Unfortunately, the local council cannot deal with it; they simply say that it is private land and that they are not able to touch the dumped rubbish. Local councillors have not been receiving any community chest award money to spend, so the rubbish is simply piling up, causing immense issues for vulnerable people. It really comes down to finances. It is not an issue in silo, but needs to be dealt with across all departments within the local council.
We often hear that CCTV or drones may assist, but all that comes with costs that cannot be met unless councils are resourced. Unfortunately, we had bankruptcy in Birmingham. We are out of that bankruptcy at present, but that does not mean that we have sufficient resources to be able to deal with the types of fly-tipping that we witness almost daily. Those regular hotspots are real eyesores.
I reflect back on when I was growing up in a little town called Aston. As a kid, I used to relish the thought of playing snowballs with my siblings in the morning during winter. By the time we got up, the whole street was clean because every neighbour had got out in the morning and cleaned their front patch. The only place we could play snowballs was in the local park. That is the level of pride that we want to re-instil within our communities. It can be achieved only if we have a council that is able to effectively resource and tackle the fly-tipping.
There needs to be a national campaign. I do not think this is a local issue for a local campaign. Education needs to be at the forefront: young children need to be taught at school and young people need to be taken out for regular sessions to clean streets and take pride in the local community. We also need methods to report people who offend. We need to embolden our communities. A lot of people out there take pride and want to report such problems, but fear that if they do so, they will be identified and there may be repercussions. It comes down to resources.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Fly-tipping in residential and rural areas is a blight across the communities that I represent, whether it is the most rural communities, such as Belsay and Kirkley Hall, or areas such as Throckley, Newburn and Walbottle on the more urban side of my seat. I pay particular tribute to community organisations, such as the Ponteland Anti-Litter Squad and the Hexham Wombles, that take action to clear up local litter and against fly-tipping, most of which do excellent jobs. There are other groups in the 200 towns and villages throughout my constituency, but I would detain everyone for quite a long time if I named them all.
I welcome the waste crime action plan. It sets an excellent foundation for taking action to tackle fly-tipping, which blights communities across the span of my constituency. However, I am slightly concerned that on the more rural side of my seat, there is a growing problem of individual areas becoming magnets for mega fly-tipping. While those areas are not hyper-residential, like the areas that many of my wise and well-informed colleagues have spoken about, mega fly-tipping is nevertheless a blight on the communities that live around them, use those green spaces, and enjoy the countryside and their surroundings.
I have been really heartened to see statistics coming out of Northumberland and Newcastle that show the hard work of council workers in addressing fly-tipping. Unfortunately, I think there is a structural issue within Northumberland in particular, where the Conservative administration neglects the west of the county. It directs resources away from the area I represent to areas that it prefers. There is a slight sense, certainly in my constituency, that we are getting short-changed—that the Conservatives are putting up our council tax for very little in return in the west of the county.
I want to touch briefly on the Walbottle Road tip in Newburn, which is a major driver of fly-tipping and of unease and unrest over fly-tipping in my constituency, simply because it is impossible to turn into. It has been a running sore for residents over many years, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) represented this part of Newcastle. I urge the Minister to think about how she can encourage councils to make their tips more accessible to address those concerns. One of the priorities for the new Reform councillors in Throckley, Walbottle and Newburn is to make sure that residents are able to access that tip and that the Mill Vale estate no longer has to deal with either the constant fumes and sheer noise from traffic idling just outside it or the fly-tipping we are seeing around it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for setting the scene incredibly well. I welcome the Minister, who we are very fortunate to have. She is committed to the very things that we are asking for. I wish her well as she pursues these matters. We are not talking about a minor inconvenience or a bit of harmless litter; we are talking about deliberate, criminal environmental vandalism that directly devalues people’s homes, attracts vermin to their doorsteps and robs law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned money.
I am going to give a Northern Ireland perspective, which will not be a big surprise to anybody, but it is important that we put on record where we are. The Northern Ireland environmental statistics report confirms that public anger has reached a boiling point. A staggering 73% of citizens are deeply concerned about our environment. For the first time, air and water pollution has been officially overtaken as the single greatest environmental anxiety for households in Northern Ireland by illegal dumping and littering, which was chosen by some 34% of respondents.
When I am at home, I live in Greyabbey. The main town is Newtownards, where my office is. I drive up and down that road two to three times a day—maybe more. People litter their KFCs, their McDonald’s, their sandwiches and their tins. They go out the window and are usually hidden in the grass until the grass is cut. When the grass is cut, guess what? The litter that has been lying there for maybe six months suddenly becomes accessible. The National Trust in Mount Stewart is out, as is the council, trying to do something.
We have a beautiful nation. Recent figures show that almost 340 major illegal dumping sites were actively investigated in Northern Ireland in the past year alone. There is an epidemic. My constituency crosses two council areas: Ards and North Down, but I also partially represent Newry, Mourne and Down. They suffer some of the worst littering. They have some 31 major investigated illegal waste sites.
That is not counting the mattresses that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes referred to. People do not take their mattress down to the dump; they throw it into the laybys of the Ards peninsula. They do not count the black bins full of rotting household waste, abandoned in the scenic coastal paths of Bangor or the rural lanes of the Ards peninsula. Every single week, local councils are forced to divert immense resources just to clean up after these waste cowboys. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has spent some half a million pounds clearing up illegal sites just in the past period.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I feel honoured to intervene on the hon. Gentleman; it is often the other way around. Fly-tipping is a big issue in my constituency, as it is in his. There is frequent fly-tipping around the cemetery in Kilmarnock, for example. Does he agree that part of the problem with tackling this is a lack of proper funding for local government? In Glasgow, for example, the Scottish Government have not properly funded Glasgow city council. Does he agree that tackling this requires resourcing for local government?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. It is an absolute disgrace that, across Northern Ireland, we see fewer than six successful illegal dumping prosecutions per year. Criminal fly-tippers are treating minor fixed penalties as nothing more than a business expense. That must change. We need to back our local authorities in Ards and North Down with the statutory teeth that they need. If a person is caught destroying a residential neighbourhood with illegal waste, the authorities should have the immediate power to crush their vehicle and publicly name and shame them.
Our communities deserve clean, safe and dignified places to raise their families. It is time to stop mollycoddling these criminals, clean up our streets, and restore pride to residential areas in the whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I support the comments from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and look forward to the Minister’s response and the other contributions.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate and for her excellent speech outlining all the issues our residents face with fly-tipping. Nothing makes me more fed up and deflated than walking round the community where I raise my kids and seeing litter and piles of rubbish everywhere.
Fly-tipping is a blight on my city. Portsmouth is a beautiful place, yet a few lazy and selfish criminals can cause enormous damage and make my city look a mess. I have been contacted by countless residents about illegal waste dumping across my constituency. Commercial waste has been dumped behind businesses in North End, attracting rats and harming legitimate local shops and the work they do to serve the community.
This is not just a low-level or cosmetic issue; it is serious because fly-tipping puts my constituents at risk. These piles of rubbish create environmental hazards, increase fire risks and endanger public health. Unfortunately, the problem has been made worse by the failure of Liberal Democrat-run Portsmouth city council to act effectively and use all the levers available to it, be that swifter collections, the use of CCTV or drones, number plate recognition or the crushing of vehicles. They must take some ownership and some accountability, instead of sloping their shoulders and saying it is “not on our land”.
I will give some examples. Outside the charity bins near Cosham high street, piles of rubbish bags and mattresses regularly accumulate. The council puts up notices saying it is aware of the problem and will remove the waste as soon as possible, yet fines are rarely enforced and offenders rarely identified. It is little surprise that people continue to use this site as their own personal tip, because there are no consequences.
I have also dealt with cases where mattresses have been dumped beside the motorway, where responsibility is shared between National Highways and the council. Even when number plates have been captured on camera, enforcement action has not followed. This is not good enough. Near my office in Copnor, forecourts are regularly used as dumping grounds. The council often acts only after repeated reports, even when the waste presents a real fire hazard. One constituent, Tracey, outlined to me her frustrations:
“I often wonder why I pay my council tax when all I walk past is rubbish, fly tipping and dirty toiletries on my dog walks.”
That is not what anyone wants to see when they leave their home. Every pile of rubbish sends a message that nobody cares and leaves residents feeling angry, frustrated and disheartened.
I join my hon. Friends in thanking those volunteers and groups who help to clear up our streets: the litter pickers, the shoreline cleaners and the generally brilliant, hard-working people across my city. I hope that Portsmouth city council listens to this debate and understands the impact that failing to tackle fly-tipping is having on ordinary residents. It is time to raise the game. The council must remove waste more quickly so that sites do not attract further dumping, and it must properly investigate and penalise offenders. It must also look to support initiatives that enable people to dump their larger items swiftly and cheaply.
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have launched the toughest ever crackdown on waste crime, and I am pleased to see that Labour’s waste crime action plan will require fly-tippers to join clean-up squads on the streets they have trashed, because they should take responsibility. The Government will also look to put penalty points on driving licences, and repeat offenders could lose their vehicles. That sends a clear message to the people doing this: “You mess up our streets and you will clean up our streets. There are consequences for your time and your money.” It is not just about individuals. We are targeting the organised criminal gangs behind illegal waste sites through £45 million of new investment for the Environment Agency.
This job of cleaning up and taking pride in our streets has started, but there is much more to be done. I am proud that this Government are taking it seriously and are leading by example and using every available power to crack down on waste crime. I hope that Portsmouth city council takes notes and gives this daily nuisance the attention it deserves, so that residents can once again value and have pride in their neighbourhoods.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate on an issue that affects almost everybody in this room.
The waste crime action plan put forward by the Government contains several promising measures to tackle the persistent issue of fly-tipping in our communities. I welcome the additional £45 million allocated to the Environment Agency for waste crime enforcement, which will go a long way to strengthening investigations and addressing the problem at source. However, the measures proposed could go further, because residents like mine in Broxtowe have reported that rubbish is not only being left in the alleyway behind their property but being thrown over their fence and left in their garden. After reporting the incident, they discovered that as the landowner, they were responsible for clearing the waste themselves, as well as the associated costs. I am sure we would all agree that that just cannot be right. Victims of fly-tipping should not be left to bear the cost of the crime committed against them, yet this widespread injustice continues across the country.
The legal framework already allows for significant penalties, including unlimited fines, vehicle seizures and even custodial sentences. However, these powers are too rarely enforced. In fact, despite more than 1.26 million recorded incidents, enforcement action remains astoundingly low. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, less than 0.2% of perpetrators have enforcement action taken against them. My residents in Stapleford who live in an area with a communal garden space have repeatedly raised concerns about waste being dumped in that area, and the council continues to clear it. Time and again, the cycle persists, because those responsible are not being held to account.
The core issue is that without resources to properly investigate, enforcement action cannot be taken, and therefore we will never tackle the root cause of fly-tipping. I urge the Minister to consider further resources for local authorities that will allow them to form fly-tipping enforcement teams that could sufficiently investigate instances of fly-tipping so that strong enforcement action can be taken. That would not just be to clear the waste, but to pursue offenders and recover the costs. I hope that the Minister will also consider stronger measures to ensure that offenders are held to account in instances where they are identified, so that they not only face fines but are required to cover the full cost of clearance and disposal, therefore removing the burden from victims.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We have heard some meaningful contributions so far, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for giving us the opportunity to praise our communities for the extremely hard work they are putting into our areas, but also to call out the situation that has got us here.
In my constituency of North West Leicestershire, I am proud to have some incredibly dedicated litter picking groups. Their commitment to keeping our towns and surrounding areas clean is amazing, but it should not be necessary. I want to thank a number of them today, including the locally known Belton Sam, Coalville CAN for its recent litter pick of Coalville, and the regular litter pickers, including those in Hugglescote and Market Street in Ashby-de-la-Zouch. There are so many more who help from a much wider area and who travel to litter pick across Leicestershire, including my good friends Gibbo and Bob. They tell me that they are reporting an increasing number of fly-tips and have seen an increase in the amount of litter dropped in their local communities.
For this speech, I reached out to Carly Hosker, a constituent and member of Castle Donington Litter Wombles. Carly said:
“Fly-tipping affects everyone who lives nearby. It’s an eyesore, can attract even more rubbish, is a danger to wildlife and often leaves local people feeling ignored and very frustrated when nothing gets done about it. For me, it’s disheartening to see areas that should be enjoyed by residents, walkers, cyclists and families covered in waste.”
I have been a regular litter picker over the years and have to agree with Carly’s words. As our constituents’ representatives, it is now our job to back those words with action. Does the Minister agree that those responsible for these issues should be able to deal with those who commit acts of fly-tipping, rather than dealing with the communities forced to clean up after them?
I welcome the measures already announced in the waste crime action plan, because the scale of this issue is significant. Across the east midlands alone, there were around 96,000 fly-tipping incidents in a single year. My own council, North West Leicestershire, has dealt with about 700, or two every single day. Nationally, the picture is worsening, with over 1.2 million incidents recorded across England in 2024-25—a 9% increase in just one year.
Those figures do not even include the waste dumped on private land, with landowners often shouldering the costs themselves. I worked for a housing association for many years, and fly-tipping was a huge financial burden on it. There is also the frustration about the highway, where there is often confusion about who is responsible: is it the district, the county or National Highways? We have hotspots all over North West Leicestershire, including the A42 and the A453, to name just two. They are gateways into my constituency, but they are too dangerous for volunteers, and we have to question why it should be left to volunteers to clean them up.
There is often no clear approach led by authorities. Could the Minister please outline the cross-authority work that has been done so that the gateways to our communities—our highways—are not forgotten as “somebody else’s responsibility”. In this House, we owe it to Carly, Litter Wombles across the country and every community volunteer to match their commitment to action.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing this important debate.
Scotland is not immune to fly-tipping, which has a significant and often underestimated impact on our communities, affecting not only the physical environment but residents’ mental health and sense of wellbeing. In truth, it is a serious criminal act that damages our streets and neighbourhoods and places a growing demand on already overstretched local authority cleansing department budgets.
There have been incidents where rogue traders have lured consumers with cheap cash-only rates to clear household waste, only to illegally dump it on our roadsides, countryside and lay-bys to avoid paying commercial fees. I have seen at first hand the impact of fly-tipping in my hometown and across my constituency: furniture, mattresses and even drug paraphernalia dumped on public footpaths and street corners and even at children’s play parks. Residents complain of waste piling up in the streets, bringing their area down. They cannot understand why the local authority fails to keep on top of this scourge on our communities.
I know that local councils are trying, but they are dealing with the financial hand they have been dealt amid some of the severest cuts to local government since devolution. Budgets have been cut in real terms year after year, and as a result Scottish councils are merely managing decline across our communities, with enforcement staff being stretched ever thinner.
Put plainly, cuts to councils are cuts to our communities. Accumulated waste can make a neighbourhood feel neglected and unsafe, contributing to stress, anxiety and a decline in community pride. When public spaces are repeatedly polluted, it can foster feelings of frustration and helplessness among residents, particularly if the issue is persistent and slow to be addressed.
To take East Ayrshire council, the figures speak for themselves: between 2019-20 and 2021-22, the council recorded over 2,500 fly-tipping incidents, ranking 13th out of 32 Scottish councils. More recently, the 2024-25 data shows that over 4,500 incidents were reported in the authority, which demonstrates that there is a huge issue—and it is getting worse.
It does not help when access to the local tip is by appointment only. That is a cost-cutting measure, but when legal disposal becomes harder, the risk is that illegal disposal increases. Due to very low prosecution and penalty rates, 50% of Scottish local authorities believe that enforcement is not effective, and there is no consistency across agencies. In Scotland since 2019, over 280,000 incidents have been reported, with only 3,300 fines issued. That means that only a tiny proportion of offenders face any consequences, proving that the system lacks credible deterrence. That needs to change.
I want to put on record my thanks to all the volunteer litter pickers, who play a vital and uplifting role in strengthening our communities, bringing people together through a shared purpose and pride in their surroundings. Their efforts not only improve the physical appearance of local areas but send a powerful message that people care, inspiring others to take responsibility and to respect public spaces. Such efforts are commendable, but they should not be necessary. There is no excuse for fly-tipping.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate, because fly-tipping affects every community in this country.
Stevenage was the country’s first post-war new town, which is great, because our forefathers and mothers planned a great new town, but there are many green spaces and woods between residential developments. I also have four villages in my constituency—Knebworth, Codicote, Datchworth and Aston—and each has similar issues to the town of Stevenage.
Most of us are rightly proud of our communities, but a few people, who are not necessarily from our communities, wreck all that. Many of us go out week in, week out to clean up our streets. We have our Stevenage Wombles; just like Wombles across the country, they do sterling work, and I have joined them in the old town. Stevenage Labour party also has its own action team, which goes out once a month. We do our bit, and we go into the woods and clear them out, but do you know what? It is sometimes an impossible task. You try moving a fridge with just a few volunteers; it is just not possible. We have also found suitcases with things in them that I cannot possibly mention here. All of that is just not acceptable.
People are reporting fly-tipping incidents. Just yesterday, on one of our Stevenage Facebook groups, a diligent citizen spotted an address on a TV licence letter and reported it straightaway. I know that our council will take firm and effective action, but it is dealing with 3,000 reported fly-tipping incidents a year and spending more than £1.6 million.
Some Members have talked about funding. Yes, it is important, and we are fortunate in Stevenage that this Labour Government have increased our funding by 9% in the last year. That is great, but the extra funding needs to be matched with powers, so I am also grateful to the Government for their waste crime action plan. We have heard about some of the measures, which I fully support, including clean-up squads and taking away driving licences.
However, how will the Government monitor these things, because they will vary across the country? What potential measures does the Minister have in mind to go further? My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes set out some interesting ideas today, which we should follow up. It cannot just be for councils to tackle this; we need private landlords to take action, we need to crack down on the gangs and we need to get the police involved. There is a lot more that we need to do
For now, however, it is right that all of us in this place should place on record our thanks to all those in our communities who will not let their streets and green spaces be blighted by this scourge. I am glad that action has been taken, and I can only call for more.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this incredibly important debate.
I pay tribute to the South Park Users Group in Ilford South. Come rain or shine, they dedicate their time to keep our parks and streets clean through regular community litter picks. I also put on record my appreciation for the River Roding Trust, whose members collectively cleaned up 200 bags of rubbish from the River Roding, picking up the slack when Thames Water and the Environment Agency should have acted. I commend them for their dedication to ensuring that the residents of Ilford South live in a cleaner and safer environment.
Fly-tipping is a scourge that repeatedly comes up in conversations with residents. Recently, I visited a local school where children as young as 10 interrogated me about the fly-tipping that blights our area. The fly-tippers may think that they are invisible and that they can dump their waste and get away with it, but fly-tipping is one of the most visible crimes in our communities. When people see it on their way to work, on the school run or while walking their dog, it drains local pride, chips away at social trust and sends a message that our streets, parks and rivers do not matter.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
As a fellow east Londoner, I know that fly-tipping blights our streets and neighbourhoods; it shows a real lack of respect for our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should commend the Government for putting the onus on fly-tippers by making sure that they pay—if they do the waste crime, they do the waste time—and making sure that they are responsible for cleaning up their own mess?
Jas Athwal
I absolutely agree. I have been saying for the last 10 years that that should be done. The Government finally acting is a real positive; we are going in the right direction.
Fly-tipping blights our area, but when the council removes it quickly, people feel it is okay to dump rubbish on our streets because someone will pick it up. We cannot win either way; it becomes a vicious cycle. The more that people see the local area as a dumping ground, the more some feel enabled to fly-tip, meaning that the problem spirals unless it is fully tackled.
I know from working with my local council that decisive steps are being taken to tackle this blight on our communities. For instance, it maintains free bulky waste collection, removing a lame excuse for fly-tipping. It is cheaper to pick up from people’s doorsteps in a controlled manner than from the streets once the waste has been dumped. Redbridge council has implemented not only that policy, but the wall of shame, which is an approach that has been adopted by other councils: naming and shaming to expose the waste cowboys who impose their mess on us. That sends a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable in Ilford South and that those who fly-tip on our streets will be held accountable.
I welcome the decisive actions the Government have already taken to support local authorities battling fly-tipping, from expanding council powers to crushing the vehicles of serial fly-tippers and making offenders clean up the very streets and parks they have ruined. We need to go further to target the very worst offenders. The council needs to be able to set larger maximum fines to generally deter serial fly-tippers and to demonstrate that although fly-tipping may seem inconsequential to them, it is one of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour. With tough enforcement, councils could use extra revenue to fund detection—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Your time is up. Before calling the Front-Bench spokespeople, I remind hon. Members that although there are often good reasons for being late to a debate, it is a courtesy to both the Chair and other hon. Members participating in the debate to put in a note explaining those reasons. I call Sarah Dyke.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate.
The Government estimate that there were 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents across England last year and that waste crime costs the economy more than £1 billion a year. Such incidents represent an upward trend, with 3,000 incidents reported to Somerset council alone. However, those figures exclude incidents on private land and cases involving large-scale illegal dumping. Moreover, as is always the case, a substantial number of waste crimes are never recorded.
I want to recognise the work being done in Somerset to tackle the problem head-on. Somerset council’s Recycle More initiative handles more than 170,000 tonnes of household waste every year. Major infrastructure investment in 2020 upgraded facilities and introduced more frequent collections. Somerset’s flexible plastics trial—now concluded—demonstrated clearly how targeted local innovation can reduce fly-tipping in residential areas. That trial is proof of what is possible, yet without sustained national funding to back such local initiatives, progress stalls. The will is there, but the resources are not.
Waste crime has been dubbed the “new narcotics” by the former chair of the Environment Agency. That simply cannot go on. We must recognise it for what it is: a national emergency. We need to hold the perpetrators of these crimes to account. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to clean up illegal waste sites, catch those responsible and finally get a handle on the true extent of this environmental disaster. Organised crime gangs are making millions of pounds through illegal waste activity, without any regard for local communities, public health or the environment.
Earlier this year, a spotlight was thrown on to the issue when an estimated 21,000 tonnes of illegal waste was found at a site near Kidlington in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). I thank him for his tireless campaigning on the issue, which led to more than 400 lorry-loads of waste being removed from that site alone. There are at least 11 other similar sites identified across England, demonstrating the scale of these organised crime networks.
We are not just talking about a nuisance; this is waste crime on an industrial level. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Environment Agency is not currently equipped to tackle it. Enforcement responsibilities are dispersed across multiple agencies, with no single body explicitly accountable for both prosecution and clearing up waste crime. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have powers, but no duties to enforce, which weakens their overall enforcement effectiveness.
The Minister for Nature made that point well in a debate on the Kidlington site earlier this year, highlighting the lack of a coherent body to which to report waste crime. If citizens are not clear about where to report, they are likely to do nothing. The Environment Agency is responsible for large-scale incidents or where waste contains hazardous materials. Smaller incidents are handled by local authorities, unless it is on private land, of course, where councils handle prosecution but are not responsible for clearing up the mess. The responsibility is on members of the public to be aware of complicated regulations and then report to the correct body. Given the clear under-reporting of crime, that is simply not happening effectively.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a single national hotline for waste crime, to improve reporting, mapping and detection, because those responsible must be caught. Only 31% of incidents are currently investigated and more than half of those result in no further action, with only 13 custodial sentences handed down in England in 2024-25. As the National Rural Crime Network’s report into waste crime makes clear, the legal framework is not the problem. Unlimited fines can be levied, vehicles can be seized and prison sentences of up to five years can be handed out, but those powers are rarely used. In addition, there is an enforcement postcode lottery depending on where the offence occurs.
A recent House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee inquiry concluded that serious organised waste crime is significantly under-prioritised, despite its environmental, economic and social impacts. It was therefore disappointing that the Government rejected the Committee’s recommendation for an independent review into the entire system of waste crime. The Liberal Democrats call once again on the Minister to reverse that decision, come forward with a review and set out a Government strategy to tackle illegal dumping, including measurable metrics and targets. The Environment Agency and the Joint Unit for Waste Crime must also be adequately resourced to tackle this crime.
It is impossible to talk about enforcement without also addressing the conditions that allow this criminal market to thrive in the first place. We must review the current household waste recycling system that in part creates a market for criminal gangs to exploit. Further, decades of local authority budget cuts have eaten away at local services, with many now placing charges on the use of household waste recycling centres—an issue some residents in my constituency now face. Dorset council’s recent decision to charge Somerset residents an £8.50 fee to use the Dorset council household recycling centre in Sherborne has forced residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and surrounding areas to make a round trip of up to 28-miles to access a free household waste recycling facility in Somerset.
In addition to increasing the environmental impact of residents’ waste disposal, the new charge risks pushing people to consider illegal methods of waste disposal. Criminal gangs know that, and they are ready to exploit that temptation. I brought a petition to Parliament on this matter earlier this year that had garnered significant local support. The solution is clear: fix the recycling system, or accept that we are handing criminal gangs a business opportunity. The choice is really that simple.
The waste industry estimates that 35% of waste crime is committed by organised criminal groups, and there is reason to believe that that figure is increasing. The national rural crime unit took a report on waste crime and its links to wider rural crime to DEFRA, but it has not been published, despite repeated requests. I ask once again: will the Minister publish the report and show that the Government are committed to tackling organised crime gangs operating in the countryside?
As with a lot of rural crime, local police forces can struggle to deal with waste crime effectively due to its organised nature and the cross-border tactics deployed by criminals; yet it falls short of the National Crime Agency’s responsibility, giving criminal gangs free rein to exploit this gap. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the National Crime Agency to take over investigations into illegal dumps in the most serious cases and to improve co-ordination with local police forces. The new national police service, which was announced in the King’s Speech, will assume responsibility for serious organised crime operations, but we wait to see how organised waste crime fits within that.
I have raised my concerns about the Government’s lack of understanding about the specific needs of rural communities on many occasions, yet the policing White Paper from January made hardly any reference to rural crime. In fact, only 619 police officers and staff were assigned to dedicated rural crime teams across 37 police forces in England and Wales in 2024, representing a paltry 0.4% of the workforce.
In Somerset, there are only two—sometimes a couple more—dedicated rural crime officers covering more than 1,300 square miles; rural communities know all too well what that means in practice when crime strikes. A farmer in Long Sutton told me they were recently hit by their second break-in within 12 months; thousands of pounds of equipment was stolen but, unsurprisingly, they received little meaningful police action. That is not an isolated failure; it is what under-resourcing looks like on the ground. Proper reforms are urgently required to increase both capability and capacity. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a “countryside copper” guarantee for properly resourced dedicated rural crime teams or specialists to be embedded in every police force. I hope the Government will consider taking those proposals forward.
Criminal gangs are running sophisticated multi-cross-border operations, and the only response available is from fragmented agencies with under-resourced enforcement and powers that are almost never used. The problem is not the law, as there is already the option to levy unlimited fines and five-year sentences; they simply are not being applied. More penalties on the statute book will change nothing, if no one is resourced to enforce them. What we need is co-ordination, accountability and the political will to treat waste crime as what it is—organised crime. I urge the Minister to show that this Government are finally ready to do that.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for bringing us this important debate. We have heard many contributions about the impact on local pride, sense of belonging and importantly mental health, but it was uplifting that pretty much all Members spoke about the great work that volunteers do to tackle litter and fly-tipping in their area. It seems that everyone has some Wombles in their area—I am not 100% sure of the collective noun for Wombles, but I think it might follow the wombat and be a wisdom of Wombles. I am very pleased to say that in Epping Forest we have the Loughton town council Wombles.
Jim Shannon
They are not Wombles, but the Strangford Lough and Newtownards Wildfowlers clear the foreshore at Strangford Lough every Sunday—they did it this Sunday past. Their work as volunteers is very much admired.
Dr Hudson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. We have heard great contributions from across the House today.
Let me turn to some of the figures, which speak for themselves. Councils in England dealt with 1.26 million incidents of fly-tipping in 2024-25. That was a 9% increase on the previous year, and both the fifth successive annual increase and among the highest figure on record. The majority of those incidents, 62%, involved household waste. The most common sources were not lorry loads from organised criminals, although that is an issue I will come to, but car boots and small vans—everyday domestic dumps.
Across the country, our constituents have sadly become all too familiar with the sight of dumped bin bags, mattresses and white goods including fridges, freezers, washing machines and dishwashers. The effects are serious. As well as the obvious awful environmental consequences and the effects on nature and wildlife, fly-tipping is a public health problem, as dumped waste attracts vermin, creates fire risk and can contaminate soil and local watercourses. The harm is not only physical. Antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping causes real anxiety and distress to residents who live with it.
Sadly, my constituents in Epping Forest are not immune to the blight of fly-tipping and its harmful impacts, with many serious cases across our area caused by shameless criminals who should face the full extent of the law. Fly-tipping threatens the precious wildlife and biodiversity that our forest of Epping Forest is so privileged to enjoy. As a positive counter to that situation, I have been privileged to meet unsung heroes, litter-picking groups right across Epping Forest, including Waltham Abbey community group and Theydon Bois parish council, who selflessly give up their time to clean up our communities, as I have seen at first hand on joining their litter picks.
However, the sight of copious numbers of discarded large nitrous oxide canisters, used illegally for drug misuse and then chucked on the side of roads for those who do the right thing to clear up, is incredibly concerning. As I have raised in the House many times—I raised it with the Minister just last week—any activity to clear up waste needs to address that issue as a priority for urban, rural and semi-rural communities alike. Will the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to tackle the illegal use of nitrous oxide and the subsequent discarding of dangerous canisters, damaging our environment?
The previous Conservative Government understood the fly-tipping problem and the need for further action. We increased the upper limit for fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000 and established the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, a multi-agency taskforce bringing together key stakeholders, including the Environment Agency, the police, the National Crime Agency, the British Transport Police, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Through intelligence sharing and resource prioritisation, it has supported hundreds of operations contributing to arrests. I am pleased that the current Government are continuing with that measure.
We Conservatives also introduced several projects across England that sought to crack down on fly-tipping in residential areas, including portable CCTV cameras to patrol and capture footage across Northumberland, anti-climb fencing to protect neighbourhood areas in Hyndburn and larger recycling bins in better locations in Mansfield to ensure that the public have access to the correct disposal facilities. Those projects had demonstrable positive effects.
In Durham, which received funding from the last Government, the county council introduced educational bin stickers and permanent signage and installed CCTV on existing lighting columns. As a result, fly-tipping was cut by more than 60%. In Hyndburn, installing fencing and gates to prevent access to fly-tipping hotspots saw fly-tipping decrease by 100% in those areas in the following three months. The council saved approximately £4,000 in waste removal and clean-up costs over that period.
In addition, the Conservative Government passed the landmark Environment Act 2021, which laid the foundation for electronic waste tracking, a measure the current Government are now implementing. I had the opportunity to discuss that with the Minister just last week as we passed a necessary piece of secondary legislation on that subject.
The Minister will be aware that His Majesty’s official Opposition tabled amendments during the passage of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 that would have added points to driving licences for fly-tipping. That was a Conservative manifesto commitment and it is most welcome that the Government have finally adopted that policy.
On the subject of manifestos, the Labour manifesto included this commitment:
“Fly-tippers and vandals will…be forced to clean up the mess they have created.”
I am sure that the Minister will have had the same conversations as I have had with farmers and landowners about the issue of fly-tipping on private property: that is not the responsibility of the local authority, whereas on public land it tends to be. We have heard about that from across the House today.
When the fly-tipping is on private property, the landowner in many cases is left to pay sometimes thousands of pounds to clean up someone else’s mess. To make the situation worse, the landowner may sometimes face landfill tax liabilities despite being the victim, not the perpetrator. Meanwhile, offenders frequently face little or no meaningful action. Once again, the figures speak for themselves: nine in 10 members of the Country Land and Business Association report being targeted within the past year, with over three quarters suffering a significant financial impact. Although stronger enforcement and prevention measures will help to reduce incidents happening, can the Minister outline what support is available to landowners and farmers who are being particularly targeted?
I would like to touch on the fact that although fly-tipping happens all over the country, some areas suffer more than others. The last Government provided targeted investment to the areas most affected by fly-tipping. Furthermore, just as the very act of fly-tipping varies geographically, so too does the rate of enforcement action. Only 31% of fly-tipping incidents are investigated, and over half the investigations result in no further action. Across England in 2024-25, there were just 13 custodial sentences for fly-tipping offences.
The Government have issued guidance to local councils, but guidance is one thing and action another. The Minister may be aware that the Countryside Alliance has called on the Government to incentivise local authorities to use the enforcement powers available to them. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that suggestion.
We are united across the House in our shared desire to end fly-tipping and to ensure that those who commit this crime are punished appropriately. To do that, local authorities need the right resources and tools, but more importantly they need to use them. We can do more to tackle fly-tipping, and I hope that the Government come forward with ambitious proposals.
It has been great today to see so many people from across the House talking not only about this issue, but very much about what it means to their local community. A sense of optimism comes from highlighting the great work that local volunteers do. To conclude, I thank for their great contributions and interventions my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and the hon. Members for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal).
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the proposer of the debate to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this very well attended debate. Let me also thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable points. It is great to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople about everything that this Government need to do, but it was under the coalition Government and their cuts that the beginnings of this public squalor occurred. In the so-called big society of David Cameron, we did not realise we were all going to have to become litter-picking Womble troops, set up our own food banks to feed our communities and end up being lollipop crossing wardens as well, because of the severe cuts that happened to local government on the coalition Government’s watch.
It is fitting that we are having this debate at the beginning of London Climate Action Week. Everybody’s environment starts at their front door—it is not something out there in the oceans and forests; it is about stuff that is literally in the streets where we live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, this is a matter of social justice. It is about environmental justice, but also about the poorest people bearing the consequences of environmental crime. It is an epidemic that proliferated under the coalition and it became a pandemic from 2015. The failure to implement any new policy and the starvation of local government that saw local tips close led to this criminal activity and this waste crime epidemic.
Fly-tipping scars our streets and parks and takes pride away but it also robs us, as taxpayers. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, waste criminals—they are not cowboys; they are criminals—evaded at least £1 billion of landfill tax. Every fridge and bit of kitchen equipment dumped as a result of a refurb has not been disposed of correctly in either landfill or incineration; that is unacceptable. We are determined to take back control of our streets, parks and countryside from those criminals.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about setting up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget for the current financial year by 50%, from £10 million to over £15 million. Over the next three years, we will give the Environment Agency an additional £45 million, so that budget is going up from £10 million to £15 million this year and then up to £30 million—we have trebled it. We are not producing action plans, but putting our money where our mouth is. That will mean more boots on the ground and more drones in the air.
We have pursued major regulatory reforms and boosted the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since the Government came to power, the EA has stopped illegal waste activity at over 1,500 sites and has achieved 125 prosecutions, with 10 people going to prison. Crimestoppers has launched a national campaign encouraging the public to play their part by calling 0800 555 111 to anonymously report suspicious activity. I encourage all hon. Members to amplify that campaign, which is running on social media at the moment. Our waste crime action plan is the next step and it is a scale-up. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts; secondly, we are strengthening enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished; and thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. Let me take each of those points in turn.
First there is prevention. Stopping waste crime means putting legislation through Parliament that will replace the outdated paper systems, an issue neglected under the previous Government, with mandatory digital waste tracking: a single UK-wide platform that will monitor waste movements in real time. Regulators will be able to spot diversion away from legitimate pathways and spot fraud, such as misdescription of waste, at a much earlier stage in the chain.
We have laid secondary legislation that will overhaul the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system so that there will be no more Beau Vines registered as waste dealers. We are moving from a light-touch system to full environmental permitting. We are removing widely abused waste permit exemptions on tyres, end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal, and tightening up seven other waste permit exemptions. We are also going after the tax avoiders. HMRC is expanding tax check rules to the waste sector, so if someone’s tax record is questionable, we will ask them questions before renewing their licence.
Mary Creagh
I will make some progress. We are matching prevention with tougher enforcement and pursuing the criminals with every tool in the box. We are increasing the Environment Agency’s budget, as I mentioned, and giving it new police-style powers to intervene earlier, disrupt the criminals and bring them to justice before their illegal operations become established. We have to nip this in the bud when it happens; that is what we know works.
Mary Creagh
No, I will finish my point. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities. The penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase penalties for offenders to up to five years in prison. We know that sometimes those offenders will not be prosecuted for environmental crime but potentially for money laundering because they are not just criminals in one area; they have an entire criminal enterprise of which waste crime is just one branch.
On the clean-up, we are going after the criminals to make sure that they pay. We have worked with other Departments to publish criteria for cleaning up those sites where intervention is most needed. We are currently funding clean-up for Bolton House Road in Wigan, Alan Ramsbottom Way in Hyndburn and Worthing Road in Sheffield. We will go much further to prevent land owners picking up the bill in the future and work with the insurance industry to explore new models to shield farmers, business and land owners from bearing the cost of waste in their areas.
We recognise the role that councils have and the different challenges that they face. Thanks to this Labour Government, they have more powers at their disposal than ever before: issuing fixed penalty notices, prosecuting offenders and launching investigations. Ealing council, for example, has issued 1,993 fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping in 2024-25. When councils say that they do not have the money, it is often that they do not have the will or the skills. They can also seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and crush them—or, for those interested in reuse, as I am, sell them. We have published best practice guidance and case studies on vehicle seizure to give councils the confidence to use those powers.
The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, chaired by DEFRA officials, has that guidance and Members may wish to bring it to the attention of their local councils. We have secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 for courts to impose up to nine penalty points on driving licences for fly-tipping offences. That is a strong deterrent and will make people think twice before they do such a job for their mates on the weekend.
We are also consulting on a proposal to give local authorities powers to issue conditional cautions to suspected fly-tippers. Those are a range of pre-court community-based sanctions. We all want to see these guys—it is mostly guys—going to prison, but this Government inherited a court backlog along with prisons full to bursting. However, these cautions could see offenders cleaning our streets or parks in an unpaid capacity, and being required to pay back the cost of cleaning up the waste that they have dumped. It gives local authorities another tool in the box.
I pay tribute to all the volunteers who have worked in this area, not least in my own city of Coventry, including at Destination Ball Hill and the Reverend Matthew Bull at St John the Divine, where I spent a very sweaty two hours cleaning up Willenhall last Friday.
Mary Creagh
I will not.
I went back on Saturday and already someone had littered their Burger King wrapper out of a car. The issue is about people and it is very annoying. As a cyclist, I remember posting a cigarette box back through the window of a motorist who had just littered it right in front of my bike; that was one of my more fruity exchanges.
We need to follow Coventry city council’s lead and have a wall of shame and CCTV, as there is in areas such as Clements Street in my constituency. Regarding the situation in Hexham, there is Waste and Resources Action Programme guidance on the accessibility of household waste and recycling centres. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) to bring that guidance to the attention of his council. It is also important that we have more tidy Fridays. Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe has been seconded from the Metropolitan police to the National Police Chief’s Council to co-ordinate this work between police forces across the country.
I am disappointed to hear about the Lib Dems in Portsmouth. It is really important for us to work with National Highways and crowd everybody into this space.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for that response. I welcome the news about the tax checks and greater intervention of HMRC and the Organised Crime Task Force. Perhaps it would help to bring Louisa Rolfe into Parliament for a roundtable to discuss how police forces are co-ordinating on this matter across the country; there would be widespread interest, judging by the number of people who have contributed today. I am very grateful to colleagues for turning up and supporting this debate.
I am keen to explore what the point about councils having the funds but not the will or the skills means in practice. Fundamentally, the issue is about an agreement between the people and the state. We pay our taxes with an expectation that services will be provided. The social contract is quite fragile at the moment and easily undermined. It is disappointing that so many of our fellow citizens are undermining it for the majority in the country. It is worth remembering that the social contract remains and continues; perhaps we should focus on the positives, given that so many people believe in it, reinforce it and give their time.
I thank Members for their time and contributions. It was all incredibly thoughtful. I look forward to continuing discussions with the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping in residential areas and associated impacts.
Border Security: UK-Ireland Co-operation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK-Ireland co-operation on border security.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Ten years ago today, the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. That historic decision should have ushered in a new era. People voted to strengthen our borders, reclaim our sovereignty and put the safety of our citizens first.
During the negotiations that followed, Northern Ireland was repeatedly assured that our place in the United Kingdom would be respected and protected, but what has followed has been nothing short of betrayal. Post-Brexit settlements were largely negotiated by politicians who voted to remain—people whose hearts were never in the democratic mandate with which they were entrusted. The result: a border system so broken that only one asylum seeker has been returned to the Republic of Ireland since 2020—I repeat, that is only one asylum seeker over a five-year period—even as illegal entrants exploit the border day after day. That is simply unacceptable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The party that she and I belong to has been highlighting this back-door approach for a number of years, but the Government have refused to act. The people recently took to the streets in their thousands to tell their Government peacefully that action was needed. Does she agree that the Government must listen and begin to act today? We look forward to what the Minister will say to reassure us.
Carla Lockhart
I will address just that as I go on with my speech. We are the only part of the UK with a soft land border with the EU. That reality has been downplayed by politicians in London and Dublin alike when it comes to illegal immigration. Northern Ireland has been left uniquely exposed—the weak link in the UK’s border security chain—and our people have been put at risk. In the case of the Sudanese attacker, they were quite literally at risk of life and limb. The attempted beheading in Belfast has served as a brutal reminder to us all. That is what happens when Northern Ireland’s security is treated as an afterthought.
The attacker came here illegally. He travelled from Sudan to Paris, flew to Dublin and took a bus to Belfast. That is all public knowledge. He was granted asylum with astonishing haste. He passed through two other safe countries first. He completed a 10-page application to gain access—really? It is simply not acceptable that our UK border with the Republic of Ireland has been left so porous.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Given the clear and present danger posed by terrorism across the world, organised crime, and the trafficking of drugs, people and illegal weapons across the border, does she agree that it is incumbent on both Governments to deepen real-time intelligence and data sharing, and to tighten the legal and procedural frameworks to streamline extradition? I also point out that our border is totally open; thousands of people could be entering the UK through Northern Ireland. We do not have any numbers, we do not know who is coming, and we do not know how good or bad those individuals could be.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is to protect its citizens. When violent offenders can simply walk or drive across the border, that duty is not being met. The Government have taken strenuous efforts to check goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland, including plants, agricultural machinery and seeds, yet illegal migrants can simply hop on a bus from the Republic of Ireland and cross the border, no questions asked and no vetting required.
When functioning properly, the common travel area is a practical arrangement that works well for people living right across these islands. It ensures that UK and Irish citizens can travel relatively freely within the zone, at least in principle. That is a sensible system and we should keep it that way.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is the hon. Lady surprised by the misrepresentation from the Secretary of State about what the common travel area means? It means simply that there is common travel for those who are legally in the country, not those who are illegally in the country. Is she also surprised that, for all the Government’s talk, they have taken no steps to deal with the pull factors that bring these illegal immigrants to the United Kingdom? They get free accommodation immediately when they apply for asylum, a weekly amount of money and they are registered with a GP and a dentist, and we are then surprised that they pass through many safe countries to come to the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is reading my speech—I agree totally. For the CTA to work, it cannot be abused. It was built on trust between two sovereign nations. It is not a back door for illegal migration. In theory, the CTA is not intended for asylum seekers, but, in practice, the open land border is being shamelessly exploited by people who want to dodge UK immigration controls. The attack in Belfast is clear evidence that this loophole is wide open to abuse by dangerous individuals.
The problems do not stop there. Abuse of the CTA is happening right across the board, not only on our roads but at our airports and seaports. In the past year alone, more than 900 individuals have been detected abusing CTA routes. Northern Ireland is being used as a soft point of access into the United Kingdom. While London and Dublin trade warm words about co-operation, our ports, airports and communities are carrying the burden of a system that is simply not working.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of the porous border, no one expects a hard border constituting installations and so on, but I have been trying to get the Government to release the figures about how many electronic travel authorisations there have been, and I never get an answer. We do not even know the numbers for people who are coming in legally to tour, visit or holiday.
Carla Lockhart
My hon. Friend is correct. The fact that there is a lack of information that the Government are willing to provide on all manner of things regarding the border and movements back and forward is frustrating.
We need bus and rail checks like those in the Republic. The Republic of Ireland already carries out immigration checks without damaging the CTA. It has shown that it is perfectly possible to balance two things: maintaining the ease of movement while implementing targeted enforcement to protect public safety. We must remember that nothing in the Belfast agreement prevents proper immigration checks. The agreement requires the removal of military infrastructure. It did not, and never could, prevent the UK from protecting the integrity of its own borders.
When migrants began fleeing to Northern Ireland to avoid the Rwanda scheme, the Republic of Ireland responded by intensifying immigration checks on vehicles travelling south. Buses and other vehicles regularly get pulled over on roads south of the border in order to verify people’s identity documents. If the Republic can use that kind of targeted enforcement to protect its citizens, why can we not do the same in Northern Ireland?
When people see weak border controls and a Government unwilling to grip the issue, frustrations grow. Upper Bann is home to people from many different backgrounds who make an enormous contribution to our community every day. They run businesses, work in our hospitals and care homes, contribute to our economy and enrich community life. I am particularly proud of the Indian community in Upper Bann. They are a wonderful people, whose entrepreneurial spirit and strong family values have enriched our constituency. That is why I draw a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration. My concerns today are about illegal immigration and the border that is too often exploited by those trying to bypass proper processes.
As politicians, we must stop talking around this issue and start addressing it. The public deserve honesty about long-standing failures to tackle immigration and secure our borders. Tensions do not appear out of thin air, and if politicians simply offer warm words while dodging the root cause, those tensions will only deepen. Legitimate concerns must not be dismissed.
We must also be honest about another uncomfortable truth. It is not racist to be concerned about illegal immigration. It is not racist to expect secure borders. It is not racist to ask who is entering our country, how they have arrived here and whether the system is operating fairly or correctly. The overwhelming majority of people raising these concerns are decent, law-abiding citizens who care deeply about their communities and their country. They have every right to express their concerns through peaceful and lawful protests.
Too often, however, those asking legitimate questions have been dismissed, smeared or ignored. Some of the language used by sections of the media and weak politicians has been disgraceful. Rather than engaging with genuine public concerns, they have chosen to caricature, lecture or label people. That approach does not solve the problem; it only deepens public frustration and further erodes trust in our institutions. As politicians, our responsibility is not to silence concerns or pretend that they do not exist. Our responsibility is to listen, speak honestly and take action when action is needed.
Let me be clear: I condemn violence. I have repeatedly called for calm, for respect for the law, and for the space to address the real issues that lie beneath the anger. There is no justification for attacking innocent people, destroying property or attacking the police. That being said, we must not be distracted from the legitimate concerns about illegal immigration. The root cause of the problem can no longer be ignored. We need people to see that the Government in Westminster are on their side. That starts with being honest about why so many people are coming to the United Kingdom and exploiting the soft border.
Britain is seen as an attractive destination. Those who arrive know they will receive taxpayer-funded accommodation, weekly financial support payments, free access to NHS healthcare, school places for their children, interpretation services, legal aid and other forms of support. They also know that enforcement is weak and removals are rare, which is a powerful pull factor.
The cost for asylum hotel accommodation in 2023, at the height of the crisis, was around £9 million per day, every day. Even now, it is estimated that the cost of housing asylum seekers will rocket to £15.3 billion, as opposed to the £4.5 billion that had been forecast. That is more than three times the original estimate. These are not abstract figures; this is taxpayers’ money that could otherwise be spent on the NHS, our schools, our roads and our police.
The British people are generous and compassionate; they will always support those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. But every Government have a first duty to look after their own citizens. Let us be honest: the boats that people see coming in have single males on them, and if I or you were fleeing a war-torn country, what is the first thing you would seek to protect? It would be your wife and your family. While the extra emergency funding for the PSNI is welcome, the damage has already been done. We need action that prevents the violence in the first place.
In closing, I have three requests of the Minister. First, what steps will he take to ensure that there is an operational plan that includes the rapid removal of those with no right to be here and a joint approach that stops violent offenders exploiting the differences between the two jurisdictions? Secondly, what steps will he take to review CTA safeguards and press for action regarding better checks in Northern Ireland? Lastly, how does he intend to restore public trust in the UK’s broken, exploited immigration system?
If we truly want to realise the promise of Brexit, Northern Ireland’s place in the Union must mean something. Protecting citizens is a basic duty of any sovereign state, and that includes consistent border control across all four nations of the UK. If we take the tough decisions now, we can forge a future where security is guaranteed and sovereignty is upheld, and we have a UK that stands strong, tall and united once again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate on a topic of great significance. We have had a number of contributions, and I am grateful for them all. I respect the valid concerns and absolutely agree that having those concerns is not racist.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I began my remarks by making the very simple, but important, point that the security of the UK border depends to a very large extent on co-operation. The nature of the threats we face demands that we work relentlessly across services, sectors and borders to ensure that we have the clearest possible picture of what and who is coming into our country.
In that effort, Ireland is without question one of our most crucial partners. It is a deep and long-standing partnership underpinned by a shared determination to uphold the first duty of any Government: ensuring the safety and security of our nations. It is also an active partnership. The CTA is at the centre of the active partnership. Having been in operation for over a century, it is an enduring arrangement between the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Crown dependencies. It is unique and invaluable, allowing British and Irish citizens to move freely, live and work across our jurisdictions and maintain the close links that underpin our shared history.
However, the success of the CTA depends above all on us preserving its security and integrity. That means working closely with our Irish counterparts to identify emerging risks and trends. Our co-operation is comprehensive, spanning operational activity, intelligence sharing and joint strategic planning. When patterns of abuse are detected, we co-ordinate action to disrupt them, ensuring a consistent and effective response on both sides. We are taking that co-operation further. At the UK-Ireland summit in March, the Prime Minister and Taoiseach agreed to expand our immigration data sharing arrangements. That work is aimed squarely at preventing those who are not entitled to CTA rights from exploiting the free movement provisions. That is an important step forward in further strengthening the security architecture that underpins the CTA.
It is also important to recognise that although the CTA enables close co-operation, it does not require fully harmonised immigration systems. Each country retains control of its own borders and decision making. While there are no routine immigration controls within the CTA and no controls on the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border, the UK operates intelligence-led enforcement activity on CTA routes to identify those attempting to abuse the CTA arrangement. Those targeted risk-based interventions also operate away from the land border in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: everyone entering the United Kingdom must meet our immigration requirements, regardless of where they arrive from. Where individuals attempt to evade those requirements, they are liable to be detained and, if appropriate, removed and deported.
In Northern Ireland, the absence of a hard border remains fundamental, supporting peace, stability and the commitment of the Good Friday agreement. However, the openness must be matched by robust modern enforcement of our border security through our joint work with Ireland and the Crown dependencies, to further secure the external border of the CTA, and in-country through our intelligence-led operational activity on intra-CTA routes.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is? They proactively indicate to individuals how they can access the United Kingdom. Does the Minister understand that I could give him a litany of cases of individuals who have been removed from the United Kingdom and returned to Dublin—the country in which they arrived—only for them to return on the Ulsterbus? One individual flouted the system in that way on three separate occasions.
Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the Home Secretary says that is because of the Belfast agreement? That is not right and there needs to be some openness.
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his well-made points. I disagree that those important diplomatic relations and agreements are hollow, but I will take away the point about the Irish border and feed it back to officials. That is disturbing, and of course I absolutely disagree with it.
I turn briefly to our work on immigration enforcement. We have removed nearly 70,000 individuals since the end of March, which is a 41% increase on the number of returns recorded in the previous 21-month period. The Government will step up and intensify immigration enforcement to track down, detain, arrest and remove illegal migrants in Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary is investing more than £3 billion in immigration enforcement activity over the next three years, including in Northern Ireland, where we will see a 20% increase in officers compared with 2023.
I cannot ignore the extremely important points made about the incident in Belfast, which disturbed us all. I agree that action needs to be taken to ensure that those in our country do not commit offences. Foreign national offender removals have increased significantly under this Government, but we do not hide behind that. We understand that there is more to do, and we will continue to pursue, deport and remove those who should not be here. I will not go into any more detail about that specific individual than we have already given. We have confirmed that he is Sudanese, and we know how he entered the country.
An important point was made about pull factors. We inherited a situation in which illegal and legal migration was too high. Illegal migration is still too high. We see that on small boat crossings and other clandestine entry points. We have reformed and are reforming the immigration system to remove the pull factors, making it less attractive to come to the country. We are aligning our asylum system with the rest of Europe to reduce the asylum shopping that we have seen over the last four or five years. We are also making it easier to remove and deport people, which is why that number is up 41% to nearly 70,000, but we will go further, and there will be more announcements on that in due course.
Illegal migration is costly, which is another reason to bring it down. Asylum accommodation costs the taxpayer far too much, so we are moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites. In Northern Ireland, asylum accommodation has reduced by about 10%.
I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all Members who contributed. They raised important points, and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to reaffirm the UK Government’s steadfast commitment.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the Minister for his response, but my constituents will be listening, and they will say that they have learned absolutely nothing and know nothing more about illegal immigration than is already in the public domain. They will have heard the word “disturbing” in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who referenced the case of an individual returning three times.
We are living with this in Northern Ireland. We are living in communities that feel unsafe because of illegal immigration, yet they see a Government who are not even willing to take the full time to debate this issue, and are unwilling to give us evidence that they are taking it seriously. The Minister talks about data sharing—really? We need action. We need buses. We need real checks. We need action, not data sharing.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I absolutely disagree with the framing that we are not taking this issue seriously. We are here today having a debate, and on top of that we are working day in, day out to fix the immigration system that we inherited. Deportations, removals and asylum processing are up, and hotel use is down. That is not by accident; it is through commitment and hard work from the Home Office.
I am the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, and I, too, am at the front of the illegal migration problem, so I understand the frustration and the passion. I agree that it is not racist to have those views against illegal migration. We are working so hard to fix it, but it does not happen overnight. Members have an absolute commitment from the Home Secretary and all Home Office Ministers that we are dealing with it, and we are looking at the CTA, too. As I have set out, a close and active partnership is already in place, and it will undoubtedly remain an integral part of our efforts to detect, disrupt and deter the threats we face to secure our border and ultimately to keep our country safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I am also pleased to see the Minister for the Indo-Pacific in her place; I did want this to be an Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office debate, even though the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was also answering questions this week, because, while my focus will be on environmental issues, this is also about our broader relationship with a country that is increasingly important to us.
Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world by population, behind India, China and the US. It is the largest south-east Asian economy, and the only one in the G20. It has seen steady—rather than spectacular—economic growth in recent years. While it does not currently account for a huge part of our trade, there is much potential. The UK-Indonesia economic partnership was launched earlier this year, and I gather that negotiations for a full trade deal are on the cards. So economically, it matters to us.
Indonesia is also one of the most environmentally important countries in the world. It has vast tropical rainforests, deep peatlands, iconic species such as the orangutan, the Sumatran tiger, elephants and the Komodo dragon, and amazing biodiversity in the waters and reefs around its 17,000 islands. It absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the UK and USA emit combined. Healthy peat stores huge quantities of carbon but, if drained, it will start to release carbon, making it contribute negatively. Forest loss also leads to major CO2 output annually.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. As she is setting out, peatlands store more carbon than all the world’s forests combined, whether that be on the Somerset levels in my constituency or in the rainforests of Borneo, and their destruction accelerates the climate crisis. Does she agree that, rather than cutting climate funding, the Government should be investing in bilateral peatland partnerships, sharing our British expertise to protect these irreplaceable global carbon stores?
Kerry McCarthy
I certainly think that peatlands are incredibly important. It has been one of my frustrations that we put so much emphasis on forests, and on the UK on planting trees—like a race to how many millions of trees each party can pledge to plant—whereas, as the hon. Member says, the carbon sequestration impact of peatlands is greater. We need to do much more to protect them, including, I would say, banning horticultural peat, which I know she has campaigned long and hard for.
I will come on to the question of climate finance later, but I will say that we are in a world in which public money is under severe constraints. The USA, for example, has pulled out of its commitments under COP. I want to see a lot more done to use public money, and philanthropic money, as a catalyst to leverage in far more private sector funding, including through things such as the voluntary carbon and nature markets, so that we can get that finance into protecting our forests, our peatlands and, indeed, our marine environment, which I will touch on a bit later as well.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking about peatlands; she will know that Indonesia had a huge, deep burn of its peatlands in 2019, with 31,000 sq km of land burned. In the UK, when we had a terrible peatland fire on Saddleworth moor in 2018, just the year before, an estimated 4.5 million people suffered from the particulate matter—the smoke that went into their lungs—and the health conditions caused by that. Keeping those peatlands moist, damp and wetted in Indonesia is so important. My hon. Friend rightly talked about the population of Indonesia being so large; it is so concentrated that it can be desperately affected by that health risk.
Kerry McCarthy
I very much agree. We both spent the Easter recess wading through peatlands. I was going to say that we were wading up to our knees; I was wading up to my knees, but for everyone else there the peat came up to about mid-calf on them. I had very short wellies on, too—I was given children’s ones. There was an awful lot of squelching going on. Nevertheless, it was amazing to see the richness of the peatlands. We also took boats along the river. The water there is brown—apparently it is entirely drinkable—because of the peat in the water supply. I very much agree that stopping peatland fires and underground burning are as important as stopping the wildfires that destroy our forests.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for rightly securing this debate. She has given us some of the problems and, in her intervention, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) suggested some of the things that could happen to solve them.
Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a number of small and medium-sized green tech businesses. They are innovative firms, who have new ideas about how to do things. Although I am not smarter than anybody else, I think that in Northern Ireland we are capable of giving some help to others.
Might there be access for companies in Strangford to bidding pipelines or other international investments, to ensure that we can help? Obviously, it would be at a price, because that is how businesses operate; they exist to make a profit. If that is possible, perhaps the hon. Lady would be kind enough to direct me on the right way to go.
Kerry McCarthy
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the Minister, because she is the one with the power to put him in touch with the embassy, for example.
However, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was at the desertification COP in Riyadh in December 2024, which was all about land degradation and water scarcity. I went to the UK stand, which had a number of British investors. What really struck home with me there was a small company in my constituency called LettUs Grow, which grows salad vegetables through aeroponics, so no water is required and the company has a very low carbon footprint.
It was brilliant to see out in Riyadh that countries such as Jordan and Iraq, which are managing extreme water scarcity, were aware that a company in Bristol might be of use to them in future. We need to use opportunities such as those showcases at COPs to illustrate what we do, so that our companies can find buyers in the markets that need their products the most.
Jim Shannon
If Members have not had the chance to go to it already, I will just let them know that the British Red Cross is holding an event in a dining room A or B today. Earlier, I was talking to a young lady who is doing some work in Nepal on water issues, including water shortage. There is flooding in Nepal, but it is projected that in about 20 years’ time there will perhaps be a water shortage in the country. The British Red Cross might have some innovations or ideas for Nepal. The hon. Lady and I both know the British Red Cross; I know that she knows it very well. There is an organisation that perhaps could help, too.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Member makes a very important point. At Foreign Office questions last week, I had the first question on the Order Paper, which was very ably answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. My question was about the Tibetan plateau, the environmental degradation there and what China is doing to divert water sources. Obviously, Nepal is part of that situation, as it is in the Himalayas. I think that a fifth of the world’s population depends on the Tibetan plateau for water sources.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks out the answer that the Minister gave me on that occasion, he will see that we have quite a few international initiatives that try to ensure that people get access to the water that they need.
If Indonesia is under threat environmentally, that affects us all, as I think some interventions today have already illustrated. Over recent decades, Indonesia has lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest each year. The main drivers of that loss are unsustainable agriculture, especially palm oil production, legal and illegal logging, mining, and rapid urbanisation.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will recognise that where there is such degradation, huge amounts of biodiversity are lost. Indonesia is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, and I am grateful to the Indonesian Government for the work that they have been focused on in this regard.
My hon. Friend will also know that forests in Indonesia are home not only to flora and fauna, but to people as well. The Indonesian Government agreed to a visit from the UN Human Rights Commissioner six years ago—that visit has not happened yet. I hope that the UK Government can keep pushing on that. Does she agree that protection for flora and fauna, which she is talking about so eloquently, has to go alongside protection for people as well?
Kerry McCarthy
I absolutely agree. I have just come from an event that Fairtrade is hosting in the Inter-Parliamentary Union room, at which people were talking, among other things, about the forest risk commodities legislation—I will come on to that later, because the Government have announced regulations today—and about the cost to smallholders and indigenous communities of complying with it. Of course, we want to ensure sustainability and stamp out deforestation in the supply chain, but we have to remember that there are small farmers and indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on that.
At Easter, a number of us went to Indonesia—Borneo, in particular—and met communities doing agroforestry projects. We were looking at how we could support them. It was mostly about orangutans, which I will talk about at some length in a moment, but the people matter very much too.
Barry Gardiner
This is an essential point. My hon. Friend will remember the words of Pak Ja Martin, who was in charge of the project that we went to see. He said, “You can’t talk conservation to people who are hungry.” Therefore, local indigenous people, who for centuries have protected and conserved their environment, must be involved. That was a key aspect of what we went to look at.
Kerry McCarthy
I could not agree more. I really appreciate all the interventions, which are a very good way of getting the debate flowing, but it is quite easy for me to lose my place. I was talking about the impact of mining, logging and urbanisation, and about the fact that forest and peatlands have been damaged by wild fires. I will come on to the marine environment later.
The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to help reverse these problems. In a joint statement in November 2024, our Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia agreed a new strategic partnership, underpinned by people, planet, prosperity and peace. It included a commitment to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, conservation of ocean species, sustainable supply chains and food security.
At COP29 in Baku in 2024, we pledged £239 million to halt and reverse deforestation in forest-rich nations that act as critical carbon sinks, including Indonesia. The measures included £188 million for high-integrity forest carbon markets, £48 million for blended finance for forest programmes to attract private investment and £3 million for the United Nations framework convention on climate change to support communities to benefit from forest restoration.
We have also funded some specific Indonesia programmes, including UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions, which covers low-carbon transportation and energy efficiency. Phase 5 of a 20-year forestry programme looking at timber governance, legislation and regulation has had £12 million from us. The UK partnered with Jakarta and funded the Nature Transition Support programme for biodiversity protection in key national parks and pioneer carbon and biodiversity credit markets. The Climate and Ocean Adaptation and Sustainable Transition programme is funded by the UK’s Blue Planet fund. I have several more things on my list, but I am slightly worried that I will steal the Minister’s thunder. I suspect that she will tell us a bit about what the UK has done, so I will save them for her. As I say, good things have happened, but I will now focus on the challenges.
I have been fortunate enough to visit Indonesia twice in the last couple of years. In April 2025, as the then Climate Minister, I represented the UK at the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade dialogue meeting in Malaysia. Indonesia had been co-chair of the dialogue with the UK, but was handing over to Malaysia, so my visit took in both countries. The discussion mostly focused on palm oil, as hon. Members would expect, and the theme of the dialogue was smallholders. I think I am right in saying that, in both countries, about 50% of palm oil production comes from smallholders. Although it is easy for the larger agricultural concerns to monitor regulations, comply with the certification and do all the bureaucracy that is involved in that, it is much more difficult for smallholders. As we have said, we need to bear their needs and livelihoods in mind.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said that the first thing for people is always to feed their children and look after their families, and he is absolutely right: that is critical. If we cannot get that right, nothing can happen. Palm oil is in short supply at the moment, so how can we better ensure that those who produce it get the price they want, and the rest of the world gets the supply it needs? We need to find a balance, so perhaps we need a working partnership.
Kerry McCarthy
That is probably the subject for another long debate, because it gets into the inequities in global food supply chains and making sure that farmers—whether in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or the heart of the Indonesian rainforest—get fairly rewarded for what they do. I would say that a lot of products with palm oil in them are probably not the best elements of a healthy diet, such as the ultra-processed foods we should be stamping out. However, palm oil can be sustainable, and I will come on to talk about how we ensure that it is. Even if some palm oil products someone ends up consuming are not particularly great, there are others where palm oil is an important part of our food systems.
Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, supplying more than half of global exports. Palm oil accounts for around 4.5% of GDP and supports 16 million jobs, with many of those involved being smallholders, as I said. This is a dilemma that many emerging economies face: going for growth, exploiting abundant natural resources to the max and boosting the livelihoods of people who might otherwise be living in poverty, or protecting their environment. However, I do not think those two things need to be at odds with each other.
It is true that palm oil has historically been linked to deforestation, peatland drainage and biodiversity loss, but Indonesia has been taking steps to address that. A mandatory national certification scheme for Indonesian sustainable palm oil, known as ISPO, was introduced in 2011. A palm oil moratorium was introduced in 2018, halting new plantation permits and revoking some non-compliant concessions, and many private sector companies have adopted NDPE, or “No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation” policies.
Indonesia has also acted more widely to protect its forests and peatlands. Forest and peatland moratoriums were introduced in 2011 and made permanent in 2019. New permits to clear primary forests and peatlands were suspended, and that was complemented by peatland restoration programmes and stronger protection against wildfires. Secondary forests are still vulnerable, however, and many forests remain exposed within existing concessions.
Indonesia’s efforts are now focused on scaling up certification, strengthening enforcement and ensuring that future growth in palm oil production does not come at the expense of remaining forests, but this is a global issue, and we cannot expect Indonesia to act alone. We know that 90% of all global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion to meet international demand for traded commodities. What we consume in this country is contributing to the destruction of forests and peatlands across the globe. The Government’s figures show that, in 2023, British consumption of everyday goods, such as palm oil, cocoa, rubber and soy, was linked to the clearing of around 29,000 hectares of forests worldwide. That is an area two and a half times the size of Manchester—we normally say the size of Wales, but perhaps Manchester is where it is at these days.
This was going to be the point at which I called out the Government for not making more progress with our legislation on forest risk commodities. I was going to say that we cannot have any credibility on the global stage in co-chairing initiatives such as the FACT—forest, agriculture and commodity trade—dialogue or the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership, which we co-chair with Guyana, if we are not prepared to take steps to stamp out deforestation in our own supply chains.
During my time as Climate Minister, I spoke often to the Minister for Nature and the FCDO Minister responsible for international development, as well as to our two excellent envoys for climate and nature—Rachel Kyte and Ruth Davis—about this issue. I also pay tribute to the team in the international forest unit, which spans the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the FCDO, who were great to work with.
Our conversations went back and forth on the pros and cons of going down the EU route on regulation, which was focused on the concept of sustainability, or the route proposed by the previous UK Government under the Environment Act 2021, which was based on legality. There was a valid discussion to be had about which approach was best, complicated by the fact that the EU approach would apply in Northern Ireland.
What should not have been up for debate was whether we would act at all, yet some parts of Government were arguing that this represented another burden on business, which we could not impose. Businesses such as Ferrero, which I met, were calling for regulation, as were supermarkets. The opposition within Government was a straw man to argue for delay or, in fact, for dropping the proposal altogether.
As I said, I came here prepared to vent my frustration at the delay, but I was pleased to get a heads-up from the Nature Minister last night that the Government are announcing today, at London Climate Action Week, that they are moving ahead with the regulations. UK businesses that trade in internationally sourced commodities such as palm oil will be legally required to check that their supply chains are free from products linked to illegal land clearances and the destruction of the world’s rainforests.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I was also delighted to see today that that announcement has been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that the five-year delay in passing the regulations has meant that imports totalling 54,000 hectares of tropical forests have happened? That is an area the size of Leeds.
Kerry McCarthy
I was going to wind my hon. Friend up by saying that I have no idea how big Leeds is—slightly bigger than Bristol, I think—but he is right that delay has consequences. I gather that the Government have announced a consultation now, but we do not want that to drag on. We must ensure that it is a genuine consultation, but that it is time-limited and that action follows as swiftly as possible.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does she agree that, as part of that consultation, many of us would like the Government to consider that this should not just be a matter of legality, but of actual deforestation? She will know of cases where other countries have passed similar legislation; in Brazil, its then President changed the law to make sure that the companies that were deforesting were able to comply with our legislation, and therefore to continue the trade. There is a loophole here. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation would do well to close it?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is right. One of my concerns was that Bolsonaro was making legal what should clearly have been illegal. The counter-argument was that there was something slightly colonialist about dictating how a country should decide on what was sustainable for its own purposes, and there were some voices on that side.
As I understand it, the UK will start on the basis of what is illegal in the country from which we are sourcing the products, but the intention will be eventually to align with the EU regulation on deforestation-free products over time, and the ultimate goal is a blanket deforestation-free standard that would legally require products to be produced without any forest loss or land conversion whatever. That is the end goal; the EUDR has run into some problems and its implementation was delayed—it should have been at the end of last year, and now it may be at the end of this year—so the idea is that we move ahead with what we have already drafted under the Environment Act, and then better will follow. The British Retail Consortium today welcomed the announcement, which is another indication that business does want this change.
While regulation will help to prevent further destruction, we also need to mobilise finance to protect standing forests and restore what we have lost. Public funding from donor countries and philanthropy both have an important role but, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, we must look to the private sector if we are to close the forest finance gap. Indonesia is already benefiting from REDD+, or reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, funding, which is a mixture of public and private finance, but we could do much more to scale that up.
Indonesia has a huge amount to offer investors, and I know they are looking to the UK to help them; in fact, just after I was in the country last year, the climate envoy arrived at the embassy to run some workshops on voluntary carbon and nature markets and how Indonesia could work with the UK on those. We are rightly seen as leaders, not least because London is one of the global financial capitals of the world. At COP29, I was proud to launch our six principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity, and last year we used London Climate Action Week to launch the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, which we co-chair alongside Kenya and Singapore.
However, I am somewhat concerned by the lack of progress since then. There was a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero consultation that closed nearly a year ago on 10 July. I have been trying to chase that up, and I gather that around 200 responses have been published, but the recommendations have yet to come forward. Maybe that is being saved up for London Climate Action Week; I very much hope it is, because I think the eyes of the world are on us to make this blended finance happen.
There is one issue that I will touch on only briefly, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will speak on it: the controversial plans for a food estate in West Papua. I have had some reassurances that that will not involve the destruction of healthy forests and that it is part of an important strategy to increase Indonesia’s food security—I can tell by the look on my hon. Friend’s face that that is not the account he has been given. However, as I said, I knew he was coming here to speak about that, and I know I can rely on him to speak about it with great expertise. The other assurance I have had recently is that Indonesia wants to move away from such a high dependence on the palm oil sector, diversify what it grows and increase its food security, but I will leave that to my hon. Friend to cover.
I want to talk instead about orangutans. My second visit to Indonesia was in April this year with the all-party parliamentary group on international conservation and Borneo Orangutan Survival UK. Three Members present today were on that visit, and I think it made a lasting impression on us. We took a very long and slow boat journey into East Kalimantan in the heart of Borneo and trekked through very rich, deep and, as I said, squelchy peatlands to see the work being done to restore primary rainforests. We also met people from the indigenous communities to see sustainable agroforestry in action.
The best part was that we spent a day at a forest school for orangutans, where they teach orphaned orangutans how to survive in the wild. Indonesia is home to three species of orangutans and they are all endangered. They are the most arboreal of all apes, spending around 80% of their lives in the rainforest canopy. Normally, their mothers teach them forest skills and how to survive in that way up to about the age of eight, but when they are orphaned, they go to forest school for about the same length of time. Then they go to university, where they practise semi-independent living. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West and I each had the amazing privilege of releasing an orangutan—his was called Peanuts; mine was called Lanting—into their university island, where I hope they are thriving.
BOS is doing great work, but we need to do more to tackle the underlying reasons why so many orangutans need its help. I have already spoken at length about forest risk commodities and the destruction of habitats, but those are not the only factors. Many orangutans like Peanuts and Lanting have been displaced by development as Indonesia’s population and urbanisation grow. They are also very susceptible to human diseases such as tuberculosis, which they catch when humans start encroaching on their territory. I think all of us who went would agree that the saddest thing we saw at the forest school was the orangutans that could not be released from their cages because they carried diseases—particularly TB. They were clearly really unhappy animals and it was heartbreaking to see them. Under the law in Indonesia, they cannot be euthanised, because they are a protected species. However, there is some hope, because BOS is fundraising to create new habitats. There are going to be about 15 little islands where groups of infected orangutans—one male, a couple of females and the younger ones—will be able to experience freedom together without passing their diseases on to healthy animals. I look forward to seeing that come into play.
A sizeable number of the orangutans that BOS rescues have been trafficked—for example, stolen as babies to be pets or for private zoos. BOS has rescued around 50 from tourist attractions in Thailand. It has been three years since the UK passed the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, which will ban the promotion by UK companies of tourist attractions abroad that involve animal cruelty and exploitation—for example, those where tigers are drugged and declawed, elephants are forced to perform or, as we saw on film in Borneo, orangutans are forced to take part in boxing matches. Yet we are still waiting for the Act to come into force, because the lawyers at DEFRA need to draft regulations. I am told that they are struggling to find the right words to put in the definitions to catch that type of cruelty and exploitation. My next note just says, “Get on with it.” They need to get on with it. There is no excuse for three years’ delay. As a lawyer, I am pretty sure they can find the words to deal with these things, even if it is just where animals are forced to perform unnatural acts or where they are drugged or declawed. They do not have to catch every type of animal abuse and exploitation; it would be a start to bring in regulations that catch at least some of it.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend has been very generous in taking interventions. On the animals that had diseases—she is right, it was an affecting sight that depressed us all; it is great that the islands are being built—is she aware that at a recent lecture, Nadine, who we met in Oxford, confirmed that when orangutans are captured for translocation, they will now be tested for TB? That will enable scientists to study the epidemiology of the disease in the wild population. Of course, if it transpires that TB is already in the wild population, it could be safe to release them back into the wild.
Kerry McCarthy
It was good to talk to Nadine on the visit; she was a real source of expertise. I am glad to hear that, and if it is a possible answer to the issue, that is excellent.
I will talk a little about the marine environment. We have quite a lot of debates in this place about oceans and marine issues, so I will not say too much, but they are important to Indonesia. The country covers an area of around 8 million km2, only a quarter of which is land. With around 17,000 islands, Indonesia is an ocean state, supporting coral reefs, mangroves and sea grass habitats that are vital for biodiversity and for human livelihoods such as fishing and tourism. It lies at the centre of the coral triangle, which is often called the “Amazon of the seas” because of its exceptional biodiversity, and has over 75% of the world’s coral species and more than a third of global reef fish species.
Indonesia’s marine environment is amazing—I have been diving there, so I can vouch for that—but it is also highly vulnerable. The reefs are under pressure from overfishing, destructive fishing practices such as blast fishing, pollution and overdevelopment. Rising sea temperatures cause coral bleaching, which weakens or kills reefs, while pollution and sedimentation reduce water quality. Indonesia has established hundreds of marine protected areas. Conservation zones reach tens of millions of hectares, and it has ambitious targets to expand them further to safeguard up to 30% of its marine territory by 2045, which would make it one of the largest marine conservation networks in the world.
Indonesia is also investing in marine conservation and restoration, including in coral reef rehabilitation programmes, stricter environmental regulations and innovative schemes such as the coral reef bond, which funds conservation projects based on measurable improvements in reef health. The UK has now passed the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026, and although I understand that a few more steps must be taken before the global ocean treaty is finally ratified, I hope that we will be able to play a full role in January at the ocean COP in New York. The Minister is leading on that, so perhaps she can tell us a bit about it in her reply.
Indonesia is vital to us, and will become ever more so. Its economic success is important to us, as is its environment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and other colleagues have to say.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. So far, only one Member has done so, which means that he has about half an hour to speak, if he wants it. He is not obliged to take all that time, but I will call Front Benchers shortly before 3.30 pm, at the latest.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As you have made clear, Sir Jeremy, I have a little time, so I start, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on West Papua, by dedicating my speech to our former vice-chair, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who passed away recently. He was a fervent supporter of West Papua and, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) will agree, of environmental issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, I will use this debate to highlight the world’s largest deforestation project in Merauke, West Papua, which is home to hundreds of indigenous communities, unique biodiversity and extremely rare species, and to briefly—although maybe not so briefly now, Sir Jeremy—address specific threats to the Tapanuli orangutan in Sumatra.
One of the greatest threats to Indonesia’s progress on climate and environment is a three million-hectare, Government-backed food and energy estate project in West Papua. The Financial Times has described it as the world’s largest deforestation project. It threatens a total area that is five times the size of London—we are getting in all the major UK cities in this debate—and the livelihood of 50,000 indigenous people who call the forest home. West Papua’s unique biodiversity and the irreplaceable habitat of endangered tree kangaroos, birds of paradise and many other species are at stake.
Deforestation on that scale would release a staggering 783 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, doubling Indonesia’s emissions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who I have met to discuss this matter multiple times, is currently investigating indigenous rights violations in West Papua. In particular, he is investigating the Merauke Food Estate to document the evidence of displacements of Indonesian groups, land tenure violations and the use of military force. The project operates on the lands of more than 250 indigenous communities in West Papua. Customary land rights of indigenous communities are being ignored in the project areas and indigenous people are resisting.
Just this month, a 64-year-old woman from the community known as Mama Yasinta went missing. She features prominently in the film “Pesta Babi”, which is all about the Merauke project and the violations there. Mama Yasinta has since reappeared in Jakarta and issued a public statement distancing herself from the film. Her family believe that her travel to Jakarta and subsequent statements were done under duress. I hope the Minister can make representations that she should be returned to her family in West Papua in the immediate future.
The BBC has done an in-depth investigation showing involvement of both military and intelligence forces in Merauke, so there is ample evidence. Several television and film documentaries, which we can all view, rebut the claims of the Indonesian embassy and Indonesian Government that this is not a deforestation project removing absolutely unique and vital habitats.
The UK Government need to raise serious concerns bilaterally with the Government of Indonesia and discuss sustainable and climate friendly alternatives to support the country’s food and energy security plans, which I absolutely accept given the size of the population there.
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is making another important speech after that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Does he agree that it is concerning to hear from reports of eyewitnesses that around 40 indigenous people have been killed over the last couple of months, and that drones and booby traps are increasingly being used against indigenous people?
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. Unfortunately, that follows a history of 60 years of extrajudicial killings and internal displacement in what are, and have traditionally been, very thickly forested areas. The island of New Guinea, which includes Papua New Guinea, is the world’s third largest rainforest. Modern technologies, which we have seen put to very positive use in Ukraine by the Ukrainian forces and very destructive use by the Russian forces, are now being used by the Indonesian military against civilians who have no way of defending themselves. Again, that has been documented. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East has raised that.
I am asking the Minister whether the UK can assist Indonesia in meeting its commitment to climate and nature protection through Indonesia’s plan to restore 12.7 million hectares of forests, but not in Merauke and not in virgin rainforest, which has a unique ecosystem and biodiversity.
I will briefly talk about ecocide. That is a real threat to Indonesia and its international reputation and claim to be a democracy. Ecocide is where acts create a
“substantial likelihood of severe and…widespread or long-term”
environmental damage. Although it is not a separate crime in the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, the 2025 advisory opinion on the climate brought by Vanuatu very much brings ecocide into scope. The last thing that we want is a major international country like Indonesia being hauled before the International Criminal Court for a project like Merauke or some of the other mining and deforestation projects that are occurring, particularly in West Papua, but in other parts of Indonesia as well.
That leads me nicely to the threats to the Tapanuli orangutan in Batang Toru, Sumatra. The Batang Toru ecosystem in north Sumatra is the only home of the Tapanuli orangutan. Identified as a separate species in 2017, at the time their estimated number was fewer than 800. More recent surveys have shown that they are the most endangered great ape in the world, so the Indonesian Government have a special responsibility for the Tapanuli orangutan. Research suggests that losing even eight adult orangutans a year could lead to the extinction of the species.
The Tapanuli orangutan faces several threats. The Batang Toru dam, owned by the PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy company, sliced through its habitat precisely at the intersection of three subpopulations. There is also PT Agincourt’s Martabe gold mine expanding north into their habitat, as well as logging concessions, community incursions of subsistence farming and small-scale agriculture, and hunting and human-wildlife conflict. Those five threats could mean the end of the Tapanuli orangutan.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend speaks knowledgeably about the threats to biodiversity in Sumatra in particular. It is not just the sixth largest island in the world; it also has 1,300 different tree species. Sumatra’s forest cover has been staggeringly depleted, with about 20% of its lowland forest remaining. My hon. Friend is right to speak of the orangutan; the delegation that went to Indonesia looked at its conservation programmes. He will know that the Sumatran tiger and the Sumatran elephant are also desperately endangered, and that 132 bird species, including helmeted hornbills and crested firebacks, are threatened there. It is a biodiversity hotspot, and the threats that he has identified are very real and must be avoided.
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. If one looks at the geography of Indonesia and its different sized islands, such as Sumatra, New Guinea or Borneo, and the evolution of species on those islands over millions of years, that is what created these unique animal and plant species, which are found nowhere else in the world. The Indonesian Government have a unique responsibility among nations to preserve those species—once they are gone from the individual islands, they cannot be brought back, because they do not exist anywhere else. I have been to see the West Papua tree kangaroos in Chester zoo, but they cannot survive in Chester zoo—they have to survive in the wild. There is the difficulty of seeing such things in the wild, but it is important that we preserve their ecosystems.
To give time for the Front Benchers, I will finish by saying that the UK also needs to think about its own role, particularly in the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which has called for a moratorium on projects that impact on the habitat of Tapanuli orangutans until a conservation management plan for the species can be adopted. There are some excellent organisations based here in the UK—I will not list them, but each time colleagues and I visit the biodiversity COP, we are amazed by the great British organisations and charities that are world-leading and helping to preserve animal and plant species globally. I know that they and the UK Government can help work on a conservation management plan to save the Tapanuli orangutans. We are uniquely placed to help Indonesia, but it needs to want that help. We should offer everything that we can; hopefully we can secure not just the Tapanuli orangutan but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, the Sumatran tiger, as well as pangolins, tapirs, sun bears and cassowaries—a whole range of species that live in the same ecosystem in Batang Toru.
We must use this opportunity to enshrine sustainable and ethical human rights practices into our working relationship with Indonesia for the sake of West Papuans and other indigenous peoples, biodiversity and nature. If we do not do it now, when will we do it? Soon, we will start to lose some of this unique biodiversity.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his remarkable display of self-control. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her passionate opening speech, and for the many hours we spent in each other’s company on a long-tail boat when we were fortunate enough to visit Indonesia earlier this year. In honour of this debate, I am wearing my Indonesian jacket that I bought in Jakarta. On a day like this, in an increasingly tropical London, it is blissfully lightweight.
The UK-Indonesia relationship is at a crucial point. In January, our Government signed a strategic partnership, committing to stronger ties on climate and nature and recognising that, despite our differences, we share a particular vulnerability to climate change as island nations. The Liberal Democrats welcome that partnership warmly and would like to see it deepened. That requires the UK to show up as a serious partner, not just in words, but in the consistency of our commitments.
Indonesia’s forests are among the most biodiverse on Earth and are home to between 10% and 15% of all known plants, mammals and birds. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) particularly appreciated that during our visit. The forests also store billions of tonnes of carbon. As I mentioned, I was fortunate enough to go to Kalimantan on the Indonesian side of Borneo in March as part of a cross-party parliamentary delegation funded by ICCF-UK and the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation. It is wonderful to see representatives from both those organisations in the Public Gallery.
I would like to report back on what I saw and what I believe it requires of us in this country. We visited Sabangau national park, one of the largest peatland ecosystems outside the northern hemisphere. I saw the Nyaru Menteng Orangutan Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, where 228 orangutans that have been orphaned, many because of the palm oil trade, were being prepared for a return to the wild. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned the forest school for young orangutans, where we saw orphaned orangutans being taught to climb by their human surrogate mothers, and that memory will stay with me for the rest of my life. We met scientists, such as Nadine, who have spent decades studying the flora and fauna of Indonesia. We met Indonesian officials and conservationists who are doing extraordinary work to protect their vital, natural heritage. They expect the UK to be a reliable partner but right now we are falling short in two concrete ways.
Today, the Government announced plans to consult on new rules requiring businesses to check that products—such as palm oil, soy, cocoa and rubber—in their supply chains have not come from illegally deforested land. Liberal Democrats have pressed for that since the Environment Act 2021 was passed, so we welcome today’s development—five years late is better than never.
The Government’s own figures show that, in 2023 alone, UK consumption was linked to roughly 29,000 hectares of deforestation worldwide. In keeping with today’s trend, I will point out that that is equivalent to 15 Cirencesters. The rules will be aligned with the EU’s equivalent regulation, which has been weakened and delayed multiple times under industry pressure. They will cover only illegal deforestation in the host country, not all deforestation, meaning that products from forests legally cleared could still reach British supermarket shelves.
The Government say that a fully deforestation-free standard is their ambition for the future. Liberal Democrats believe it should be made the standard now. When these regulations arrive, they must be robust and not leave the door open to destruction that happens technically to be lawful. They must also cover indigenous people’s land rights alongside deforestation, which are frequently the first casualty when forests fall.
On aid, the Liberal Democrats believe that the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development is both a moral obligation and a matter of national interest. We have set out concrete, alternative ways to meet our defence commitments without cutting international aid, including defence bonds and an increase to the digital services tax. The false choice between security and aid is one we reject.
That matters, because UK-funded conservation in Indonesia is working. Indonesia has reduced its primary forest loss more than any other country in recent years, and British investment has contributed to that, yet the Darwin grants, which have supported vital terrestrial conservation work, including in rainforests, have been cut. Projects and marine environments retain some funding, but projects in terrestrial spaces, including the rainforest, have been left without support. The ringfenced nature funding in the international climate fund renewal is also at risk. We are heading in the wrong direction. Institutions like Kew Gardens and the Natural History Museum have deep, productive partnerships with their Indonesian counterparts—the kind of long-term scientific relationships that take decades to build but moments to break. We should be strengthening them, not withdrawing.
That brings me to the Government’s national security assessment, which concludes that global biodiversity loss poses a direct threat to UK national security. I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, which scrutinises exactly these questions. We know that a fuller version of the national security assessment exists, and we have asked to see it repeatedly, even under confidentiality arrangements, and that has been refused. Although elements have apparently been shared informally outside Government with the media, the EAC should not be the last to know about a document that the Government say concerns national security. The Minister must release it.
I will close with a story told to me by a young friend that really brought home to me what is at stake here. Bella is a passionate young conservationist. A few years ago, she visited Malaysian Borneo and went to see an animal called Iman. Iman was the last Malaysian Sumatran rhino on Earth—a species more than 20 million years old, reduced to one animal. Her keeper, Dr Zainal, had spent almost his entire career protecting Sumatran rhinos in Borneo. He had watched them go one by one. He was there in 2017 when Puntung was euthanised and there in May 2019 when Tam, the last male, died.
When Bella met Iman, the rhino was calling out—a distinctive kind of call, a searching call looking for others of her kind, but there were none. Bella described how she stood there, looking into the rhino’s eyes—this ancient creature with leather-thick skin and a face that seems to have come straight out of prehistory—and understood viscerally in a way that no statistic can quite convey what extinction actually means. The name Iman means faith. She died in November 2019. The Malaysian Sumatran rhino is gone forever, but the Bornean orangutan is not yet gone. The peatlands of Sabangau are not yet destroyed; there is still time.
I ask the Minister to honour the commitment in schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 with robust, enforceable regulations; restore the overseas aid budget; protect the Darwin grants and the nature earmark; and release the national security assessment. The time to act is now.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for securing this important debate and talking with what is clearly lifelong passion and lifelong experience. I thank her for the campaigning and work that she has done over a number of years. I also thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his knowledge and passion around the largest deforestation project that is under way.
I have listened to everyone talk about the visit to the orangutan school. I am beginning to feel like the only kid in school who was not on the trip, but it sounds like it touched a lot of people. I noted the description of the forest school teaching young orangutans how to behave in the wild, and the skills that they need—it feels a bit like what CCHQ does to Conservative candidates before we are released into the wild at a later date.
Barry Gardiner
If the hon. Member wants to know the specifics of how to do that, they get a jar of liquid honey and squeeze it up the tree. You then have to follow it up with your tongue. I do not recommend that for anywhere near the Whips Office.
Mr Snowden
As a member of the Whips Office, I can assure the hon. Member that that is not something we will take up, although my team, if they are watching this debate, will probably now be panicking that I may be coming up with a YouTube video idea to try to go viral.
Anyway, as Conservatives we recognise the need to protect the natural world. To that end, we welcome this debate on UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability. We see the profound importance of the bilateral relationship between our countries in both our mutual economic growth and our shared commitment to protecting the natural world.
The Opposition support robust engagement with Indonesia. We want the partnerships that our Government have announced to deliver real, measurable outcomes. Indonesia is the biggest economy in south-east Asia and is rich in biodiversity and natural beauty. However, it is precisely because the stakes are so high and the scale of investment is so considerable that this House is entitled to ask searching questions about whether the Government’s approach is truly adequate to the challenge. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of points with the Minister.
Indonesia is home to the world’s third largest tropical forest and holds 36% of the world’s tropical peatland. As we heard from other Members, both have globally significant importance as carbon stores. Indonesia also hosts 3.5 million hectares of mangroves—about 23% of the world’s total—storing approximately 3.1 gigatonnes of carbon. These are not abstract statistics; they represent irreplaceable natural systems on which the global climate depends. Despite significant progress having been made in recent years, deforestation in Indonesia surged by 66% during 2025, with 1.1 million acres of forest removed. What is our Government’s position on that? Have they discussed it with their counterparts in Indonesia, and if so, what were the outcomes of those discussions?
Indonesia has the world’s largest nickel reserves—estimated at 55 million tonnes—and accounted for 54% of global nickel production in 2023. The country’s critical mineral wealth makes it central to the global energy transition, but the risks associated with nickel extraction are well documented. In November 2024, the UK and Indonesia agreed a strategic partnership on critical minerals. That was with the aim of sharing technical knowledge and mitigating risks linked to this kind of mining. Can the Minister tell us what mechanisms are in place to encourage those standards, and what assessment has she made of the application of the standards?
In January 2025, the two Governments agreed a new sustainable infrastructure partnership, which our Government say will open up new opportunities for British companies to design and construct projects in Indonesia. We support British commercial engagement; British companies obtaining projects abroad is something we should support, but what safeguards have the Government put in place to support commercial projects pursued under that partnership?
On the UK-Indonesia carbon market partnership to support Indonesia in implementing a carbon pricing framework and developing a voluntary carbon market, the Minister will be aware that voluntary carbon markets have attracted significant criticism internationally for the quality and permanence of the carbon credits they generate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any carbon market developed under that partnership meets rigorous standards and will not simply allow carbon offsetting that fails to deliver genuine emissions reductions?
Although Indonesia has the largest economy in south-east Asia, it ranks only 17th in the world by GDP according to the International Monetary Fund. Despite that, Indonesia is consistently among the top 10 carbon dioxide-emitting nations; indeed, the FCDO has estimated that it is the fifth-highest carbon-emitting country. The Indonesian Government aspire to reach net zero by 2060. By 2030, they aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% through national efforts and by 43.2% with international support. Those are significant ambitions, but the gap between aspiration and delivery is wide. Can the Minister set out what independent assessment the Government have made of whether Indonesia is currently on track to meet its 2030 targets, and what conditionality—if any—is attached to UK commitments?
Finally, the scale of the investment being discussed today is substantial. British International Investment has committed £308 million in climate finance across south-east Asia until 2031, including a rooftop solar programme that aims to produce 600 MW of energy by 2028. The World Bank, which the UK contributes to, is providing $500 million to Indonesia’s electricity network transformation programme. What assessment have the UK Government made of value for money across the totality of UK investments in this relationship, and how are outcomes being measured and reported back to Parliament?
We all share the objectives of supporting Indonesia’s journey towards greater environmental sustainability while protecting its extraordinary natural heritage, and of building a partnership that delivers for our country and for the planet. The foundations that have been laid, including by the previous Government, are real, but good intentions and headline announcements are not enough. The House deserves clarity on conditionality, environmental standards and genuine value for money. Can the Minister please provide us with that assurance by answering the questions that have been asked today?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her long-standing work on climate and environmental issues, and to her generosity in sharing with us her experience of “squelching” in the Indonesian peatlands. Her account, alongside the contributions of other hon. Members who have also recently visited Indonesia, brought to life the richness of the environment in the country, and therefore the importance of our work together on climate and nature.
I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of hon. Members from across the House in speeches and interventions today, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden); the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage); my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel); the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner).
I recognise that this is a very timely and important debate. It comes just a few months after my first visit to Indonesia. I am very grateful to our climate and nature special envoys who were referred to in this debate, Rachel Kyte and Ruth Davis, for their extremely important work and their contributions to many discussions with Ministers across different Departments.
There is a very strong interest in this House in how we tackle climate change and protect nature, and in how we work with partners around the world to do so. With Indonesia, the core of our partnership is focused on climate, nature and energy co-operation. It is also important to say up front that Indonesia is pivotal to global outcomes on climate and nature for the reasons that we have heard today, including the scale of its rainforests and biodiversity. Indeed, its actions on energy, forests and oceans will help to tackle similar challenges across the world.
I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East as the UK’s Climate Minister last year, during which time she visited Indonesia. I know that she saw at first hand how our partnership with Indonesia works in practice. In Jakarta, she met Energy Minister Bahlil. She worked to deepen our co-operation on the energy transition—from renewables to carbon capture, carbon markets and critical minerals, all of which were referred to in today’s informed debate—recognising the real economic and political challenges that Indonesia faces as it moves away from coal. I am proud that she launched a UK-supported micro-hydro project in Lombok, demonstrating how we are working alongside Indonesia to support clean, reliable energy at a community level.
That combination of high-level policy engagement and practical delivery is central to our approach across climate, energy and nature, and we continue to build on that through our ongoing dialogue with Indonesian partners. Indonesia stands out as one of the most important countries in the world for climate and nature. It is home to the world’s third largest tropical rainforest basin and has rich marine ecosystems that store carbon and support extraordinary biodiversity. It is a major emitter and a major part of the solution.
As a G20 economy and a leading voice in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Indonesia has influence well beyond its region. Its economy has long depended on sectors such as coal and palm oil, and like many countries it faces difficult choices as it seeks to balance growth with environmental protection. At the same time, Indonesia has committed to reducing emissions and is taking steps on forest protection, clean energy and climate finance. This Government are clear that global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss can be tackled only through partnership, because no country can do this alone.
I will endeavour to respond to a number of comments raised today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley will be aware of concerns about Mama Yasinta. We take seriously all reports of human rights violations across Papua. We are concerned about the recent increase in violence in Papua, including fatalities. I visited Indonesia in February and underlined the importance that the UK attaches to human rights. I raised the issue of Papua directly with the vice Foreign Minister.
I also want to refer to the UK’s approach to supporting orangutans, which is twofold: to decrease the drivers of orangutan habitat loss and to support the mobilisation of finance for habitat conservation. An important example of sustainable commodity production is the multi-stakeholder forestry partnership phase 5, referred to earlier. That programme is helping Indonesia to strengthen the sustainability and legality of its timber production, ensuring that pressure from the forestry industry is managed sustainably. That is relevant for habitats across Indonesia, including the ecosystems of Kalimantan and Sumatra that are home to Indonesia’s orangutans.
Threats to Indonesia’s maritime environments include pollution; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing practices; and warming waters linked to climate change. The UK and Indonesia continue to work closely with each other through the Blue Planet fund country plan. We are proud to partner with Indonesia through that fund and the maritime partnership programme. A number of hon. Members referred to the maritime challenges, and it is important to keep that focus in our debate.
In relation to the UK’s action, we have worked closely with Indonesia for more than 20 years, combining diplomacy, technical support and targeted finance to tackle environmental and nature issues. Indeed, what started as co-operation on sustainable timber has grown into a wider partnership. Hon. Members also referred to the important engagement earlier this year when the Prime Minister and President Prabowo Subianto agreed a new strategic partnership. The ambition for climate, energy and nature was clear at the Lancaster House breakfast, which I attended, where President Prabowo and His Majesty the King came together with a vision for Indonesia as a global leader in sustainable nature finance.
We are now taking that important ambition forward in practical ways. For example, we are supporting efforts to protect forests and tackle deforestation, including in supply chains such as palm oil. We are backing Indonesia’s energy transition, including through a just energy transition partnership. We are committed to providing a guarantee to unlock $1 billion of additional climate finance from the World Bank to support the energy transition. That is important because we know that Indonesia has to fill a significant climate finance gap to meet its mitigations and adaptation goals.
Sarah Dyke
The Minister is clearly setting out how the Indonesian rainforests and peatlands deliver irreplaceable global climate benefits. We know that conservation efforts have been severely undermined because of the funding issue and she is setting out that new funding will be available. Will she also set out a clear timeframe for that funding?
Seema Malhotra
I am happy for the hon. Lady to write to me to ask about the specifics because there are different funds, some of which are already deployed and some of which will continue in the future. If she would like to know more about specific funds, we can probably answer that.
It is also important to recognise that we are supporting efforts to strengthen governance and ensure that communities, including indigenous peoples, are part of that transition. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for referencing the engagement and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Kerry McCarthy
On that specific point, Fairtrade was holding an event in the IPU room earlier and I was concerned to hear about the cost of complying with forest risk commodities regulation for indigenous farmers. They were citing figures in the tens—I think the low tens—for both African and Latin American smallholders. Can the Minister speak to her colleagues in DEFRA about how we can ensure that the burden of these regulations does not fall on people in indigenous communities? I think the answer is having co-operatives or regional government-led initiatives to make sure that they can comply with the certification, but can she make sure that that point is taken up?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend raises an important point and I am happy to pick that up with colleagues. When we look at sustainability, we should also recognise the role that indigenous peoples play in supporting the environment and climate.
As I have referenced, it is important that we raise concerns about deforestation, supply chains and the pace of change. These are complex issues, particularly in countries like Indonesia, where commodities such as palm oil and timber are central to growth and livelihoods.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East referred to, the Government announced today that the UK is introducing a new approach to deforestation regulations to help to ensure that our consumption does not drive global forest loss. That will require businesses to strengthen due diligence and improve traceability in their supply chains. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East outlined, we are clear on that goal, but we also recognise that it must be done in a way that supports rather than undermines our partners. The UK has worked closely with Indonesia on sustainable forestry and supply chains for many years, and we will continue to engage and work in partnership with Indonesia and other partners as the policy develops to ensure that our approach reflects local contexts, is proportionate and supports sustainable growth, alongside forest protection.
Representatives from the Indonesian Government are in the UK this week for London Climate Action Week, to meet representatives from across the UK’s Government, private sector and civil society. This is an important and landmark week, during which we can share the full extent of the UK’s ambitions on climate and energy with partners across the world. I am pleased that on Thursday morning, the Indonesian Minister of Forestry, Raja Juli Antoni, and I will co-host a roundtable at the FCDO to showcase the Peusangan elephant conservation initiative: a flagship model under Indonesia’s new presidential taskforce to develop innovative financing for national parks. That is another initiative that demonstrates how conservation, livelihoods and finance can be brought together in incredible, investable opportunities.
To conclude, the UK-Indonesia partnership on environmental sustainability is wide, ambitious and rooted in practical co-operation. It spans forests, wildlife, cleaner energy, ocean protection and support for communities whose lives depend on the natural world. The partnership is backed by strong political commitment on both sides, and is supported by growing engagement between Governments, businesses and civil society.
We know that the scale of the challenge is significant, and that progress will take time. Like all countries, Indonesia will need international support to meet its commitments, and the strength of our partnership gives real grounds for confidence. Under Labour’s leadership, the United Kingdom will continue to share investment and practical support with Indonesia, because the choices that we make together will help to shape a safer, more secure and more prosperous future for both of our countries.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank everyone who came along to support the debate, and I thank the Front Benchers for their replies. I was particularly glad to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), show such enthusiasm for the global energy transition and for countries meeting their climate ambitions, accelerating climate action and recognising the importance of carbon sequestration. I did not think those were Conservative party policies any more, but perhaps it is a different matter when it is about Indonesia rather than the UK. I resisted the urge to intervene on him on that point, as we will be having that debate in this place tomorrow morning.
I am not sure whether I should have referred hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of my speech, in relation to our trip to Borneo; I was just asking my colleague, and we are not quite sure whether all Members who went on the trip should have done so, but that is now on the record.
As hon. Members will have appreciated, that trip was absolutely wonderful. It brought home to us not only the potential of the rainforest, the peatlands and Indonesia’s natural environment, but the threats that they face. I thank ICCF and Borneo Orangutan Survival, representatives of which are here to watch the debate. I hope that I have done justice to their efforts, and long may our relationship continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability.
Prison Safety
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members present that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister, although they can of course intervene without prior permission. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
It is highly likely that we will be interrupted during this debate for votes on the Floor of the House. I anticipate two votes, which means that I must suspend the sitting for up to 25 minutes. If the hon. Lady, the Minister and I are all back before 25 minutes, we can proceed more quickly, if that is any incentive.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered safety in prisons.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Since I was elected nearly two years ago, my office and I have been inundated with letters and calls from staff, prisoners and members of the public about the conditions at HMP Lowdham Grange in my constituency. I have heard repeated reports from prisoners of self-harm, deaths in the prison and instances of discrimination. I have also been contacted by staff sharing the impact of these incidents and the pressures on them, such as staffing and violence. These unsafe conditions are deeply concerning not only in their own right, but as a reflection of the wider challenges facing our justice system.
To truly improve safety in our justice system, we must tackle the drivers of this violence. I thank the Minister for visiting HMP Lowdham Grange recently after I raised concerns with him. As he will be aware, the inspectorate released its report just yesterday, following the most recent inspection. It is reassuring to see some progress in areas such as visible leadership, improving health services and security relating to drugs. However, I remain deeply concerned about ongoing problems relating to self-harm and suicide.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that prison safety cannot be separated from mental health? When inmates are in crisis, they can self-harm and there is a potential risk of dying through suicide. It can affect the safety of staff and other prisoners, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to tackle physical safety and mental health?
Michelle Welsh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Members will hear in my speech, mental health and safety need to go hand in hand.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I agree with her analysis so far. The key point is that we must take some steps and have some initiatives to reduce prison violence. I am sure the Minister is aware that in the last Session I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Prisons (Violence) Bill, to place a duty on all prison management to minimise violence against prisoners and staff. One way we could do that is with key performance indicators, with specific targets for reducing assaults. Prison governors would then have an incentive to take action, to reduce the number of assaults and to halt the loss of experienced prison staff. It is worthy of further consideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a potential solution?
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree. In fact, some of the accounts that I have been given by prison staff, particularly women prison officers, are deplorable.
The inspectorate notes:
“There had been two self-inflicted deaths in the previous two years and support for those at risk of self-harm was weak.”
The rate of self-harm had increased by 50%, and the number of serious incidents requiring hospital had doubled. The risks cannot be allowed to continue. More must be done to support prisoners and to support staff in addressing these issues.
I am also concerned that the processes for notifying the prison of a risk to life are wholly inadequate. The information that is publicly available directs individuals to the Safer Custody line, yet there appears to be insufficient training for operators handling potentially life-threatening situations. My team and I have frequently found ourselves guiding operators through the appropriate steps or being placed on hold while advice is sought from a supervisor. In some cases, we have been asked to leave a voicemail, with a response promised within 24 hours. That is for somebody who is threatening to take their life, I hasten to add.
If a prisoner is actively attempting to take their own life, I think we can all agree that 24 hours is far too long. When we are put through to the orderly officer’s line, there have been numerous occasions on which no one answers and we are forced to leave a voicemail on a separate line. On the occasions when we do speak to the officer, we are reassured that a welfare check will take place, but we have found that those checks often do not take place or that, when they do, an officer simply looks through the door before moving on.
These concerns are reflected in the inspectorate’s findings. Care plans under assessment, care in custody and team procedures were judged to be poor, with most prisoners not engaged in education, training or work, and with few meaningful activities identified to support them.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
On Friday, I visited HMP Wandsworth with the Chess in Schools and Communities scheme. I saw its work to teach chess in prisons, which is also great for teaching resilience, patience and team working. May I send the hon. Member some information about what Chess in Schools and Communities does? It may be useful in the institution that she is talking about.
Michelle Welsh
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
Access to appropriate healthcare is another shortcoming. Prisoners often do not have access to their prescription medication or mental health services, and their medical or religious dietary needs are not met. The inspectorate also raised concerns about
“prisoners with disabilities living in neglectful conditions”.
Discrimination has no place in our society, and no place in prisons either. I urge the Minister to treat this as a matter of urgency. I fear that if action is not taken quickly, an incident of self-harm will lead to another preventable death.
Let me move on to the subject of staff. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to reduce the threat posed to our prison officers. Although numbers remain unacceptably high, the rate of assault and serious assault on staff has reduced. I also welcome the fact that the Government have now increased the number of staff stab-proof vests from 750 to 10,000, and that 500 officers will be trained on the use of tasers for the most serious incidents of violence. However, I support the Prison Officers Association in calling for protective equipment to be available to all officers, not only to those in high-security settings. Prison officers put their safety on the line every day to protect the public. The least we can do is ensure they have the protection they need. Can the Minister tell me whether there are any plans to make protective equipment available to all officers?
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the protection of prison officers, is it not correct that the last coalition Government got rid of almost 25% of prison officers? Every year I ask a question about how many prison officers have left the service, and each year the number increases. We have collectively lost 100,000 years of jailcraft through experienced prison officers leaving the service. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed if we are to tackle violence against prisoners and staff.
Michelle Welsh
One would think my hon. Friend could read my speech over my shoulder, because that is the next thing I will talk about. There remains a staffing crisis across our prisons, with officer numbers falling and many leaving the profession after only one or two years. I therefore ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend has done, what steps the Government are taking to improve staff retention, given its direct impact on prison safety. Our prisons are losing out on experienced members of staff, meaning that officers who often do not have the necessary experience or training have to handle situations for which they are dangerously unprepared.
Finally, I would like to raise the impact of the safety of prisons on the wider public. Time and again, when I speak to residents and the local police force, I am told about the endless cycle of incarceration and offending that is plaguing our streets. The local police and shop owners in Hucknall in my constituency know exactly who the offenders are who steal from businesses. The police do all they can—they collect evidence, they make arrests and they bring offenders to trial—but they know that in a year’s time those individuals will be back on the street committing the very same offences in the very same community. This is not a sustainable system. Discussions about rehabilitation and treatment of prisoners are often overlooked or trivialised, but access to addiction support, healthcare and education is essential if offenders are to break the cycle of crime. As long as our prisons do not provide adequate rehabilitation, our streets will never be safe.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I, too, went to HMP Wandsworth not very long ago. There was an incident on the wing: something happened and the prison officers had to shut all the doors and run. That was a horrible example of what they deal with every day. The violence is there: it is real, and I have seen it.
The prison had just set up a neurodivergent wing. I spoke to some of the prisoners, and the wing seemed to have made a real difference to them. We have been talking about rehabilitation; they had access to therapists and they were out of their cells doing things. That model seemed to work well. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could be looked at and rolled out on a wider scale, given how many prisoners—particularly male prisoners—have autistic traits?
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree. If the Minister has not been to Wandsworth, I ask him to go and see that model, which perhaps is something he can do going forward.
Offenders cannot focus on rebuilding their life if they are struggling simply to survive or are experiencing thoughts of ending their own life. I hope that the Minister shares my concerns about the safety and wellbeing of prisoners and staff at HMP Lowdham Grange and that he will take immediate steps to support the prison, the prisoners and the safety of prison officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this debate and for bringing attention to this very important subject, which she has raised on numerous occasions in the Chamber and elsewhere. She has spoken to Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, and to me about the issue and has been a champion for inmates and staff at HMP Lowdham Grange, as well as for families.
I also want to thank my hon. Friend’s staff, on the record, because it is not just Members of Parliament who deal with these very difficult, complex and draining issues. I know that staff in her constituency and parliamentary office have very difficult conversations and that they go above and beyond to help her constituents, and sometimes people who are not her constituents. It is right that I place on the record my thanks, not just for bringing the matter to my attention and that of the Government, but—[Interruption.]
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
The debate may now continue until 4.50 pm if necessary.
Jake Richards
As I was saying before we were interrupted by votes, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, her team, and her neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who has raised this issue with me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest intimated in her opening speech, on the back of her representations I visited HMP Lowdham Grange in April. I had an important meeting with the governor and her leadership team where I raised many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and was reassured to a large degree. I felt that the leadership team there understood the issues and were working at pace to attempt to address them.
However, I also want to place on record that I challenged the team about the work that needs to be done. We have seen in the report published yesterday that although there have been improvements, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a long way to go. I hope that the governor and the leadership team at HMP Lowdham Grange would agree with that.
There is more work to do there and elsewhere. Poor safety in our prisons fundamentally reflects a system under strain. In the summer of 2024, this Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis—in utter collapse—and very soon to run out of places completely. Too many prisons are still struggling at or near capacity, with an increased risk of violence hampering their efforts to turn offenders’ lives around, as we have heard.
I will go on to address some of the particular issues, but we have taken fundamental action to reduce the risk linked to capacity challenges. Ultimately, we can only do all the good work on reoffending, education and rehabilitation if we have a functioning prison system. That is why we are delivering 14,000 new prison places—the biggest expansion of the estate since the Victorian era. We are investing £4.7 billion in that prison-building programme over the next four years, and we introduced landmark sentencing reforms in the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, to finally put the prison system on a sustainable footing for the future. That Act was not easy. Difficult decisions have been made, but that legislation means that we can reassure the British public, for the first time in essentially a generation, that there will always be prison spaces for offenders when we need them.
However, there is much more to be done on rehabilitation, education and mental health support. I accept that absolutely.
Lee Pitcher
I know that the Minister is a huge champion of mental health, and of men’s and boys’ mental health in particular. In my constituency, I have the Moorland, Lindholme and Hatfield prisons. Will he join me in celebrating the amazing work being done by the Samaritans in those prisons to support people, and Andy’s Man Club as well?
Jake Richards
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am a massive champion of Andy’s Man Club up and down the country, but especially in south Yorkshire. It does really important work with ex-offenders and indeed more generally. We have continued as a Government to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which trains prisoners to support other prisoners who are in crisis. It is a brilliant initiative and I urge any parliamentarian to engage with it in their area.
I want to touch on what we are doing to try to protect our prison staff, because numerous Members raised that issue. We have invested £15 million in protective equipment, including up to 10,000 units of protective body armour. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest set out in her opening speech, that is a transformative approach to protecting our prison officers compared with what the previous Government were able to do. Half those units are allocated to the long-term high-security estate, including at HMP Lowdham Grange. So, as we roll out body armour across the LTHSE, HMP Lowdham Grange will benefit.
That is why all staff in the adult male estate now have access to body-worn video cameras, batons, rigid-bar handcuffs and synthetic pepper spray as part of their standard equipment. It is why we have introduced PAVA spray in the Youth Custody Service. Very difficult decisions and considerations about the use of such equipment have to be made, but they are the right decisions to ensure that we protect prison officers, both in the youth estate and in the adult estate.
That is why we have trained and equipped up to 500 additional officers in the use of Tasers and why we are already installing up to 50 ligature-resistant cells, in order to prevent self-harm, and have confirmed funding for the installation of more. Because safety and security are innately intertwined, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced an extra £35 million this year to improve security at 17 of our most at-risk prisons, on top of the £40 million that we have already invested in this area. In addition, up to 13,000 new heavy-duty steel window grilles will be in place by next spring. The picture is getting better—we have stabilised the prison system and we are investing in security measures—but there is a lot more work to be done.
The rate of assaults on staff has decreased under this Government by 4.5%. I accept that that is a modest figure, but it is moving in the right direction. The rate of self-harm among prisoners has also decreased, by 8%, but I absolutely accept that it is far too high. As the Minister who shares responsibility for this area with my noble Friend in the other place, I get regular updates about serious incidents in prisons. They are far too frequent and far too serious, and much more has to be done.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for outlining the issues. One of the critical problems in prisons is the mental health crisis. People are coming in with complex needs, including complex emotional needs; sometimes they have addiction issues; and they may have experienced abuse in the past as well. Those things need to be addressed. We can provide all the body armour and other equipment that needs to be provided, as we should, but he and the Government need to address the mental health crisis as well.
Jake Richards
Absolutely. The NHS works in our prisons up and down the country every day, and it does incredible work. We have bolstered the approach to people identified as being at risk of suicide and self-harm. There is a comprehensive package of support for what is called “individualised case management process”. It sounds technical, but it is very important, because it means that for the first time we are treating prisoners, and looking at their needs and their history, in a much more tailored and individualised way. As I mentioned earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), we continue to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which is really important, but much more needs to be done, so I accept the hon. Member’s point.
I want to touch on security and drugs. Hon. Members will be aware that one of the biggest drivers of serious violence and instability in prisons is the influx of contraband, particularly drugs. In prisons up and down the country, essentially of all categories, the No. 1 issue keeping the governor up at night is security and drugs.
We inherited a prison system that was awash with a shocking amount of drugs. They compromise not only the safety of hard-working staff and the prisoners themselves, but make it far harder for staff to do the important work that turns prisoners’ lives around. That is why we are tackling drugs on every front. We have invested in drug-detecting dogs; we have machines to detect drugs impregnated into paper and fabric; and we now have X-ray body scanners across the whole adult male estate.
Certainly, drones continue to be a significant challenge. We are investing in state-of-the-art technology; indeed, my colleague Lord Timpson was in Ukraine recently to look at the technology that it is using as part of the war effort, and what we can learn in terms of investing to secure our high-security estate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest raised valid specific concerns about safety at HMP Lowdham Grange. She will know that the prison was brought under public management following serious issues with safety and security under the previous private provider. During my visit in April, I was encouraged by the progress being made. I have seen a much stronger approach to managing individuals at risk of self-harm or suicide, and we have supported HMP Lowdham Grange with additional investment in safety resources, better staff training and closer working with healthcare partners.
Through the long-term high-security estate taskforce, further action is being taken to tackle weapons and drugs in our prisons, and those measures are beginning to have an impact. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons conducted an independent review of progress in May and published its findings yesterday, as I said. It confirmed that the prison has made progress and has a clear path to improve safety and security.
I reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest and for Gedling, and others, that I remain fully committed, together with my colleague Lord Timpson, to improving safety at HMP Lowdham Grange and making sure that it receives sustained attention and action from the Government. The governor has also assured me personally that she and her team will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and other local MPs, and that my hon. Friend will shortly be invited back into the prison to see the progress and ask any questions that she has.
I again place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for the opportunity to respond. The challenges facing our prison system are significant and we do not underestimate or shy away from them. The Government are investing, modernising and taking action to make our prisons safer for staff and prisoners alike and, above all, better able to deliver rehabilitation, which cuts crime, reduces reoffending and protects the British public. That is the progress we are making, and the work we will continue to drive forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Role of Big Tech in Society
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of Big Tech in society.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting the debate.
Today, I want to look at the relationship between Government and big tech, and its impact on wider society and the communities we all represent, as well as the national and even global consequences of this expanding, what I term “unreliable relationship of reliance”. Let me be clear: the Government do not have the resources necessary for research and development of new technologies compared with the wealthy and global tech companies’ resourcing—I get that. Private sector collaboration makes sense and is of benefit to our country. Improving the efficiency of Government, public sector productivity, and the outcomes and effects of Governments—whatever their political complexion—is something that I support.
However, I think the Government need to establish—this is something for the Minister; perhaps a legacy for him —their very own centre for tech research: a Porton Down for tech innovation and development, or an expansion of the R&D work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Not everything can or should be outsourced to the private sector—this is a Conservative MP saying that.
Today, I want to highlight some of the potential, if not inherent, democratic dangers for the UK Government —both today’s Government and future Governments—as the relationship with big tech becomes more embedded, we become more reliant, and by osmosis, we cede ever more power and influence to tech companies over all the people we represent in this Parliament, and the Governments they elect.
Perhaps UK Government data could be seen as the crown jewels of data—the ultimate state capture: data capture. Data is increasingly entrusted to companies with no democratic oversight or accountability. Some big tech companies regard democracy, governance and oversight, for all their faults, with distain and even contempt—an irritant to their commercial progress, rather than as a challenging and helpful partner.
I believe that any Government being beholden to big tech—I do not mean collaboration, which is positive—is a strategic risk to our country, full of moral hazard. I submit that it is a potential and emerging medium-term strategic risk, where conflict between democracy and big tech will come into stark contrast. Today, we feel only the tremors of such a conflict, but it is for the future and for all Governments to address it before that tremor becomes an earthquake for our democracy and for politics more generally.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He is making an interesting speech. When we talk about big tech, we are primarily talking about companies based outside the UK—particularly in the United States. Does he agree that this argument is really about sovereignty and about how more of this technology can be developed and owned in the UK or across Europe?
Mark Pritchard
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and will touch on sovereignty later. The European Union—it is a positive in many ways—is looking at that. That is partly why I am making this speech today; it is about sovereignty too.
Who knows the most—who owns or hosts the most data—and how that data is used determines who has the hierarchical advantage. I would argue that that gives the democratic or control advantage, not just the commercial advantage. The people, through democratically elected government, should always have ultimate control.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Many big tech companies are a cause of concern, but a particular one is Palantir, which holds Government contracts worth more than £900 million, spanning 10 Departments. Does he agree that more concerning than its dominance is the fact that we do not know what data it holds and has access to? Numerous groups warn that patient data in the NHS federated data platform could be accessible by US authorities under the American CLOUD—Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data—Act, so does he agree that the Government must exercise the February 2027 break clause until those questions are property and publicly answered?
Mark Pritchard
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will not name individual companies today—she has clearly put her views on the record—but no monopoly, be it a public or private sector monopoly, is good for our constituents, consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. She makes her case well.
Will this universal knowledge that tech companies have—this data capture—always be used for good? Will it always be benign? Will it seek the common good or the corporate good?
Mark Pritchard
Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will try to come back to the hon. Lady. I have applied for this debate a few times—I have been lucky today, but we have only an hour, rather than 90 minutes.
Is big tech politically neutral? Sometimes it does not seem like that. Is that of concern to the Government? Does the Minister agree that some Government data can never be white labelled? Are some big tech companies agnostic when it comes to the UK’s democratic values? Are they more interested in value than values? This is not speculation. Some—not all—of the most powerful figures in tech have openly questioned democracy and its relevance, authority and survivability. Some of those observers are not fringe voices shouting from the margins, but tech owners with capital, platforms and influence and with the ear of many of our constituents and, indeed, our Government.
Again, big tech is a force for good in the world. I believe that. It provides huge benefits with regard to human geography, economic empowerment and borderless prosperity. But in so many ways, tech’s story has only just begun. That is one of the reasons why we need to have discussions like the one that we are having today. It is why Governments, wherever they might be, need to strike the right balance on how much power—how much of the people’s power—they cede to big tech and its shareholders. Many of its shareholders are known, but some are a bit more mysterious and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), do not necessarily always share our values, or are certainly not in the UK.
Caroline Voaden
Ten years ago today, the Brexit campaign became one of the first very successful disinformation campaigns. Ranging from Turkish immigrants to Spanish bullfighting, the targeted Facebook ads played on people’s fears and deceived millions. But today, disinformation is more pervasive, insidious and vindictive than ever before, so does the right hon. Member agree that we must learn the lessons of 10 years ago and introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful disinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms?
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said, I am not going to reference particular tech companies or particular information or misinformation campaigns. I am trying to get Members across the House to raise their eyes a little and look at the big picture of the conflict, coming down the road, between big tech and sovereignty, democracy and all the people we represent. But the hon. Lady’s point is also on the record.
Again, the close relationship between big tech and Governments is necessary, but is none the less becoming increasingly problematic and conflicted. Tech needs smarter regulation, certainly more competition, and a recalibration and rebalancing of its relationship with Government. The collaboration between the two should not mean Governments turning a blind eye to the breaking of laws, or big tech enjoying public policy vetoes. With big tech come big responsibilities. Governments should not rush to absolve big tech of the wrongs of tech in return for future technology transfer and unfettered access, and better terms for collaborations with Government.
These questions arise, perhaps. If the relationship between Government and big tech is conflicted, is it also compromised? If so, does that compromise equate to a type of corporate kompromat? Who wins? Who loses? Who is in control? Has big tech gone beyond even the power of the global banking system in 2008? Has it become too big to fail, too big to challenge even if the challenge is by Ministers of the Crown, too big to be sufficiently stood up to and too big to be fairly taxed?
If the Government’s mantra is “In tech we trust”, I hope this debate will challenge Whitehall and the Government on the fact that that laudable aim does not come without significant, inherent and strategic risks for the whole of our country, our institutions and democracy itself—the people we represent. Therefore the challenge for Government is how they preserve the benefits of private sector collaboration while ensuring that no single point of failure or future political, trade union or operational dispute can jeopardise or threaten the UK’s national security, sovereign capabilities or strategic interests. Who is ultimately in control? Is it the client—in this case, the Government—or is it big tech, or individual tech companies? Is there a master switch, and if so, whose hand is on it? If we are talking about a particular tech company, who within the tech company has the final say on disputed deployment of that tech, or on philosophical or political disagreements?
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member share my concern that because of the speed at which big tech moves, we in this House as legislators always seem to be five steps behind where the technology is? How are we going to be able to regulate for a world that is faster paced than we are in this building?
Mark Pritchard
The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. That is a challenge for all Governments and all Ministers, however able they are. We have a very good tech Minister here today, but it is a real challenge. The starting point is better co-operation, transparency and openness from big tech itself, as I set out in my introductory remarks.
It is the owner or owners—as in shareholders, the board, the advisory board or even other clients and customers—who may object to collaboration between a particular Government and a tech company. That is problematic. Or could tech companies themselves find a moral or political argument to turn off a particular Government service at a particular moment in time? That has been seen in recent months in the conflict in the middle east. We have seen it in China where certain tech companies have switched off their moral compass to placate the Chinese regime in exchange for commercial advantage. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy in China is set back. What can the Government do? There need to be more robust legislative safeguards. The Government need to collaborate with tech companies, of course, but not to capitulate.
In conclusion, tech companies should act as responsible corporate citizens, but they so often do not unless they are made to, and they are not made to enough for the reasons I have set out today. When Parliaments do regulate, tech companies fight it all the way. They weaponise the courts and demonise parents and legislators around the world who dare to even raise legitimate questions and scrutinise these companies. Big tech should not be asking what the minimum is it should do to keep Governments off its back, as it sees it, or to avoid negative publicity and public opinion. Big tech firms should be corporate leaders leading by example and setting high standards without Parliament or Ministers having to tell them what they should do. Big tech should do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. I remind other Back-Bench Members who want to contribute that they should continue to bob to show that they still want to be called. I am loath to impose a time limit if I can avoid it, but, given the level of interest, if everyone can stick to about four minutes each we will get everyone in.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate. Given the number of people present, it will be a successful debate, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
Technology plays a huge role in all our lives. I think all of us in this room carry a smartphone or some sort of tablet device that we use to check emails, do social media or read the news and all sorts of things, so the debate is timely and important. I do not want to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I think big tech has a lot to answer for in harvesting individuals’ personal data, carrying out surveillance in marketing promotions and tracking us through various map applications. There is a lot to be said about big tech and about companies’ market concentration and algorithmic control in social media.
I did a school visit recently and was told about pupils missing school because they are hooked on social media overnight. They barely get any sleep and cannot come to school or perform well at school. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about political neutrality. Without naming names, a prominent social media platform comes to mind in terms of a lack of political neutrality. As we use big tech in our day-to-day lives for work, leisure and for personal reasons, there is a lot to be said about data sovereignty for individuals and also for Governments, businesses and cyber-security.
I want to make a point about France and Germany, whose Governments have been moving a lot of their software systems to open-source software, which is not part of big tech. I would like to see the British Government seriously analyse open-source options.
Rosie Wrighting
On cyber-security, in recent weeks the US Government have decided to block Claude’s new AI software, Fable 5. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on new AI software and cyber-security?
Navendu Mishra
I have a lot to say about the Trump Administration, but I will not bore the House with those remarks. The threats we are seeing to modern society from artificial intelligence are quite serious and there is an unpredictable Government in Washington DC.
The Government should do a big piece of work, similar to that being done in France and Germany, on open-source software. I read an excellent book recently by American author Ben Tarnoff, called “Internet for the People”, and I would highly recommend it to the Minister and all Members of the House. It is about how we are where we are in terms of big tech.
The point made by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin about better and stronger regulation is important. I also want to touch on the digital services tax introduced in 2020. The rate of digital services tax in the UK is fairly low. In Austria, it is 5%; in France, it is 3%; and in Germany, it is 10%. We need to revisit that as a society, and make sure that big tech companies pay their fair share of tax.
I have tabled two written questions, UIN477 and UIN57573, asking whether the Government have a strategy for using open-source software; I would like to see them do a lot more on that. In Europe, our friends can see where the big tech platforms most of us use every day are leading us, and they are looking more and more at open-source software. Cyber-security and data sovereignty are really important issues.
I could go on and on, Sir Jeremy, but you are looking at me, so I will finish my remarks. I would love to hear the Minister address the points about open-source software and a digital services tax that could yield a lot more revenue for taxpayers.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate. It goes without saying that big tech companies, like everyone else, should pay their fair share. They should not be allowed to harvest a child’s data or feature harmful content on their platforms. That is why the Government’s ban on harmful social media could be an important step towards better protection for young people online.
However, I worry that enforcing a blanket ban will just see young people turn to virtual private networks and access totally unmodified content. VPN use went up more than 100% as soon as the ban in Australia was implemented. I also worry that taking away all social media platforms could be really damaging to some young people in Yeovil and beyond, who use social media to find their people, battle loneliness and express themselves. When done right, social media can be a space where young people can be so creative. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how we balance those concerns with the vital need to protect young people. We Liberal Democrats have suggested a film-style age rating system for these platforms to keep children safe online.
One area where we really do need to crack down is protecting the creative industries. Artists should not be finding their art being used by generative AI without their permission. We need the Government to clarify how they will go further on regulating the small print that big tech uses when it comes to what is used to teach AI models.
Beyond social media, the change and innovation coming out of big tech could be a real focus for good. For example, assistive technology for people with special educational needs and disabilities can be life-changing, whether that is AI note takers like Plaud or more specific tech for things like speech and language disorders. I know that the Department for Education is working away at this, but we need a cross-Government approach to fund and suggest the best assistive tech for schools and the workplace.
Related to that point, I ask the Minister to set out what discussions he has had with big tech companies about making their platforms—from social media to chatbots—more accessible for neurodiverse people, as there are lots of simple steps we can take. I would welcome a meeting with the Minister to set those out.
Finally, I want to talk about an issue where I am seeing impact: fraud and scams. One constituent with learning difficulties lost £70,000 to a romance fraud. There were no guardrails on social media, and nor were the protections on online banking apps good enough. Although we got Lloyds to refund my constituent, it was an uphill struggle. But it is not just that scam; scammers are everywhere and targeting everyone and anyone in our community. Fraudsters are even using sponsored slots on Google to act as fake clean air zone charging websites.
Veterans are being targeted by scam wealth creation and property investment influencers, who use their background as veterans to sell worthless courses that trap those targeted in a spiral of spending more and more on such courses. A veteran from my constituency was worried at first, but after being reassured by a veteran recruiting for the course and the slick social media presence of the influencers, he invested. Ultimately, he faced bankruptcy and nearly took his own life. Regulation is not keeping up, and the Government and big tech need to be doing more to crack down on fraud.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In my constituency, scammers have managed to impersonate the council to demand bogus penalty charges from vulnerable residents. Meanwhile, the world’s leading deepfake expert, Hany Farid, says in The New York Times that he can no longer trust his own eyes. If he cannot, what chance do the rest of us have? Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to compel tech companies to crack down on deepfakes and establish an AI regulator to enforce a statutory code of ethics?
Adam Dance
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Will the Minister set out the steps that the Government are taking with big tech and the Financial Conduct Authority to crack down on fraudsters? It is important that the Minister clearly sets out what new protections and awareness campaigns the Government are putting together, because the approach so far has not been enough. We need action.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing forward this important debate. It comes at a pertinent time, as we discuss the impact of social media on our children, the way we use AI, and the influence of big tech companies, including on our lives.
As I pointed out earlier, a growing number of voices—doctors, nurses, civil society organisations and Members across this House—are sounding the alarm about the unchecked expansion of one company: Palantir Technologies. The concern seems to centre around two issues. The first is the sheer scale of Palantir’s involvement in our public infrastructure. It holds at least 34 current and past Government contracts across at least 10 Departments, totalling a minimum of £900 million. The true figure is likely higher, since several contracts remain unacknowledged or heavily redacted. Palantir’s largest single contract is the NHS federated data platform, which is worth £330 million over seven years. My inbox has been rammed with constituents calling for the Government to trigger Palantir’s February 2027 break clause. I support that call, and I hope the Minister will say whether the Government do, too.
Mark Pritchard
It is unusual for me to intervene, but I am glad the hon. Lady mentioned that number. I had no idea it was that many contracts for that particular company, and that underscores some of the points I was making. I can think of certain service companies, which I will not mention today, that have multiple contracts, some of which they deliver well, and some of which have been a complete disaster under successive Governments. I can think of some global IT companies—not big tech, but the old, traditional hardware companies—where some of those programmes are delivered well, and some have been a complete disaster. To have so many contracts in the hands of so few is concerning.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
That is why I was so pleased the right hon. Member called the debate. I hope he agrees that once a contractor has failed for one Department, it should not be given a contract for another Department. I hope the Minister will speak to that.
I hugely support my constituents’ call for the Government to use that February 2027 break clause with Palantir. I hope the Minister will tell us more about whether they intend to act on that. Some will say that Palantir’s expanding portfolio simply proves that it is the best company for the job. That may be true for some places—I doubt it—but it is not a reason to dismiss concerns. We should be worried about one company having this much dominance across so many pillars of our society, and particularly a foreign corporation that may not have the UK’s best interests at heart. I say that with confidence, because Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, has accused us of having Stockholm syndrome over our affection for the NHS and said that we need to
“rip the whole thing from the ground and start over”.
His broader political views are just as concerning, and I encourage Members to look into them.
The current CEO of Palantir UK is Oswald Mosley’s grandson. I do not wish to judge a man solely by his grandfather’s sins, but that gets harder when the views on display are not entirely dissimilar. Nor can we ignore Peter Mandelson’s role in arranging the Prime Minister’s undeclared 2025 visit to Palantir’s headquarters—a meeting where no minutes were taken and that raised transparency questions that are still unanswered.
The second concern is data. Palantir built its reputation as a surveillance and intelligence tool for the US military; it is not a healthcare company, but a data aggregation company with software designed to link datasets across systems. This is no longer a hypothetical risk: NHS England has confirmed that Palantir staff can access identifiable patient data on the federated data platform through a new admin role on the national data integration tenant. The British Medical Association, Medacs, the Good Law Project, Privacy International and Amnesty International have all warned that that data could become accessible to other departments, or to US authorities under the American Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018, regardless of what any contract says.
Some 50,000 patients have written to their NHS trust boards to urge them not to adopt the platform. I am not suggesting that every Palantir contract should be cancelled tomorrow, but we are sleepwalking into a dependency on this company that we will come to deeply regret.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We have not been universally successful at keeping to four minutes. I ask everyone to now get closer to three minutes, because I need to begin Front-Bench contributions at 5.28 pm.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. In my lifetime, technology has found its way into every corner of society. It has changed our workplaces, our classrooms and my farm, to be honest. It has brought real benefits, but also huge harms.
One positive, of course, is that we can stay connected to everybody in the world, but we are also always reachable, and with that comes the downside of being exposed to the online world. Our children can stumble across content so harmful that it alters how they see themselves and the world. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement on banning children from social media and blocking nude images on children’s phones. But let us be honest: that should have happened years ago; the Government have dilly-dallied while we, and particularly our younger generation, have been left to pay the price. That is because they are scared of upsetting billionaire tech bosses, and that shows the real role that big tech plays: an undemocratic hand on the shoulder of our politics.
Big tech is pursuing AI superintelligence with almost no democratic oversight, and even world-class engineers admit they cannot fully control today’s models. People never voted for AI systems that can generate abuse or distort elections, yet those are being rolled out anyway. Children and women have already been violated by explicit images created without their consent, and misinformation is now so widespread that it threatens the foundations of our democracy. Still, the Government tiptoe around tech billionaires, acting only when the damage is already done.
We have to be honest about the power that these companies hold. We were not elected to represent tech bosses; we were elected to represent our constituents. This Government have allowed themselves to be sucked in by the interests of the very richest people on the planet—individuals whose wealth exceeds the GDP of entire nations. I therefore want to ask the Minister three things. First, what will the actual consequences be if companies do not meet the deadline for blocking nude images? Will the Secretary of State report to Parliament at the end of that period with a clear timeline for legislation if progress falls short? Secondly, what proactive plans do the Government have to address the national security risk expected to be posed by superintelligent AI? Finally, when will this Government stop governing in fear of big tech and start governing in the interest of the people who sent us here?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.
Apatura has submitted a planning application to Falkirk council for a 300-MW AI data centre just 500 metres from Forth Valley Royal hospital, 20 metres from a care home and next to a densely populated residential area. From the outset, it is worth noting that the council has received nearly 1,800 objections from local people. It is no wonder that the strength of feeling against this big tech project is so strong: the proposed site, which covers about 55 acres of land, is being labelled as “sustainable”, which is frankly insulting to my constituents. An environmental impact assessment shows that the proposed data centre would emit pollution that would rank it among the worst 10 polluters in Scotland. The data centre requires its own electricity substation and 200 diesel generators as back-up. Even if they are never run for operational purposes, the generators will have to come online as part of a regular maintenance programme.
As we are here in Westminster Hall today in sweltering temperatures in the middle of a heatwave, let us also ponder the scale of the low-grade waste heat that the AI data centre would produce. The direct thermal exhaust creates hot air, which needs to be dispersed into the atmosphere. AI chips created by the big tech company Nvidia get so hot that they need liquid cooling, creating a warm liquid that must then be piped out. That intense thermal exhaust can raise temperatures by up to 9°. Surface warming can impact areas up to six miles away. As I said, the proposed site is just 20 metres from a care home, 500 metres from a hospital that serves approximately 300,000 people and is in a residential area full of families with children. The proposal is outrageous.
The noise being produced by the data centre will be constant. It will include infrasonic noise, the long wavelengths of which travel vast distances and can penetrate walls and glass, even defeating ear protectors. That pollution can cause serious physical and psychological harm and distress. Surely there will be consensus in this Chamber when I say that technology should not come with a health warning to people, families and communities. I would like to think that legislators at every level of government consider that to be the baseline for any of their decisions.
Of course, technology will play an increasing role in our society, but proposed developments like the one in Larbert rightly have people worried. Its proximity to the hospital, care home and many houses shows that people are right to be concerned. It is shameful that tech companies do not seem to be bothered about that. Technology cannot and must not be an industry that exploits people, communities and our environment for profit.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful contribution. He not only highlighted the dangers of content and addiction but made a power analysis when he talked about the threat to democracy of big tech companies. They have a supranational status now, and states are struggling to tax or regulate them—or to enforce the regulations that they have against them. That is a real challenge to democracy that we need to face up to across the House.
At the heart of this is the fact that tech companies have simply been allowed to get too big. We have had a laissez-faire attitude towards their growth over the years, which is based on confused economic principles. Yes, we want frictionless free trade, but is a market really free if it has been captured by a handful of firms? I thought that traditional economic theory already warned us about that, but we seem to have become more naive about it in the last decade or so. Looking at the power analysis in the global market, this is really about the hegemonic role of the US. If we look at pension funds, for example, more of UK pension savings now go into Apple than into all UK firms combined. We can see how the problem accelerates over time. We wonder why our brilliant tech start-ups are not able to grow; it is because when they reach the point when they need more capital, all the capital is in the US. We get Google buying out DeepMind and the cycle continues. They get bigger and bigger, and we get weaker and weaker. For far too long, we have had an economic strategy that is naive about what happens in a free market if there is a hegemonic power in it. That power has to be challenged.
Members have touched on this today, but the answer lies in a greater focus on tech sovereignty. It is not about gaining tech independence; we are not suddenly going to invent our own Facebook, ChatGPT or Amazon tomorrow—it would be naive of us to try—but about establishing our own niches within the global markets so that we claw some of that power back. It is about pooling our sovereignty and working with like-minded states, perhaps those in the EU, and collectively using our power to enforce tax, regulations and other legal limits on the activities of tech companies.
Mark Pritchard
I did not have time to raise this issue in my speech. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 established the National Security Investment Unit, which was the right move. If a particularly sensitive company with strategic assets or a technology that affects UK interests is to be sold or receive outward investment, it has to be cleared by the Government. That is a welcome change, but it is rather perverse or even ironic that, when the situation is reversed, there is very little scrutiny.
Bobby Dean
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is another item on the list of things that we have ignored for far too long. Ultimately, we need to shift the balance of power. As he said in his speech, the power has been shifted too far in favour of a handful of tech giants. This is not just about economic power; it is about our national security, the delivery of public services and, ultimately, our independence in the world and our ability to shape our destiny. I thank him for raising this important issue, and I hope we can have more discussions about power, as well as the impact of that power.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
We live in an age in which a handful of technology companies shape how we communicate, shop, work and receive news, and increasingly how the Government deliver public services. There is no question but that technology has brought enormous benefits to us. It has enabled new businesses, accelerated scientific discovery and created opportunities that previous generations could not imagine, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask a fundamental question: who is shaping whom? Is technology serving society or is society being reshaped to serve the interests of technology companies?
Today, a small number of global technology corporations possess unprecedented economic power to influence markets. Their algorithms shape public debate and their infrastructure underpins our essential services. That concentration of power raises important questions about sovereignty. The Government are elected by the British people and this Parliament makes laws, yet too often we find ourselves adapting public policy to the priorities of global firms, rather than expecting those firms to adapt to the rules of our society.
The rise of artificial intelligence makes those questions even more urgent. AI has extraordinary potential in healthcare, education, public administration and so forth, but it should raise concerns about issues such as transparency and accountability, which affect employment and the concentration of power. That means that there is a need for stronger competition policy when markets become overly concentrated. It means that public data is used in the public interest. It means protecting our citizens from harmful online environments. It also means supporting British innovation so that the next generation of technological advance creates prosperity across our country, rather than a dependence on overseas monopolies.
Britain should choose democracy, accountability and innovation in the service of society. That is the task before us. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. It is a debate that this House must not shirk.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this timely debate and on his interesting and balanced speech.
In today’s digital age, a small group of technology giants wield extraordinary influence over the infrastructure, services and processes that shape our online lives. Although not all their market positions constitute illegal monopolies, their collective market power enables them to set the terms of digital engagement for billions of people worldwide. That concentration of power has profound implications for the rights to privacy, non-discrimination and access to information. It also has the power to undermine our democratic processes fundamentally, which is one of the points that the right hon. Member made in his opening remarks.
The platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society often depends on using their services. That gives them enormous power to influence public discourse and to curate the information that we receive. We have in effect subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers. Nowhere is the danger posed to society greater than on the issue of AI.
Without doubt, AI is a transformational technology that will bring many benefits to our society, but in order to realise those benefits fully, it is important to put up safeguards to ensure that those technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole, rather than simply as a vehicle by which large tech companies can make even greater profits. Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public.
I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some form of employment levy, for example, on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI. Tax is crucial to this debate, and I want to finish on it. Complicated corporate structures, offshore schemes and favourable tax systems allow companies such as Amazon and Apple to boost their bottom line. Given the lack of transparency about where companies make their money and pay their taxes, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of what is going on. Big tech is here to stay, but how we regulate it, tax it and control it are the big questions that our Government and society as a whole need to face.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all Members who have spoken so far for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bencher contributions, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this important debate and for raising the very real issues of the impact of big tech on democracy.
Big tech has in many cases become synonymous with US tech, but that is not something that we should accept. The UK’s technology ecosystem is worth nearly £1 trillion. It is the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world and the most valuable in Europe. The UK has a long history of technological innovation, from the industrial revolution to the creation of the world wide web. That legacy is still very much alive today, but we must continue to foster it.
The shortage of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—skills in the UK has been a concern for the past two decades, along with scale-up funding. Start-ups in the UK repeatedly say that their main challenge is finding funding to scale up, and that that is hindering the UK’s chance of having a thriving technological ecosystem with as large an impact as that of America. If we look at our pensions, for example, foreign pension funds invest 16 times more into UK start-ups than our own pension funds do. Overseas funds recognise the talent that we create, so why don’t we? Why are we allowing our brilliant British start-ups to be sold abroad?
Backing British technology has never been so important, as we have heard in the debate, because big technology exists in every corner of our society. Even the Government run their computer systems on overseas cloud providers. As alluded to, the NHS data system is run by Palantir. The online systems used every day by workers across the UK’s economy are run by big tech companies, neither owned nor run from the UK. That is a question of not only economic security but, increasingly, national security.
We cannot ignore the risks posed by overreliance on foreign technologies. That became apparent when the US Government switched off, across the globe, access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5. While Fable 5 may only have been a feature for a day, a worrying precedent has been set for the US’s role in turning off international access to its big tech. What if that tech had been powering public services, such as our NHS records, when it was suddenly cut off? This must be a wake-up call.
Our reliance on the technology that fuels our economy and underpins our services shows how desperately we need a digital sovereignty strategy to support British tech. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to take the risk, which is why we tabled and voted in favour of a digital sovereignty strategy during proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We would have required the Government to establish a digital sovereignty strategy that placed British tech procurement at its centre. In an increasingly unstable world, the case for British digital resilience, technology and sovereign capability has never been stronger, but the Labour Government voted the proposed strategy down. I ask the Minister to explain what his alternative strategy is.
Unfortunately, we cannot talk about big tech’s role in society without also thinking about the online harms. The world is increasingly moving towards the regulation of social media, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government finally took on that issue, but the fine print really matters. The burden of safety must be on big tech, not on parents. The Liberal Democrats are clear that we must implement film-style age ratings based on harm, addictiveness and mental health impact. That is supported by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and over 40 charities.
Social media companies must also play a stronger role in tackling misinformation. The UK Government must introduce stricter regulations for social media companies to ensure that they challenge harmful misinformation and reduce its spread across their platforms. Social media companies must issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts and ensure that those are seen by everyone who shared or saw the original inaccurate posts. They must also change their algorithms to de-promote misinformation and fake news.
I recently witnessed the devastating and real-life impact of unregulated dis and misinformation in Epsom and Ewell when riots took place there in April. In analysing the social media around those riots, the Council for Countering Online Disinformation found that 62 right wing UK accounts produced 70% of the misinformation. It also found that 42 video posts containing misinformation reached 4.2 million views, accounting for nearly 25% of misinformation views, despite accounting for less than 1% of all Epsom misinformation posts. That false information reached at least 21.8 million views between 11 April and 23 April. It was also promoted by X’s algorithm and, alarmingly, it continued to sit in X’s trending tab for at least two consecutive days after it had been clarified by the police that the events in question never took place.
Social media is not the only cause of online harms. Despite their transformative potential, evidence shows that AI and bots are also a cause of harm online. NBC News reported that 57.4% of search requests online are now initiated by bots, compared with 42.6% coming from humans—a terrifying reality where bots are outpacing and outnumbering humans online. At the same time, 70% of people are unable to correctly identify real and fake AI-generated content online. Those online harms have been driven by big tech, and current legislation does not actively prevent them.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content online. We would also introduce a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the right to privacy, free expression and participation. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically. That is why we would establish a cross-sector AI regulator that combines flexible, ethical oversight and technical expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology.
The AI legislation promised in Labour’s manifesto and the 2024 King’s Speech has not yet materialised. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has five minutes to sum up the debate, and she is on six and a bit. Can she swiftly get to her last sentence?
Helen Maguire
Absolutely. Internal conflicts and leadership challenges cannot be allowed to cost Britain its technological future or the safety of our children. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government on the positive role that British big tech can have, while holding the Government to account. Getting that right is not politics; it is essential for Britain’s future.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate. I know that we share a common interest in this area. I also congratulate him on bringing a debate about the big picture stuff. It is important that we get there, and I compliment hon. Members for rising to meet that challenge.
The United Kingdom is home to Europe’s largest, and one of the world’s most dynamic, technology ecosystems. The digital and technology sector contributes an estimated £207 billion in gross value added to the UK economy and supports around 2.6 million jobs. It represents a vital pillar in our national prosperity that drives productivity, fosters high-skilled employment and enhances our global competitiveness. From artificial intelligence and cyber-security to fintech and advanced manufacturing, British innovation in technology continues to shape industries both at home and abroad.
We fully recognise the substantial benefits that large technology companies bring. These firms deliver cutting-edge innovation, significant investment, world-class infrastructure and services that millions of people and businesses rely on every day. Their scale enables rapid advancement in areas such as cloud computing, mobile technologies and data analytics, which in turn support broader economic growth across sectors.
At the same time, we must remain vigilant and ensure that market concentration does not inadvertently stifle competition or limit opportunities for emerging British firms. In key areas, a small number of global players hold dominant positions. Together, Apple and Google account for virtually the entire mobile operating system market in the UK, with iOS and Android combined making up nearly 100% of the share. Similarly, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft together command a very significant portion—often estimated at between 60% and 80%—of the UK’s cloud computing infrastructure market.
That concentration brings clear efficiencies and capabilities, but it also highlights the need for effective oversight. We support a proportionate competition policy that promotes fairness, encourages new entrants and prevents any single player from abusing market power. Open and competitive digital markets are essential if we are to retain more economic value within the UK, nurture home-grown talent, and build a resilient and diversified digital economy.
As Conservatives, we have long championed the importance of robust yet balanced digital competition enforcement. Regulation should protect consumers and smaller innovators without creating unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that slow growth. The Competition and Markets Authority has an important role to play in this regard, alongside evolving frameworks such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Our approach prioritises evidence-based intervention that fosters innovation while maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and scale business.
This principle extends to other critical areas, including online safety. Timely and decisive action to protect children and other vulnerable users online is essential, and we have constantly advocated for stronger practical safeguards, working alongside parents, campaigners, experts and the industry, because protecting the most vulnerable must remain a priority. The Leader of the Opposition did not flinch from standing with parents and carers when the time came to be robust. Constructive collaboration between Government, technology companies and civil society will achieve better long-term outcomes than purely reactive measures.
More broadly, the influence of technology touches every aspect of modern life. From boosting productivity in traditional industries to enabling breakthroughs in healthcare and climate solutions, the sector’s potential is immense. However, realising that potential requires the right conditions: access to talent, supportive infrastructure, access to finance for scale-ups, and a regulatory environment that rewards innovation rather than entrenching incumbents.
At its core, this debate asks us to consider what kind of digital economy we wish to build for the future. We believe that Britain should aim for an economy in which a diverse range of innovative companies—from start-ups in our world-class universities and tech clusters to established firms—can compete, grow and deliver benefits to consumers and society on merit. This vision rests on a strong competition policy that prevents the abuse of market power while actively encouraging the investment, dynamism and entrepreneurship that drive long-term growth.
We also recognise the global nature of technology. International co-operation on standards, data flows and emerging issues such as artificial intelligence will be increasingly important. The UK’s position as a leading tech nation gives us influence on the world stage, and we should use that influence to promote open markets, ethical innovation and high standards.
The success of our technology sector is central to delivering the economic growth and opportunity that our country needs. By championing competition, supporting innovation and maintaining a balanced approach to regulation, we can ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the global digital economy, creating jobs, driving prosperity and harnessing technology for the benefit of all. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s current thinking regarding the role of large technology companies, and on how together we can best support a thriving, competitive and innovative UK tech sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, but it is a particular pleasure when we are discussing questions of digital markets and regulation, because I know that you bring expertise in and experience of these issues.
I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. He has held me to account in the main Chamber, we have spoken in the corridors of Parliament, and I am delighted that he has now convened a much broader debate on the role of big tech in society. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members for their contributions to this important discussion.
This debate gets to the heart of what I consider the central question in our politics, our economy and our national security: how we ensure that the extraordinary power of modern technology serves our society, strengthens our economy, protects our citizens, and is grounded in British values.
Given the time we have, I will do the courtesy of responding to individual Members first before talking more substantively on the common issues. The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) raised the central question: are we on the side of British values or shareholder values for firms located abroad? It is pretty clear, whether on questions of online safety legislation, where we have the most robust regime anywhere in the world, or on questions of the most innovative set of sovereignty interventions anywhere in the world, that every single decision that this Government have made on technology has been on the side of British values, in the spirit of collaborating and never capitulating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) raised the two magic words: open source. I made a speech a few months ago talking about my passion for open source, not least because aspects of its Welsh grounding—Raspberry Pi, developed by a Welsh founder, is now opening up opportunities for kids in living rooms across the world to develop bits of software.
There are three things we have therefore done on open source that make Britain the best place in the world for open-source talent: first, a particular focus on talent, not least a major hackathon we have partnered on to invite the world’s best talent to come and build open source here; secondly, a series of offers of compute, direct involvement in Government strategy on open source and, to the extent it is helpful, personal mentoring from me for winners of public service development on open source; and thirdly, just this morning, significant funding of £30 million for a serious national lab, led by University College London, focused in particular on open-source models. Britain is at the frontier of open-source AI, and this is the right thing to have done for our sovereignty aspirations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport raised an important point about kids’ experiences on social media and the impact on educational attainment. That is exactly my personal motivation behind the significant action we are taking to ban social media for under-16s as well.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) raised a series of questions, and I will address two of them in particular. He asked about compliance with social media bans. There are three things we have done to ensure we learn the lessons from elsewhere: more robust age checks; ensuring that enforcement is out of the gate on day one rather than delayed, so that companies feel the heat of enforcement early on; and to acknowledge that this will not be a 100% overnight compliance issue, but a long-term societal shift in culture, as previous regulations have created. That is the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about wider opportunities that the Government will support to offset some opportunities that young people might lose as a result of the ban. There are exemptions for both education services and music streaming. Really importantly, on the day that we announced the social media ban for under-16s, we announced 180 youth hubs across the country. That means more than £500 million spent on arts, music and culture opportunities for young people, right across England. There was a series of contributions from Members with that point in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) raised very important points about concentration. I will not speak overtly about an individual company, but I will flag that I understand from the relevant Department that a supplier contract for the NHS federated data platform will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes this year, on the question of its extension. I am sure that her contributions will be regarded in that context.
I normally hold the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fondly in my mind in our parliamentary debates, so I was sorry to hear her take a more political, point-scoring approach to questions of online safety. I was sad that she called putting the voices of Welsh kids and families at the heart our decisions “dilly-dallying”. Thousands of young people and families in Wales contributed to the decision on a social media ban. This is a historic decision for the people of Wales, whose voices fundamentally shaped it. That is not tiptoeing; it is running fast but together towards the solutions that matter.
On the hon. Lady’s particular questions, we are preparing legislative options alongside securing significant progress on blocking children from taking, receiving and sharing nude images. We have already secured more progress than any other country on this question. On her point on proactively dealing with national security concerns, the British Government are building capabilities, not least through the Security Institute and across our intelligence agencies, that are unparalleled in terms of ensuring that our national security is a priority on questions of technology.
On when this Government will face up to tech platforms, I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that again and again this Government have taken the side of people, not platforms—of British families, including Welsh families, not foreign tech billionaires. I would encourage her to join us in that mission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) raised concerns about a particular data centre. I am not fully abreast of the plans on that particular site, but I am very conscious of the concerns he raised. I simply point out that, in theory, there are ways in which data centre investors ought to make sure that what they are doing supports our important clean energy and power goals. In particular, I reflect on the fact that in Lanarkshire there are significant sites that have pulled forward clean energy generation in solar and battery as a result of data centre investment, rather than instead of or in trade off with it. Again, we are focused on ensuring that both those aspirations are met, as they are in north Wales where our data centre investments are pulling forward the future of small modular reactor nuclear in this country.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), raised an important point about pension funds under allocation to British equities, in particular to British technology and AI equities. That has been a huge focus for the Government, not least through the Mansion House reforms and the increased deployment pace at the British Business Bank, which is now deploying more than £2 billion a year in this area, but also through the half-a-billion sovereign AI fund, which is focused on building deep British capability.
The point the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised about the balance of power is central. In response to the ask for a sovereignty strategy, we are not only talking about it—we are delivering it. We have defined the single most important question: where does Britain stand on the balance of power? Do we have strategic leverage to secure ongoing access to critical inputs? There are three tests we are focused on. The first is having enough critical inputs—NVIDIA graphic processing units, for example—to be able to play our way in the world. The second is having a diverse set of sources so that we have bargaining leverage in that context; one of the first things I did was meet SambaNova, Cerebras and Groq to diversify our engagement with chip companies. The third really important test is, where British strengths and economics allow, to build full-fat British capability. We have done that with our hardware plan—more than £1 billion supporting companies such as Fractile, OLIX, Salience Labs and others. That is the crux of our sovereignty strategy: a clear definition, a clear plan across every part of the stack on AI, and delivery alongside that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) brought a deep degree of expertise on technology to this debate and asked the central question: do we shape technology in the artificial intelligence revolution, or is it the other way around? His point about stronger competition, which was also raised by the shadow Minister, is important. The CMA has been acting in an area of collaboration between the previous Government’s aspirations on digital competition and this Government’s. I look forward to the enforcement of remedies across both mobile and business software when it comes to AI.
My hon. Friend also raised questions about online safety. I hope he feels that the significant actions that the Government have taken—banning social media for under 16s, being one of the first countries to bring AI chatbots into regulatory scope to make sure that they are not producing illegal content, and banning romantic chatbots—have been pioneering and show that we are always on the side of the British public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) raised incredibly important points about how we ensure that the security of AI is central to the questions we ask in public policy. Across every aspect of Government, we are building a Labour vision for that. We are building state institutions that will last the test of time and ensure that we are kept safe from some of the risks of AI.
Mark Pritchard
I am conscious of time, so I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions I asked: who owns the data, who controls the data, and what does that mean for democracy and the balance of power?
Kanishka Narayan
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am personally interested in how we rest more agency and control in the hands of the British public and the British state when it comes to data. There are clear rules and regulations about both privacy and individual data consents that apply, but I want to go further still by building infrastructure that equips individuals to have greater control over their data.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s points, through the AI Security Institute we have the best capability in the state to keep evaluating, understanding and mitigating risks. Through the AI Economics Institute, we have a deeper understanding of the impact of AI on jobs than pretty much any other country. We want to go further on that, including looking at a range of economic levers to mitigate some of the risks. Through sovereign AI we are investing in British capabilities, through the Alan Turing Institute we are investing in national security-relevant AI, and through labs that were funded just this morning we are making sure that British capability, rather than foreign capability alone, determines the future of AI.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
The debate must finish at 5.50 pm, so the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has a minute to wind up his debate.
Mark Pritchard
Just a minute: no deviation, repetition or hesitation—never from the Minister, who was completely direct, cogent and excellent as ever. But the question remains for all of us: who owns and controls the data and what does that mean for democracy? That is not a party political point. Is that control and oversight of the governance sat in an office in San Francisco or elsewhere, or is it in a Minister of the Crown’s office here in Whitehall? That will be an ongoing debate that goes to the fundamentals of why we are all here. The people must have the power, not large corporate entities. I think we all agree that we need to see more competition. Tech is a force for good, but we need to ensure that it has oversight.
Written Statements
Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner Independent Review: Government Response
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government’s response to the final report of the Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner, CP 1596, has been laid in Parliament today.
On 9 December 2025 the Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner revealed in his final report, “Pursuing Recoveries and Preventing Reoccurrence”, CP 1462, the staggering amount of fraud and error across pandemic support schemes—£10.9 billion. This is money that should have funded our NHS and schools—money that belongs in our communities.
The commissioner’s report set out crucial recommendations for recovering this money, ensuring those who defrauded the state during a national crisis face justice and preventing the misuse of public funds during future crises. Over the last two years Government have been working up an ambitious plan to recover funds and prevent fraud in future national emergencies based on the commissioner’s findings. Today’s paper sets out that plan and responds in detail to each of the commissioner’s recommendations.
Righting these wrongs will not be easy. Significant time has elapsed and many of the entities involved have been dissolved, meaning some funds may still prove irrecoverable. But we are committed to putting this appalling scandal right—by recovering funds taken by fraudsters during the pandemic and putting them back into our public services, holding those responsible to account, and ensuring that taxpayer money is better protected in the future.
The report is published on gov.uk at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-of-the-covid-counter-fraud-commissioner
[HCWS140]
Tax Update 2026: Simplification, Modernisation and Fairness
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Today the Government set out further reforms to simplify and modernise the tax and customs system, building on the commitment first made in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs transformation road map, published in July 2025 and confirmed at Budget 2025.
The measures announced today simplify rules, improve taxpayer guidance, and ensure more taxpayers can benefit from high-quality digital services. The changes, consultations and proposals announced today will help people and businesses to get their tax and customs right first time, while reducing burdens and improving certainty.
The Government are acting to collect more revenue from those who do not play by the rules. This will help ensure that taxpayers and legitimate high-street businesses can compete on a level playing field. The Government are consulting on reforms to online marketplace VAT liability; further extending this liability to more effectively tackle non-compliance; bringing forward reforms to low-value imports, as first announced at Budget 2025; and taking targeted steps to tackle fraud from “sales suppression” systems, through consulting on new software standards.
Simplifying and modernising the tax system
The measures announced today support the Government’s long-term ambition for a simpler tax system, in which rules are straightforward and easy to understand, and meeting tax obligations fits into how people run their lives and businesses. Together, these measures will improve how employer payroll and expenses operate, cut down on paper processes, and improve the overall experience for small businesses.
Key measures include:
VAT treatment of land intended for social housing: The Government are today launching a consultation on the introduction of a new zero rate of VAT for the sale of land intended for the construction of social housing. It is seeking views on how the current VAT rules work and how a new zero rate would support the delivery of social housing, helping reduce barriers to building new homes and supporting more households into safe and decent homes. The consultation will also help ensure any new tax relief remains fair and affordable.
Review and uprating of benchmark scale rates and overseas scale rates: BSR and OSR are optional flat rates that employers can use to reimburse employees for the cost of meals and other travel expenses when they travel for work in the UK (BSR), and for accommodation and meals when they travel overseas (OSR), without having to check every receipt. In response to stakeholder feedback, and following engagement with industry, the Government will review HMRC’s BSR and OSR. BSR will be reviewed, with consideration given to the current costs of travel. In addition, the review will look to understand if there is scope to simplify OSR, with more alignment between BSR and OSR.
More Timely Payment for Income Tax Self-Assessment: As announced at Budget 2025, the Government are today launching a consultation on implementing more timely payments in ITSA, including reforms for ITSA customers with pay-as-you-earn income, who will be required to pay more of their forecasted self-assessment liabilities in-year through PAYE from April 2029. We are also consulting on the potential for more timely payments for other self-assessment taxpayers by reforming payments on account. Spreading tax payments through the year into smaller, regular payments will help reduce tax debt and avoid taxpayers having to pay larger, infrequent and sometimes unexpected bills.
Call for evidence on PAYE Settlement Agreements: The Government are taking proactive steps to simplify and modernise PSAs. As part of this review, HMRC is today publishing a call for evidence. The call for evidence seeks to improve understanding of how PSAs operate in practice, including how employers interpret the rules and where there may be complexity or uncertainty. The evidence gathered will allow an informed view of whether any changes are needed, with the aim of addressing unclear boundaries and inconsistent use, and helping to reduce administrative burdens for employers and advisers.
Consultation on modernising the distributions framework: The Government are today launching a consultation to explore modernising the rules that determine whether a payment to a company’s non-corporate shareholders falls within the distributions regime. This is to ensure the rules operate as intended and minimise distortions, without undermining commercial practice. The Government are consulting because of the complexity of this area of the tax system, which in many cases has not been reformed since 1965, and the need to have a clear view of potential impacts before deciding whether to proceed.
Digitising the option to tax process: Option to tax allows businesses to reclaim and charge VAT on land and buildings, which are normally exempt from VAT. In response to feedback from the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, and through work with the Land & Property Liaison Group—an HMRC-industry forum—the Government are improving the option to tax process by replacing paper-based routes with a new digital channel. This will incorporate industry requirements, including bulk uploads, for option to tax notifications, revocations and VAT registration cancellations.
Consultation on the tax treatment of members of US limited liability companies and other reverse hybrids: The Government launched a consultation on 10 June 2026 on new proposals to remove double taxation from investments in certain types of overseas entity—including US limited liability companies—where an unintended mismatch is resulting in high and unfair tax rates. This proposal is part of the wider work that the Government are doing to develop the UK’s offer for globally mobile talent and ensure that the UK is a great place to live and work.
First-time buyer individual savings account consultation: The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. To support that ambition, the Government are today launching a consultation on the implementation of a new, simpler ISA product to support first-time buyers to buy a home. Once available, this new product will be offered in place of the lifetime ISA.
Help to Save: The Government confirm that the reformed help to save scheme will be delivered through a multi-provider model. Following consultation and engagement with stakeholders, this approach will enable financial institutions to offer help to save accounts directly to eligible customers, with the aim of improving visibility and access by embedding the scheme within the mainstream savings market. The Government will continue to work with industry to support implementation of the reformed scheme.
HMRC is continuing to deliver on existing simplification commitments, including by making its guidance clearer and easier to use. To support this aim, HMRC delivered over 4,000 updates and improvements to guidance last year to help more customers digitally self-serve and minimise complexity.
HMRC has also developed interactive guidance, which has won several awards for simplifying complex areas of the system by providing customers with tailored, step-by-step journeys. Over the last four years, HMRC has built 118 of these journeys and in 2025-26, customer feedback shows that interactive guidance supports effective self-service, with nearly 80% of respondents saying they were able to complete their task. This is supported by HMRC’s data, which shows that over 96% of customers did not visit HMRC’s “Contact us” pages within five days of using interactive guidance.
HMRC is also continuing work through the Better Letters Together initiative, launched in July 2025, working with the Administrative Burdens Advisory Board to improve the clarity and quality of letters and emails sent to customers.
Simplifying and modernising the customs system
The Government are committed to building a resilient, facilitative and modern customs system that promotes trade while protecting the UK and our economy. A customs system that gets the fundamentals right and adapts to modern international trade is key to trading with ease, now and into the future.
The measures announced today support ongoing administrative improvements to the customs regime, while laying the groundwork for future innovation and change. These measures collectively simplify customs processes and systems, support digitalised trade and improve trader experience, while protecting the UK border and domestic market.
The Government remain committed to working with industry to deliver reforms and identify further opportunities to enhance the customs system.
Key measures include:
Call for evidence on customs modernisation: The Government have published a call for evidence to capture industry views on trade digitalisation, and potential opportunities and challenges for the UK customs regime. This will explore key elements of the UK customs regime in the context of technological and regulatory change, to ensure we understand evolving trader practices and needs and continue to drive international trade.
Digitalisation and artificial intelligence customs pilots: Building on successful pilots with trade and US Customs and Border Protection, the Government will test and scale innovations in the customs system. This includes design and delivery of services allowing HMRC to process electronic trade documents for customs applications, and participating in the next phase of the Department for Business and Trade’s Digital Trade Corridors programme. These initiatives will support businesses to adopt fully digitalised trade. HMRC will also test how AI can support customs caseworkers to complete real-time border documentary checks, improving border flow and strengthening compliance.
Improving the quality of our customs intermediaries: The Government are improving their support to good-quality intermediaries in the customs sector, through the launch of the previously announced standard for customs intermediaries, which was published on 3 June 2026, development of a voluntary certification scheme for the standard, and a new commitment to publish a consultation on mandating customs intermediary registration. This work will ensure the customs system is supported by a high standard of intermediary service.
Digital ATA Carnets: The Government have announced that the UK is one of the first countries to adopt digital ATA carnets, from 1 June 2026. Digitising this “passport for goods” makes it easier for businesses and touring artists to move goods between the UK and other countries temporarily without payment of import duties.
Changes to the duty reimbursement scheme for Northern Ireland goods: The Government have introduced legislative changes to make it easier for businesses to reclaim “at risk” duty paid on goods brought into Northern Ireland. The changes, which went live on 26 May 2026, are designed to enhance access to the scheme by directly addressing business concerns, and also ease the financial burden on businesses where evidence of the final destination of goods takes time to materialise.
Strengthening fairness in the tax system and helping customers get their tax and customs right.
Measures announced today also strengthen compliance and set out options to improve HMRC’s ability to collect tax that is owed. This ensures fairness for the vast majority of taxpayers who meet their obligations and supports fair competition on the high street.
Key measures include:
Reforming the customs treatment of low value imports: The Government have listened carefully to representations made by industry and decided to accelerate delivery of the reforms by six months to October 2028 at the latest. In doing this, the Government have sought to ensure all goods are adequately controlled, while balancing the need to promote fair competition between high street and online retailers, and giving businesses involved in the sales and movement of low-value goods time to prepare for the changes and avoid border disruption. To give businesses as much certainty as possible about the new customs arrangements, the Government will publish a consultation response shortly and start legislating for the reforms in this year’s Finance Bill.
Online marketplace liability: The Government want to tackle persistent VAT non-compliance among businesses selling on online marketplaces, both overseas and domestic. These businesses undermine honest businesses that pay what they owe, and it is estimated that they cost hundreds of millions in lost VAT each year. The Government are therefore consulting on how to clamp down on this non-compliance by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods. This reform would make it harder for overseas businesses to masquerade as being UK-based to escape the current rules, and make sure UK businesses also pay what they owe. This consultation seeks views from online marketplaces, hot food delivery platforms and restaurants and sellers operating through those platforms.
Electronic sales suppression software standards: The Government are determined to tackle till fraud on the UK’s high streets, in which traders use payment systems to fraudulently under-report their income, which is unfair to legitimate high street businesses. The Government are launching a consultation on the introduction of software standards for electronic point of sale and mobile point of sale systems. This consultation seeks views from businesses, software developers and wider stakeholders on measures designed to prevent electronic sales suppression and support fair competition on the high street. The Government aim to ensure that any future approach minimises burdens on compliant businesses and delivers secure, reliable record-keeping that prevents till fraud.
Tackling lower value debts: The Government are today launching a consultation on proposals to extend existing powers to enable recovery of lower-value tax debts. This would apply to customers who can pay but have not responded to multiple contact attempts from HMRC. Each year, over 750,000 such debts, collectively worth more than £2 billion, remain uncollected after nine months, and more than 10 attempts to contact customers to pay what they owe. The proposals would enable HMRC to collect debts directly from customers’ accounts in regular instalments, supported by a comprehensive suite of safeguards to ensure the power is used fairly and proportionately. This measure will help ensure those who can pay their tax debt do so, while maintaining trust and fairness in the tax system.
The full list of publications and announcements can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/taxupdate-2026-simplification-modernisation-and-fairness
[HCWS141]
Media Green Paper
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The Government have today published a Green Paper that sets out a new strategic direction for the Government’s media policy.
At its best, our media provides the basis of a cohesive country and a healthy democracy. It has the power to advance shared understanding, shared facts, and shared experiences which help people trust and understand one another. It is this common ground on which a country is built.
However, like so many of our other civic spaces, it is facing fundamental challenges which are putting these benefits at risk. Television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from a system of limited broadcast channels to an environment of “content everywhere”, where the largest players are global streaming services, video sharing platforms, and social media companies. Our domestic broadcasters, including our public service media (PSM) providers, are fighting to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market. People are increasingly accessing news online, rather than through more regulated spaces like their TV sets. This is weakening the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape an informed public debate.
We are consulting on a comprehensive set of proposals to ensure our media, and television in particular, can continue to play its vitally important role in our society and our democracy.
First, we are proposing three interventions to support an informed society. We will explore legislative options to require social media to make trustworthy news providers—which could include national and local news publishers and broadcasters—easily discoverable. This is crucial for countering misinformation, especially during times of crisis. We will also explore a new duty on PSM providers to develop and report on media literacy strategies, leveraging their high level of public trust and reach to help people critically assess the information they encounter. Further, we will consider mechanisms to support co-ordinated media literacy efforts across public service media, and the wider media sector.
Secondly, building on the extensive stakeholder engagement already undertaken, we will consult on measures to ensure audiences can continue to enjoy universal access to trusted and high-quality television content. The UK television market is shifting from traditional broadcast platforms such as digital terrestrial TV (DTT) to internet-delivered viewing (IPTV). The Government are committed to maintaining DTT until at least the end of 2034, but we are now consulting on what will come after this. To do this, we will work with industry and audience groups to design a package of support that helps audiences transition to IPTV services, ensuring that no one is left behind. This support will aim to address challenges around affordability and accessibility, enabling viewers to make the switch with confidence and benefit from the enhanced functionality and wider choice that IPTV services can offer. Alongside this, we will bring forward a plan for the managed withdrawal of DTT services. Final decisions will be taken in response to the consultation and set out in a White Paper.
We will also undertake a separate period of stakeholder engagement to ensure the regulatory framework for TV services continues to protect audiences from harmful content, supports media providers, and allows our creative industries to thrive into the future.
Finally, the Green Paper will explore how we can support our PSM providers—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, STV and S4C—who sit at the heart of our domestic TV ecosystem, driving growth and inward investment. PSM content needs to be easy to find on the platforms on which people watch TV. Therefore, the Green Paper examines the need for prominence on third party platforms, such as video sharing platforms. The Government’s strong preference remains for industry-led, voluntary agreements to achieve increased prominence in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties. However, should these partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives we would need to consider legislating.
We will also consult on illustrative options for strategic reform to the PSM system with the aim of better reflecting how people consume media and to address the regulatory and economic challenges this poses. We want a system that encourages the creation of more public service content, reversing the trend of recent years which has seen the output of our PSM providers decline.
Taken together, this work will ensure that our media continues to play its vitally important roles in entertaining, educating, serving democracy and supporting social cohesion in the UK, while putting audiences first.
The consultation attached to the Green Paper will be open for 10 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper later this year.
This Green Paper complements the review we are undertaking of the BBC’s royal charter. We will consider the findings and conclusions of this Green Paper alongside the BBC Green Paper published in December 2025 as part of the charter review.
In connection with the above, our Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:
Watch this Space: A new strategic direction for UK media
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-this-space-a-new-strategic-direction-for-uk-media-green-paper-and-public-consultation
Papers from the Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-stakeholder-forum-papers
Minutes from the Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-stakeholder-forum-minutes
Future of TV distribution—Assessing the value and alternative uses of DTT spectrum for the future of UK TV distribution
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-assessing-the-value-and-alternative-uses-of-dtt-spectrum-for-the-future-of-uk-tv-distribution
I will also deposit a copy of “Watch this Space” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS136]
Deforestation Regulations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
The UK has a leading role to play in supporting global efforts to tackle deforestation. Implementing an updated regime across the UK is critical to strengthen environmental protections, grow trade in sustainably produced commodities, and contribute to global efforts to halt deforestation—one of the most effective measures to address climate change and biodiversity loss.
This Government recognise that healthy forests are essential to climate stability, sustainable economic growth and the livelihoods of communities at home and abroad. Protecting and restoring these ecosystems strengthens our collective resilience, allowing us to secure supply chains, food and water resources, and long-term prosperity.
Around 90% of global deforestation is driven by agriculture, much of which is to produce internationally traded commodities. In 2023, UK consumption of agricultural commodities was associated with 29,000 hectares of deforestation worldwide and 9.4 million tonnes of associated carbon emissions.
UK companies have been global leaders in taking strong voluntary action to address deforestation in their supply chains, but they have also been clear that voluntary measures alone cannot deliver the consistency and certainty needed to tackle this global challenge.
A mandatory due diligence framework for timber has been in place across the UK since 2013. Building on this existing framework, we now intend to go further to decouple UK consumption from global deforestation.
We will therefore launch a consultation later this year to seek views on our Great Britain deforestation policy proposals from businesses, civil society and international partners.
We will consult on our aim to introduce regulations, including under the Environment Act 2021, alongside legislation that will strengthen the UK timber regulation. The aim of our proposals will be to require businesses in Great Britain with an annual turnover of over £1 million that use forest risk commodities and wood products, to carry out due diligence to ensure these are produced in compliance with relevant local laws.
In parallel, the Government are also confirming that the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products will apply in Northern Ireland as part of arrangements which ensure Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU single market is maintained. The regulation is due to apply in phases from 30 December 2026.
To ensure coherence across the UK internal market, and recognising the Government’s manifesto commitment to protect the UK internal market and remove barriers to trade with the EU, we aim, subject to consultation, for due diligence requirements in Great Britain to apply to the same commodities and for businesses to be required to hold and pass down the supply chain broadly the same information as under the EUDR.
This approach is intended to avoid duplication of business burdens and disincentives to trade between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU, so as to ensure that the measures announced today for Great Britain operate effectively alongside the EUDR.
In due course, the Government’s ambition is to transition to a deforestation-free standard.
The Government’s aim is to strengthen the approach to tackling deforestation, ensuring that any measures support the UK’s objectives on promoting economic growth, securing sustainable supply chains and advancing our international climate and nature ambitions.
This action also helps us deliver on the UK’s commitment under the Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use, agreed at COP26, to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.
[HCWS137]
UK-St Helena BIOT Migrants Memorandum of Understanding: Extension
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
On 21 October 2024, I spoke to the House confirming that on 15 October 2024, a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) had been reached with the Government of St Helena so that any new migrants arriving on the British Indian Ocean Territory would be transferred to St Helena, recalling that in practice no new migrants have arrived on Diego Garcia since 2022. The intention was for that MoU to last until a treaty between the UK and Mauritius came into force.
Given the need to ensure this arrangement continues to operate effectively moving forward, on 21 May 2026, we reached a further understanding with the Government of St Helena to extend the MoU until 30 April 2028.
Although we do not anticipate the arrangement with St Helena being required for its full term, we and the Government of St Helena agreed it would be prudent to settle on a maximal timeframe, negating the need for any further extensions.
We are hugely grateful to the Government of St Helena for their continued commitment to the border security of both the United Kingdom and BIOT.
As part of the arrangement and within existing FCDO budget allocations, the UK Government have committed to provide a one-off investment of £8 million in St Helena to improve health and education outcomes, and improve telecommunications and renewable energy infrastructure. This is consistent with our long-term support to the sustainable development of St Helena. Other technical support and costs remain, as I said to the House on 21 October 2024.
In further recognition of St Helena’s valued place within the British family, the UK Government also commit to provide a one-off ex gratia payment of £250,000 to St Helena.
We thank the community of St Helena for its willingness once again to support fellow members of the British family. This extension underlines the strength of our modern partnership with every one of our overseas territories.
[HCWS138]
State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 March 2026 to 19 June 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dame Angela Eagle)
Section 55(1) of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their STPIM powers under the Act during that period.
STPIMs were introduced through the 2023 Act and came into force on 20 December 2023. There have been no STPIM cases imposed to date.
[HCWS139]
Grand Committee
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 April. The Government were clear in our manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale and that we would introduce new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. To that end, the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent last December, legislated for the reintroduction of an England- wide system of strategic plan-making.
The Act inserted a new Part 1A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a duty on strategic planning authorities to prepare a spatial development strategy. An SDS will form part of the development plan to which local planning authorities must have regard when determining planning applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans will be required to be in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDS are high-level plans that will define the overall scale and distribution of growth and development across an area, including the potential need for regeneration and environmental protection or enhancement. They may identify broad locations for development and the infrastructure required to support it, and can redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities.
These regulations will make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of this new system, which we intend to commence later this year. They will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that SDS examinations are classed as statutory inquiries within the meaning of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules related to the procedure to be followed during the examination of an SDS. They will also amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that marine planning authorities must notify strategic planning authorities of their intention to start preparing a marine plan. Strategic planning authorities are the local government bodies that will be responsible for preparing an SDS.
Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise, a draft spatial development strategy must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine. However, the draft National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound, alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate.
Regulation 2 will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules, under Section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy.
Regulation 3 will amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins or is adjacent to marine plan areas of its intention to prepare a marine plan. This requirement already extends to local planning authorities and will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation.
This is the first part of a wider package of secondary legislation that we are preparing to support the implementation of the new system of strategic plan-making. Other statutory instruments, which we intend to make in the autumn, will include regulations that will make further consequential amendments to secondary legislation, rules on the procedure to be followed during an examination, and regulations setting out the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation of a spatial development strategy. I trust that the Committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary and will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial development strategies. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene at this stage. The Committee will recall—pretty much everybody in the Committee was present during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s passage—that, going back to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, I have been very supportive of strategic spatial planning, and we want to see that brought into effect as soon as possible.
I declare my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and as a supporter of and adviser to development forums in other locations, as detailed. For the development community in all those places, one of the consistent messages that comes through is about desirability, not simply of having sub-regional spatial planning at a strategic level, not confined to the territory of one local planning authority generally but embracing several, but of what is afforded by that opportunity—namely, the ability to bring together transport strategies, infrastructure strategies, growth plans and spatial development strategies into one document, which can then help guide and direct the planning infrastructure.
As the Minister helpfully explained, as the Explanatory Memorandum does, this is one of several statutory instruments necessary to bring the procedure of strategic development strategies into place. The Minister said, “in the autumn”, but I want to find out is what is going to happen and when. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to publish the response to the consultation on the draft NPPF in July, before recess, so that we can see the final NPPF—without having to wait for the customary publication just before Christmas—and get on with it. On the timetable, I hope that will mean that it will be possible for there to be planning policy guidance published in relation to the preparation of spatial development strategies and for that to happen as soon as possible in the autumn, but certainly, I would have thought, by the end of the year.
Together with the statutory instruments, that will, I hope, enable the Government to set a period during which combined authorities are asked to publish and submit their spatial development strategy timetable to the Secretary of State.
I assume that this will be applied in relation to groups 1 and 2. The Minister and the Committee will recall that, just a little earlier, the Government published a geography of spatial development strategy areas. Groups 1 and 2 are the existing strategic mayoral combined authorities and the devolution priority programme. I am looking for groups 1 and 2 to have their SDS timetables requested to be submitted in the early part of next year at the latest. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee a sense of the complete timetable for SDS.
I turn briefly to the content of the NPPF and the overview. The overview in the draft was not explicit about the requirement in the statute for a spatial development strategy to set out the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. I have mentioned this in an earlier debate on the English devolution Bill, but I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the NPPF is being amended to make some of these requirements of a spatial development strategy a bit clearer.
We should be under no illusions about the difficulties that will potentially emerge. We may well have spatial development strategies that are born of an ambitious local growth plan. My own area of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for example, has a very ambitious growth plan published by Paul Bristow, the mayor. If local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were to assess housing need based simply on the standard method, there would be no way in which the growth plan that the mayor is looking for could be accommodated by the level of housing supply implied. For local plans to be consistent with the spatial development strategy, they will have to go further.
The same may be true for, and considerable questions could be raised by, green-belt policy. For example, Stockport could not agree with the other local authorities in Manchester on a joint development plan, not least because of their difficulties in agreeing on green-belt policy. A spatial development strategy could, according to the guidance published thus far, set out where changes to the green belt need to be considered in local plans, but the local plan would set the boundaries. What happens if a local planning authority seeks to adopt a local plan that does not change the boundary of a green belt? Having considered it and decided not to change it, does that mean that the local plan is consistent with the spatial development strategy or not? As we go along, we have to be increasingly clear about what consistency with the spatial development strategy looks like. I say that because we will have a number of these debates—not necessarily on every statutory instrument—and, as guidance is published, it will bring some of those important issues to the forefront.
I ask the Minister about the follow-up to the geography document. The Committee will recall that, although the geography of many of the combined authorities is established, it is not for others. For example, we simply do not yet know whether Buckinghamshire will be included in Thames Valley or if it will be a single foundation strategic authority. We need to learn more about what the final geography will look like and when we might hear that. Unless we get that information, I do not think strategic planning boards will be established in areas where a mayor and combined authority are not being put in place relatively soon. I hope that there will be a timetable for that, as well.
My final question is prompted by my being up in Warrington yesterday. Liverpool is relatively advanced in the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, as I understand it, is looking to have it examined and adopted next year. Will Liverpool City Region’s spatial development strategy be treated as consistent with the requirements of a spatial development strategy as set out by the Planning and Infrastructure Act? I hope that, because it was designed alongside the SDS for London, it will be and that the Minister will say that, through Liverpool’s SDS, we can begin to see the process of spatial planning being implemented in places across England.
Those are my questions arising from the statutory instrument. I do not want to be thought of as opposing it, in any sense. I support the SI.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend I am certainly not opposed to these regulations; I am very much in favour of spatial planning. I have just one question for the Minister. I thank her very much for setting out so clearly the purport of these regulations and apologise for not being able to give advance notice of this question. It is a bit left field and if she wants to write, I quite understand that. It is in the context of development corporations. I appreciate there is ongoing work on this and that the emphasis may change given the experience of Liverpool. I wonder what the evolving thinking is within the department. Is the Minister able to say something about these measures, which make a massive difference to growth, and how that could impact the Thames estuary, the Solent and so on? I am happy for the Minister to write if that is more convenient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.
To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?
I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.
I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?
I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.
On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.
My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.
I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.
My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?
My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?
The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.
Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.
Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.
At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.
We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all Members for their considered contributions this afternoon. I am grateful to most noble Lords for supporting the overall direction of travel in relation to strategic development strategies. I hope the Committee agrees that the two minor amendments are appropriate. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. For any that I do not answer, I will respond in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his broad support for the SDS and I agree with him about sub-regional planning. He probably went through the same process with the East of England Plan that I sat through for many months. Pulling together into one place transport, infrastructure and strategic planning is key to getting the growth that we all want to see.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. I will try to take them in the order he asked them. He asked me whether the SDS will contain affordable housing. The legislation is deliberately permissive, so, if the board wishes, it can specify levels of affordable housing within the plan.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about a timetable for the implementation of SDS and strategic planning boards. We intend to lay these SIs in the autumn. I cannot be more specific than that, but that is our intention. The strategic planning board regulations must be subject to consultation before being laid. That probably picks up one of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We anticipate that consultation will be after the Summer Recess and, once that is complete, we will lay the SIs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked about the publication of the NPPF and whether the SDS overview will include clear requirements for the statutory requirements. We intend to publish the revised NPPF in the summer. While we are considering responses to the consultation, I cannot comment on its content, but the NPPF cannot change the statutory requirements for SDS set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act. That is important. In the Act that we got after we finally finished, following some very late-night sittings, we set out what an SDS is there to do. It cannot change that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I completely understand that the terminology of the Act says that the spatial development strategy may set out the amount and distribution of housing and affordable housing. My point is that, even the latter, in relation to affordable housing, was not included in the draft NPPF text for PM1 relating to SDS. I think it ought to be in there.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I will feed that back to the team. It is not completed yet, so I will feed his comments in.
On planning practice guidance for SDS once the NPPF is published, we will consider the need for planning practice guidance, but we need to publish the NPPF first. We will have a look at that once the NPPF is under way.
The noble Lord asked about the group 1 and group 2 SDS areas and the timetable for them to submit an SDS. The period within which the strategic planning authority needs to submit its timetable will be set out in regulations. We anticipate that most SPAs will be asked to submit a timetable within 90 days of the formal commencement of the SDS duty. Assuming that commencement is in the autumn, this will be, as the noble Lord rightly suggested, in the early part of 2027.
There was a question about green belt and where changes to green-belt boundaries may need to be considered but the local plan has set the boundary. What happens if there is a disagreement? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to this as well. Local plans have to be in general conformity with any adopted SDS for the area, and that applies to green belt as it does to any other aspect of an SDS, but that will be tested at the local plan examination. General conformity allows for some inconsistency but not a completely different approach. I suspect that that will be tested in examination processes, and it will be interesting to see where that falls.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, echoed the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the areas for strategic planning boards. We intend to respond to the strategic development strategy area consultation in the summer, setting out the areas that the Government think should produce strategic development strategies. Where boards will be needed, the regulations to establish those boards must be subject to statutory consultation. We anticipate that consultation will happen after the Summer Recess and that, once that consultation has happened, the regulations will be made so that the strategic planning board can formally come into being. That is when the geography finally gets confirmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked me about Liverpool being well advanced—I say well done to Liverpool for cracking on with the job—and whether this will be adopted under the new NPPF and guidance. We understand that Liverpool SDS is likely to go out to consultation either late this year or early next year and, as such, it will be subject to the policies in the updated NPPF.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked me about development corporations; he has probably heard me say that I am a big fan of them. We discussed them a great deal during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill. I cannot answer his specific questions around the Solent and the Thames estuary, but I will reply to him in writing on those questions, if that is okay.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about rural representation. It would probably be most helpful if I explained the right to be heard at examination. It is quite correct that, unlike the position for local plans, there is no formal right for individuals to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. This is the same approach as that for examinations of, for instance, the London Plan. It is proportionate and effective that that should be the case for strategic plans, but each SDS has to consider its whole area, both urban and rural. So the SDS area consultation proposed, for example, that York and North Yorkshire would do its own plan, on which the mayor would lead.
In practice, experience demonstrates that inspectors take considerable steps to ensure that a wide range of relevant interests and perspectives are heard during, for example, the London Plan examinations. By way of illustration, the most recent examination of a spatial development strategy—the 2019 London Plan—was conducted over 12 weeks, with a participant list extending to 27 pages. I expect that that is why we ended up with the extensive plan that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to.
The Government’s intention is that spatial development strategies operate as those high-level documents, establishing the strategic framework within which the subsequent local plans, which are required to be in general conformity with them, are prepared. Importantly, and in contrast to local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific development sites. It is appropriate that the formal right to appear is preserved for local plan examinations, while examinations of spatial development strategies remain proportionate to their strategic role. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said about people being interested in planning and engaged in it, but my experience is that they are much more engaged when you are discussing the site-level stuff, which is in the local plans, rather than the more esoteric discussions around a strategic plan.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked me some further questions about what the geography of SDS should be. The English Devolution White Paper sets out the criteria for sensible geographies, including the principle that devolution geographies should ensure the effective delivery of key functions such as SDS. So, where mayoral devolution arrangements already exist, it is proposed that these will be used as a basis for producing SDS, with the exception of the West of England Combined Authority, given the discussions on North Somerset’s place in the region.
Where devolution arrangements do not yet exist, we propose to prioritise existing local consensus on geographies for working together where proposals for devolution have previously been submitted to government with full local agreement, provided that these meet the other sensible geography criteria. These include scale—populations over 1.5 million where possible, to create genuinely strategic SDSs—as well as public service boundary alignment and ensuring that no islands are created.
If a future devolution agreement comes forward on a different geography once the geographies of SDS are confirmed, any SDS will have to be amended, reviewed or replaced to fit that new devolution geography. Of course, we have the ambition to align SDS and the devolution geography, but we have to accept that the devolution picture is still emerging. We need to get on with strategic planning, so we may have to make changes in due course to that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to be absolutely clear, the Minister used the example of 1.5 million, which clearly Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire do not hit. The Minister is clearly implying that there will have to be a board, not necessarily of those three, but of other geographies. Similarly, Norfolk and Suffolk do not hit those targets.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, meeting the categories set out in the English devolution Bill is a clear goal. We want to make sure that they work as a spatial development strategy, and they have to meet certain criteria to do that. We want to get on with the job, so we are putting this process in place to deliver it now.
There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on authorities that are required to produce a spatial development strategy. Combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will all have the duty to produce spatial development strategies. These authorities will be known as strategic planning authorities. The Government will be able to group any of these authorities together, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board.
In most cases, combined authorities or combined county authorities will produce an SDS for their area, and upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. However, some upper-tier county councils may produce one individually, and some combined authorities or combined county authorities could be grouped with an authority outside their area under a strategic planning board.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me specifically about brownfield land, and it is a question he has asked me a number of times. I will try to again answer the question. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed as a matter that strategic planning authorities must have regard to. These regulations will be combined with the regulations setting out the procedure for preparation of a spatial development strategy. So, I hope that that has clarified the issue. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these regulations.
Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the statutory instrument was laid on 14 May 2026, and it will make a small but important amendment to existing provisions governing key financial decisions, including land disposal and contracts by councils during periods of local government reorganisation. The Government’s programme of reform, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, is designed to transfer power out of Westminster and fix the foundations of local government.
A central part of the programme is local government reorganisation—moving from two-tier structures to single- tier councils, which are simpler, clearer and more accountable to residents. The Government’s long-term vision is for simpler structures, which make it clearer who residents should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to support growth and improve public services. Delivering that vision requires not only structural change, but a transition process that is orderly, is legally robust and protects the public interest.
During reorganisation, existing councils will continue to operate while new councils are established, and it is essential that decisions taken in this period do not undermine the position of the successor councils. The framework, therefore, includes safeguards, set out in Section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which enables the Secretary of State to issue directions, controlling certain disposals of land and significant financial commitments.
In specified circumstances where a decision could affect the successor authority, councils must obtain consent before proceeding, typically from the relevant shadow council. These controls will ensure that significant decisions taken during the transition period do not adversely affect successor councils, with specific consents required for higher-risk decisions and general consents enabling routine activity to continue.
This order, made under Section 29 of the Act, makes a targeted amendment to how those safeguards operate. The framework requires councils to consider past disposals of land and contractual dealings when determining whether financial thresholds have been met. Because the beginning of the aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, this could require authorities to review nearly two decades of historic decisions. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were designed to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, not to impose disproportionate retrospective requirements.
This order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, ensuring that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historic analysis and while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. This is not a change of policy. The underlying safeguards remain unchanged. Rather, the instrument will ensure that those safeguards function as originally intended, providing greater clarity and certainty in their application. It therefore maintains the balance between enabling councils that will shortly be abolished to continue to operate effectively and protecting the interests of successor councils and the public purse.
This amendment was initially identified through engagement with Surrey, but it has been tested with the wider sector, including through engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the department’s Local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group, formed of senior representatives and experts from across local government. It is not a Surrey- specific fix, but a clarification that will apply across the broader reorganisation programme. This instrument supports legal robustness by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and ensuring consistent and effective application across the reorganisation programme. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.
However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?
Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.
I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.
None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.
I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.
The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.
Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their responses to this statutory instrument. I will try to respond to the questions.
There are no plans to change council retention policies for paperwork, and they are not affected by this SI, so that is not included in this piece of legislation.
I will answer the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made first on local government reorganisation and the management of it. He asked me, first, what other unforeseen consequences we can expect. Well, they are unforeseen, so I am afraid I cannot identify them. If I could, I would have a crystal ball. The timetable for local government reorganisation has not changed. I take the noble Lord’s point about the elections, but that was due to changing legal advice. I spoke to the Local Government Minister this morning and, as far as we are concerned, we are proceeding with the timetable as we had originally set out. We will work through the process for the other 14 areas that have not yet had their local government reorganisation announcements, with a view to making an announcement on them before the Recess. That work is still going on and going ahead.
On the noble Lord’s question about mayoral elections, we decided for very good reasons that it was important that we had established the foundation authorities and that they were working properly before the mayoral elections went ahead. That was the rationale for that decision. But the work is being done to the timetable that we set originally. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about the thresholds and why we are not changing them. They are not changing: it is £100,000 for land disposals and certain non-capital contracts and, as he said, £1 million for capital contracts. The thresholds and timing are established features of the Section 24 framework. Those thresholds are intended to capture decisions that could have a material impact on successor authorities, while allowing routine activity to continue without unnecessary delay. The safeguards apply once a shadow authority exists, because that is the point at which there is a clear and accountable body able to give consent on behalf of the future successor council.
The instrument does not change the thresholds or the point at which the safeguards apply; it ensures that they operate as intended in practice. They are intended as broad indicators of material financial decisions, rather than precise limits. The key issue raised by the councils that we spoke to was not the thresholds but how they operate in practice with the existing aggregation period start date, which was onerous on councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me why the amendments are needed, which relates to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The issue was identified during implementation planning, including in Surrey, and it has been tested with the wider sector. Under the current framework, authorities have to look over an extended historic period when assessing whether thresholds are met, and that is not proportionate. Without the update, councils would be required to review that over the long period, and that could result in inconsistent application across areas and create an unnecessary administrative burden for councils.
It may further cause a risk to the effective management of public assets and finances during reorganisation. There is also a potential risk that historic land disposals could be rendered void and historic contracts could become unenforceable. It would also make safeguards much more difficult to apply in practice. Under Section 28, land disposals made in contravention of a direction are void, and contracts entered into in contravention of a direction are unenforceable, so we must avoid that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me to expand further on the consultation that was done as part of this process. I set out in my introduction that we tested this through engagement with councils and the wider sector; we have a sector advisory group, which contains experts in these types of areas, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so that we make sure that what we are doing is practical and sustainable. I hope that that responds to the questions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses, but I just wanted a little clarity on three of the questions that I asked. The first is on the impact of inflation. Roughly speaking, inflation has almost doubled, so £50,000 spent in 2006 is the equivalent of £100,000 now—not quite, but in approximate terms. That is a significant change. As we are updating the regulations, and the purpose in 2006 was to capture the important spend, it will now capture a lot more than the important spend. That was the point I was trying to make. I completely agree with why it is being put; I do not have any issue with that.
Secondly, one could argue that a mistake was made in 2006; we should not have had a fixed date or it should have been updated in the interim. I asked why we are not looking at a date that might relate to, say, vesting or something else, which might seem more rational.
Thirdly, I was also curious about the response on the timing of elections—and please correct me if I have got it wrong, because I may very well have. My understanding is that the elections for the original six priority mayoral areas will be in 2028, as will the 14 follow-ons—as I call them. The Minister said that that was in order to allow the foundation authorities to have the time to set up and get organised. I appreciate that the following 14 are not foundation, but they will operate to a much tighter timetable. That seems to be a bit of an incongruity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the subject of the amounts, I take the noble Lord’s point about inflation, but these amounts are intended to act as broad indicators of material financial decisions, not precise limits. It is relevant to keep the same amounts in place; it makes the amount at which they have to be referred reasonable and that is a rational way of doing things.
On his point around the date, if we did not have a specific date, it might complicate the accountancy practices. I will look into that and come back to him on that point.
On the issues around the mayoral elections, the decision was made to make sure that we have the new authorities vested and in place, with a chance to establish themselves. They are delivering key public services. There is a lot of work to do, as the noble Lord has pointed out to me on many occasions—and I properly understand that point—before the mayoral elections take place. We know that it is a tight timetable but, to be honest, in my 30 years in local government, nobody has bitten the bullet and sorted this out. It is time we got the foundations of local government into single unitary authorities, so that everybody across the country has the same type of local authority. That is why we are moving forward at pace with the timetable.
To conclude, the instrument makes a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on financial decisions operate effectively during local government reorganisation. It has been developed in response to engagement with councils and tested with local government representatives. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft order, which I commend to the Committee.
Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April 2026. I want to briefly outline the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the nuclear safeguards regulations. These regulations form the foundation of the UK’s civil nuclear safeguards regime, enabling us to meet our international obligations. These amendments are designed to refine and strengthen the UK’s system.
Nuclear safeguards are a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. They are accounting, reporting and verification processes that demonstrate that nuclear material and facilities are not being diverted for military use. Safeguards are how we show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as it should be and is not being diverted into military programmes. The safeguards system is also central to building confidence for international nuclear trade and co-operation. These are distinct from nuclear safety and security but, of course, they are just as vital.
For almost 50 years, the UK has committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting the international nuclear safeguards regime. A strong, well-functioning regime sends a clear message that the UK takes its responsibility as a nuclear state seriously. Our current safeguards regime has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, in 2020. It was designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 set out operator requirements and conferred functions on the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the UK’s safeguards regulator.
The amendments we are considering are about improving how that regime works. The proposed amendments are drawn from a statutory post-implementation review carried out in 2023 and then a public consultation on the proposed amendments in 2025. There are three broad categories of amendments, which I will cover briefly in turn. The first covers the proposed removal of provisions related to the transition to the ONR-led regime or those that do not apply to the UK’s operational context. Their removal simplifies and brings greater clarity to the regulations.
The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements. The main change in this category is the move to using the IAEA design information questionnaires. Up until now, the UK continued to use Euratom’s design information reporting format, and we are moving to the IAEA format instead. This change will align the UK internationally and support our civil nuclear sector’s international partnerships.
We are also changing some timelines for submitting information to the ONR, including some reduction in the timelines for operators. For example, we are changing the timelines for submitting design information to the ONR. The UK is required to submit design information to the IAEA within 30 days. Under the current regulations, the entirety of the 30 days sits with the operators. By dividing the timeline to 23 days for operators and seven for ONR, the majority of time remains with the operators while the regulator now has five working days for its activities to meet the requirements. We are also updating some definitions so that they keep the UK aligned internationally.
The final set of changes is smaller but important for making sure the regulations are fit for purpose. This includes provisions for offences, where relevant, as an established final point of escalation. The Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations will also be updated to reflect ONR activities added to NSR 19, and we expect these costs to be minimal.
In conclusion, these amendments will strengthen the Nuclear Safeguards Regulations. This will enable a more efficient and effective delivery of the domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime, ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, the changes will support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, both of which, of course, are vital to our country’s economic growth and energy security. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords say about the proposed detail.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Nuclear safeguards and the system for reporting, inspection and verification gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the wider world the confidence that our civil nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes and is not being diverted into weapons programmes. Without a credible safeguards regime, we cannot trade in civil nuclear material, operate our existing plants or attract the international partners on whom our nuclear ambitions depend.
The 2019 regulations established our domestic regime post Brexit. This instrument, some seven years on, does several things. It removes transitional provisions that were only ever intended to smooth the exit from Euratom; tightens and clarifies the language operators must work within; introduces new offences to plug enforcement gaps; adjusts reporting timelines to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation more time to scrutinise what it receives; and, most significantly for our international standing, transitions the UK from Euratom-style basic technical characteristic questionnaires to the IAEA’s own design information questionnaire format. It also amends the associated fees regulations to put the ONR’s cost recovery on a clearer statutory footing.
On these Benches, we recognise this as an essential and overdue update to a globally recognised regulatory system, and we support it. We particularly welcome the removal of the Euratom transition provisions and the move to the IAEA’s design information questionnaire format as a sensible step forward towards international harmonisation that will ease collaboration with our partners and materially support the UK, US and global civil industry partnerships.
Our support, however, should not be mistaken for uncritical or entirely enthusiastic support for the wider nuclear policy: we continue to have some concerns about the delivery of large-scale plants. We recognise that nuclear is obviously a crucial part of our energy mix, and we are supportive of the move towards more small modular reactors.
On the detail, I apologise, as I have several questions for the Minister. On the new offences, these regulations introduce criminal liability for non-compliance with particular safeguards provisions and for the failure to declare a change in facility type—corrections to an oversight in the original 2019 regulations. I just want to ask the Minister about this gap, which feels significant in our enforcement regime and why it was allowed to persist for seven years before being addressed here. I further seek assurance that the ONR now has everything that it needs as both legal powers and operational capacity to pursue enforcement action all the way to prosecution, where the gravity of a breach demands it.
On reporting timescales, the Minister has set out the window for operators to declare design information changes, but can he confirm that this tighter window will not place a disproportionate burden on the more than 130 qualifying facilities with limited operations? As he is well aware, we are talking about smaller-scale universities and corporate operations.
On the transition to the new IAEA forms, I welcome the Government’s decision, following consultation feedback, to extend the transition period for adopting the design information questionnaire from two years to three.
I feel that one question did not get sufficient attention in the other place. Are there specific risks during the migration and transition? Moving from one accountancy and control system to another is not just an exercise done on paper. There is a period during any transition when records may exist in two formats simultaneously, when staff are learning new systems and when the potential for gaps or miscategorisation is at its highest. We will also see some new definitions from the SI. What specific guidance will the ONR provide to operators to ensure that no accounting anomalies fall between the two systems and that the integrity of our nuclear accounting records is maintained throughout what will be a difficult transition period?
On record-keeping, this instrument extends the retention period for operating and accounting records from five years to 30. That is a big change. I notice that the costs in the supporting documents were quite low, but keeping computer records for that long is quite a complicated exercise, as computers become obsolete. Is that not putting on too much of a burden? Will the Minister say something about extending computer record-keeping and its security over that long period of time?
Finally, on repurposed facilities, the instrument introduces requirements for operators to notify the ONR 200 days before a change of facility type. Given the Government’s policy ambition to rapidly deploy small modular reactors, are they certain that these regulatory time changes are flexible enough not to impact the rollout and operation of small modular reactors?
We support this instrument. It will strengthen our safeguards regime, bring us more closely into step with our international partners and help guard against the unlawful diversion of civil nuclear material, so we fully support it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to introduce these regulations. I am particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on these issues. I hope we will have many similar exchanges in the years to come. I am glad to say that, on this occasion, we are in agreement. There is little I can add to the excellent contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
A strong, independent nuclear safeguards regime is vital for our civil nuclear industry to function effectively. However, the Government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. As the Minister said in his introduction, the instrument will implement most of the recommendations from the post-implementation review in 2019, so it is largely Conservative Party policy.
The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use. Also relevant are the Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021, which regulate the fees payable by operators to the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR. This instrument will amend both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. We agree with that.
A new offence corrects an oversight, when the NSR 19 was originally implemented, relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions. We also support that. An offence has been added related to non-compliance, with a new provision requiring operators to declare to ONR where there is a change in the type of facility. It also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.
The main change, as the Minister made clear to the Committee, is to replace Euratom’s basic technical characteristics—BTC—questionnaire, which assesses how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material, with the IAEA’s design information questionnaire, or DIQ. It also reduces the design information changes reporting time, as the Minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the ONR more notice of imports, from four to seven days, and of exports, I believe from seven to 13 days. I may have missed that in the Minister’s comments, but I understand that that is the case.
It was interesting to see concerns over some of the changes made by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. This includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material, with operators questioning why the ONR needed more time to report this information to the IAEA, and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough, having previously questioned the rationale for the plans. Maybe the Minister will be able to comment on that.
In summary, the impact of the costs on business will be about £200,000 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from BTCs to DIQs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTCs for the first year and DIQs for the second year. The notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports were also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, while still increasing the time the regulator has to quality assure. This instrument introduces changes largely supported by the consultees and initiated by the previous Government, as I mentioned. Therefore, we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals he brought before the Committee.
I have a question related to his portfolio. Events of recent days have suggested that the energy Bill may be delayed. I do not imagine that the Minister can possibly comment on that, but I suggest to him that that would be regrettable because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could comment on that, if he is in a position to. I am grateful to the Minister and conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations he brought forward.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the support and the useful additional questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his wish to be opposite me for a long time. I cannot make any guarantees on that.
I agree with some of the points made, which largely support what I said. As I said, these amendments strengthen our position and make things easier. They will support trade and operations that are central to the sector’s work. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why there is a gap in closing the offences part. The answer is that a statutory instrument was needed to do that, and this is a statutory instrument to achieve that. It is important that we are now closing those gaps. These amendments remove what has been a long transition agreement that really is not needed any more, given where we are domestically. The industry has largely welcomed this.
By bringing our design reporting requirements in line with those of the IAEA, we will make it simpler for both domestic and international new entrants to the market. That includes, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the SMRs, which are crucially important for where we go next.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised operator concerns. There is no doubt that the operators expressed some concerns about the move, for example, to use the IAEA questionnaire so quickly. We listened to that and introduced a longer transition period, to give them a chance to familiarise themselves with the process and to develop the new reporting format. Importantly, the ONR will work very closely with them to facilitate that change. It now has a year of the old system and then two years to make the transition.
Similarly, when operators noted concern about the timelines for reporting—an important point that both noble Lords picked up—there was no time allocated to the ONR. Strictly speaking, the operators could go right the way up to day 30 and hand the information over to the ONR. It then had to get it in by day 30, otherwise it was in breach of our international obligations. Initially, the proposal was to give half and half. We listened to the concerns and changed it so that the ONR will take five working days and the operators have the rest. That is an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns.
It is particularly important that, as a nuclear weapons state, we demonstrate that we are complying with these safeguards and do not have any mechanism to divert civil nuclear material for military use. This will strengthen our ability to do so. In making these safeguards, we will encourage other states to follow suit, which will support the wider non-proliferation regime.
Two extra questions were asked. On the question about the SMR rollout, which I have partially answered, I can absolutely reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is a high priority for us to get that moving. I do not believe that what is in here in any way impedes our ability to do that quickly. That leads on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about what we are doing on the Fingleton review. That legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. We are committed to try to drive the Fingleton recommendations through to completion by the end of next year, as we said when they were first introduced.
I hope that answers the questions that noble Lords have raised and that I have provided the necessary assurances to allow them to approve the regulations before us today.
House of Lords
Legal Protections for Ancient Trees
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of legal protections for ancient trees; and whether further measures, including stronger penalties, are needed to prevent their unlawful destruction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, felling trees without a licence where one is required carries unlimited fines and a potential prison sentence, and those protections are underpinned by a robust enforcement regime. In addition, ancient and veteran trees benefit from the highest levels of protection within the planning system. Any loss or deterioration should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. We recognise the importance of this issue and are reviewing these protections to ensure that they remain effective.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister but, under the Forestry Act 1967, the destruction of the Whitewebbs oak in Enfield—still alive at the time—required an application to the Forestry Commission for a felling licence, which was never sought. The commission concluded that no felling licence was required due to legitimate exemptions, meaning that no criminal offence had occurred. But a BBC freedom of information request revealed that the assessment made by the commission’s investigator recommended that no such exemption could legitimately be applied in this case. My understanding is that the Forestry Commission ignored this, simply because the outdated legislation gives it no teeth to adequately protect ancient trees. Will the Government amend the Forestry Act 1967 to explicitly define a higher evidence bar for exempting any ancient tree-felling from licence?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I recognise the situation that the noble Baroness describes, and the Government recognise that we need to look at whether there is more we can do to protect trees. Defra has funded a report, led by the Tree Council and Forest Research, to provide a range of recommendations for improving the protection and stewardship of important trees. We are currently looking at those recommendations, but we will also set out actions to support and protect important trees in the new tree action plan, which we are looking to publish before the end of the year. We are absolutely cognisant of the reasons why more needs to be done.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Is the Minister aware of any rules that control the felling of trees in conservation areas? There seems to be a spate of councils cutting down trees that are much loved by the local community in conservation areas of towns and villages. Is this something she could look at?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to look at it. Usually, the local authority will give an order for a tree to be cut down if there is a reason to be concerned about safety. I have an interest in this, as we have just had an order from our local council regarding several ash trees on our land overlooking the road. I am happy to look into it, but usually there is a safety aspect to those orders.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, the report out today from the Woodland Trust makes the interesting point that there is a 15-degree reduction when standing under a tree, compared with standing out in the open air or on the pavement, and 11 million people live in the equivalent of tree deserts. I know that the Government have a good tree-planting programme. Can the Minister update the House on how that programme is going, and on how quickly enough trees will be planted to make a material difference to lives in, for instance, the heat tomorrow?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that the shade provided by trees is important, not just for human health but for animal health, for livestock and so on. As I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question, we are looking at the tree action plan, which we will publish by the end of the year, and I will ensure that the concerns around climate change and increasing temperatures are looked at as part of that.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is the Forestry Commission case that was cited not further evidence of commissions and quangos ignoring the intentions of Parliament, and indeed the wishes of the public, and being toothless in the face of gross abuses? Is it not time that government departments and Ministers took back control so that perpetrators can be held accountable and the public’s voice can be effectively heard?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Forestry Commission reports to Defra, to my colleague Mary Creagh MP. I know that she has been working very hard to ensure that the kinds of issues my noble friend talks about are better taken into account, including how the commission manages its estates, the kind of trees that are planted and how to bring in proper enforcement where required.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there is a greater problem in incentivising land managers to plant enough of the right trees to protect our watercourses, promote nature recovery, sequester carbon and increase our timber self-sufficiency from the current 27%. Properly planned planting that complies with UK forestry standards can meet all these objectives. What actions are the Minister’s Government taking to increase the percentage of productive tree species planted in England? I refer the House to my registered interest as a forest developer and owner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The tree action plan and the tree planting that Defra is encouraging are about commercial timber as well as woodland planting for leisure or other requirements. We import far too much of our timber at the moment; it is better for sustainability that we plant our own. But everything has to be planted in the right place, we need the right kind of species and, importantly, we need to look to the future, because climate change will change which species will be viable for the long term.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to hear from the Minister that the recommendations will result in the tree action plan by the end of this year, but will she bear in mind that there are no protections for trees that do not have tree preservation orders? By the time people realise those trees are under threat, it is too late: they have come down.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are looking at those exact protections as part of what we are doing to better protect trees going forward. As part of that, it is also important that we look at how, within the planning system, we support the trees that need to be supported, and at how we ensure that, where trees are felled, the right species are replanted in the right place to make the difference that we need to see if we are to plant trees as part of our climate change strategy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches, then the noble Baroness.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, having just turned 80, I declare an interest in the preservation of ancient trees.
Lord Trees (CB)
That aside, seriously, we have more ancient oaks in England than the rest of Europe put together. Last year, a government-sponsored review found that the current legal protections are insufficient to protect our important trees and recommended a review of current legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to ensure their protection. Can the Minister reassure the House that the England tree action plan currently in development will include commitments to adopt the recommendations made by this review, including the need to reform TPOs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned previously, we are looking to bring out the new recommendations on trees by the end of the year. The review is really important. I think it is particularly important for oaks, because our native oaks are threatened by climate change and we really need to think about how we are going to protect them better for the future, but also to look at what oak species we need to consider planting if our temperatures are going to continue to rise, as we have all experienced this week.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, that plan will of course be too late for the Major oak in Sherwood Forest, a 1,200 year-old tree that it was announced just this week has died. That was put down to a mixture of tourism, climate change and historic bad management. It is too late for that tree, which is as old as the Greensted church in Essex—it was a sapling when that church was being built. The church has grade 1 listing, enormous protection. Should we not afford these so rare and important ancient trees a similar level of protection as buildings of the same kind of age?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point, but I think one of the reasons that tree sadly died was because it was so very, very, very, very old. Trees do not live for ever, but I take her point about protections.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Sycamore Gap tree felling was the result of a TikTok challenge?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As somebody who does not look at TikTok, I have absolutely no idea.
Artificial Intelligence: Global Governance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with international partners regarding global governance frameworks for artificial intelligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
AI is a global technology, so the UK is working with partners to advance secure, responsible and trustworthy AI design, development and adoption. This includes bilateral programmes and multilateral collaboration through the AI summit series, the G7, the United Nations and partnerships with national AI security institutes worldwide.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I agree that international co-operation is essential and, from a domestic point of view, I warmly welcome the new AI Economics Institute, and indeed the work that the Prime Minister has been doing in this area on the international stage. Does my noble friend agree that, as recent events have shown, the danger is not simply regulatory fragmentation but the concentration of AI power in the hands of a small number of states and companies? Given the United Kingdom’s long experience of shaping legal and commercial frameworks, what leadership role does she see for this country in developing global governance arrangements for artificial intelligence?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to draw attention to the strengths of the UK in AI. Given the pace of change, the UK is determined to shape AI and not be shaped by it. These are issues that countries do not face alone, so we are working with international partners to seize the opportunities and address the challenges that AI presents, both bilaterally and multilaterally. The UK is well placed to lead, including through our AI Security Institute, working with allies to share expertise, build capability and strengthen our resilience together.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. The UK signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence nearly two years ago. Can the Minister tell the House when the UK intends to ratify the convention, and what steps the Government intend to take to implement it, given their own statement that
“existing laws and measures will be enhanced”
once ratification occurs? Has the moment arrived for the UK to champion binding international obligations on AI, rather than continuing to place its faith in voluntary commitments that have clearly failed to hold either Governments or developers to account?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The convention on AI is flexible and does not create new human rights obligations. Contracting states are given broad discretion when it comes to selecting the appropriate form of implementation, including sector-led regulation. That fits with our mission to highlight the benefits of AI for working people in a way that recognises that regulation largely is based on a sector-based approach.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, as we know, and as I have said quite often in this House, the UK AI sector for SMEs is booming. Thousands of new businesses have set up in the UK over the last few years, and the UK can be proud of that on the global stage. With the last Prime Minister, and maybe the new Prime Minister, searching for growth, when will the Government meet organisations such as SMEs, particularly around the challenges of procurement into government? I declare my interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, a not-for-profit organisation that champions 300 UK AI businesses.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to pay testament to the strength of the UK economy and sector in both AI adoption and in new businesses taking opportunities, whether in law tech, fintech, or health and life sciences, to name a few. I am sure that colleagues in the department will be happy to meet the organisations he mentions. We meet other alliances such as those who represent start-ups and scale-ups in the UK. As he mentions, they are a source of growth and employment here.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to using AI in healthcare to improve patients’ outcomes. However, AI brings risks too. We need international collaboration for large studies to establish effectiveness and long-term risks to patients. The World Health Organization has published a document on ethics and a governance framework for AI in health. Can the Minister say how the UK Government are contributing to the WHO-led governance framework for AI in healthcare, in order to not only improve outcomes but establish risks and equity in outcomes for our patients?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK collaborates with many different forums, such as the OECD and the UN, and I am pleased to hear of the advances made by the WHO in setting out frameworks for ethical developments. In the UK, we are working carefully with the MHRA to allow advances in AI to bring real patient benefits through the development of new treatments and drugs.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are more likely to succeed in having international regulation for AI if the regulations are based not on a single set of regulations for all algorithms but on risk-based classifications in a set of regulations, as with other technologies such as atomic energy?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Developments in AI, with AI as a general technology, are indeed permeating many sectors, including health, as we heard from my noble friend, and other areas, as the noble Lord mentioned. The best approach is to keep collaborating in multilateral forums and with bilateral partners, so that we can share standards and approaches, and be agile and nimble as the technology develops.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, recent restrictions by the United States on access by foreign nationals to certain advanced AI models have highlighted the extent to which access to frontier AI technology can be determined by decisions taken overseas. What discussions have the Government had with international partners to ensure that the United Kingdom retains reliable access to strategically important AI capabilities?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord highlights the developments in frontier models, which are delivering unprecedented advances at present. We are ensuring that the UK has sovereign capability based on our strengths, so that we can compete in this new, developing technological area in areas where we contribute. For example, that is why we are backing the AI hardware plan, an area of real strength in the UK, and we have set up the sovereign AI fund to back those particular sectors which the UK is particularly strong in.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, a deepfake or AI-generated social media post manufactured in one country can inflame communities in another country within hours. Ahead of the UN global dialogue in Geneva next month, can the Minister give us a reassurance that the Government are pressing international partners for common standards on content provenance and authentication, so that citizens can tell what is real from what is synthetic and deliberately sown to divide communities?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to highlight the importance of applying our values and laws, whether the content is generated by AI or by other actors. In the UK, the Online Safety Act takes that approach, whether content is developed by AI or elsewhere. It is through these kinds of dialogues, including with the UN, that we will share our best practice, so we can have standards globally that are based on the approach we are taking here in the UK.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that, if we are to secure international agreements, we are dependent on the Chinese being willing to enter into them, and in particular our close friends the Americans, who are showing a preference not for international regulation but to lead the world, have competitiveness and be in charge? In those circumstances, I welcome what the Minister was saying about UK sovereignty. Could she define it a bit more precisely? Are we going to establish an independent sovereign UK AI which would give us greater power than we have at the moment?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our sovereignty strategy includes many elements, such as developing AI growth zones, supporting the expansion of compute, and the sovereign AI fund, which is focused on five priority areas. We are supporting the building of a series of non-language frontier models, for example Ineffable. Also, as language models develop, we are seeing how the next era of them could be different. Today, there was an announcement of a further investment in that area from UKRI.
DVLA: Staffing Levels
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of staffing levels at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency regularly monitors staffing levels against demand for its services and changes staffing levels where necessary within agreed limits. For example, the DVLA has recently taken on more staff to meet increased demand for its drivers, medical and contact centre services. Improvements are already taking effect: the average decision times fell from 68 working days in February to 56 at the end of May.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The fact that it is taking 66 days to answer would explain my problem, as I met all the DVLA’s criteria when I replied in an email on 27 March. If my Question were to have come up next month, we would have been commemorating three months of me waiting to get a driving licence. Does the Minister accept that the DVLA is in a crisis? It is desperately short of manpower and it is not fit for purpose for what it is supposed to do: issuing driving licences to the public of this country, who pay its wages. Is the Minister considering technology to meet this problem, such as putting in place a computer programme to get on with issuing licences, thereby reducing the problem of DVLA not having enough manpower to meet the difficulties it has today?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hope that the noble Lord received my letter of 12 June, in reply to his email to me on 14 May. If he took the simple action outlined in my letter, he should now have his licence and be driving again. There are 53 million driving licence holders in Great Britain. In 2024-25, the DVLA received 837,591 medical licence notifications, a figure which increased to 922,123 in 2025-26. As I said, the average decision time fell from 68 to 56 working days. It recently recruited 60 extra full-time equivalent caseworkers and 100 additional FTE contact centre staff, to cut call waiting times. The noble Lord is right that, if he were to apply now, he would be able to use the newly launched digital medical services platform, which enables far more customers with medical conditions to notify, apply for and renew their driving licences online.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it was recently stated in the House of Commons that 34,000 suppliers of number plates are registered with the DVLA. Given the widespread problems with illegal number plates helping people dodge the law, can the Minister tell us how many DVLA staff are allocated to policing compliance by those 34,000 suppliers and whether that number is sufficient?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that this is a serious problem on a significant scale. The Government acknowledge that more needs to be done. A recent consultation closed on 11 May and the actions that we propose to take following the review of the consultation will include legislative change, if needed. I cannot tell him how many people currently do that job but I will write to him with the figure.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said and ask the Minister to consider the following. It is one thing to get a driving licence when you pass your test, because you know that you have passed your test. However, when you apply for a renewal at 70, you do not know what will happen. Therefore, you are left in limbo. My wife is a leap year baby, so I believe she is 17 and a half, but the cruel public authorities say that she is 70. Naturally, she sent in her application in January—because 29 February was the cut-off point in question—but she still has not heard a single thing. She has no idea what has happened with the process. That has knock-on effects in practical terms and is a considerable source of anxiety. I believe this to be a widespread problem.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If the noble Lord drops me a line with a few more details, I will look into that case. The rules demand more attention to medical conditions from the age of 70 onwards, and rightly so. There have been some terrible examples of older drivers who are unfit to drive but have still driven and have caused serious accidents, including death, so we are right to worry about this. The process ought to be efficient. I know better than most that I have to renew my vocational licence annually, and I start it on the first day that I can. I am pleased to say that it always comes back, but that may be because my name is on the licence.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.
That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to the question about cloning plates, which is increasingly facilitating a whole range of crime, including, with the increase in petrol prices, drive-off from petrol stations. From my experience of 30-odd years being a Member of Parliament in the other place, the DVLA and the police were remarkably uncurious and unwilling to look at genuine grievances from individuals whose plates had been cloned and who were regularly getting traffic violation notices and parking fines. Would it not be for the good of those individuals, and for law and order and the reputation of the authorities, if the police and the DVLA work together to crack down and start to eliminate this menace?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: it is not acceptable. There are clearly more number plates that cannot be read by ANPR and more cloned number plates on the road these days than there ought to be. I believe that actions are being taken, because it is a particularly unpleasant experience to discover that you are the victim of fines and other costs generated by somebody pretending to have your index number. The Government are concerned about it. As I say, the consultation about eradicating vehicle plate cloning closed on 11 May. If legislative change is necessary then we are committed to making those changes.
Social Media: Use of X by Government Departments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Attorney General’s instructions to his Office to stop using social media platform X, what plans they have to review the use of that platform by other government departments.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government use a wide range of digital platforms to reach and engage citizens. We continuously evaluate channels for brand safety and suitability. In government, paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023, which means that no taxpayers’ money has been spent with the platform. Individual departments manage their own accounts, ensuring that activity is proportionate, appropriate and relevant to their audiences.
Lord Pack (LD)
Given the many issues with X, such as its frequent lethargy in reacting to extreme racial abuse or even violent threats, why do the Government continue to repeatedly single out X specifically for promotion above and beyond other social networks in so much of their activity, such as in the official signatures appended to many government emails, or in the Home Office’s own social media policy, which singles out X in encouraging people to use it? Is it not time to end this preferential treatment for Elon Musk?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has been campaigning on this issue for many years, including before he entered your Lordships’ House. A level of pragmatism needs to be adopted. We need to talk to the electorate and to our citizens where they are, and not necessarily on which platforms we wish they were on. When 19.2 million British citizens use X, it is an important place, which I guess is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, is still on X.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Does anyone in government have the job of reading all the incoming messages, following the Government’s submission, and do they ever take any of them seriously?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, on a personal level I tend to look at X as little as possible, which is why I was a little out of the loop yesterday given all the news that was breaking on X. But, having said that, there is a genuine thing here about how we communicate with people. There is a reason why we use these tools. In fact, given the extreme heat that we are currently experiencing, both the Met Office and UKHSA are using X, among other platforms, for engagement. It is making sure that it is about engagement and not just one-way, although on a personal level, when I was an MP, I found Meta platforms much easier to engage with the electorate on.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister says that there is a reason why the Government use X. Why is it that the Attorney-General’s department can manage without using X but other government departments cannot?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. We need to remember how we speak to people and where we speak to them. The Cabinet Office guidance in this space recommends that government departments on an individual basis consider the best platforms for them to engage with. For example, the Northern Ireland Office will use different tools from those used by the Home Office or the Department of Health because of the people that it is engaging with and on the platforms that it needs to engage on. The Attorney-General’s Office has made a decision that X is not an appropriate vehicle for it, subject to some of the legal issues that it may need to use it for, but that is a department-by-department consideration.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that many of the responses to messages that are put out on X come from bots, and they foment social and civil unrest. What are the Government doing to try to deal with these bots? They really are dangerous to our society.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We have seen the issues of dis- and misinformation, and in recent weeks we saw what happened in Belfast and in other parts of the country. Bad faith actors are using social media platforms to try to sow division, whether that is through bots or other sources, and we need to be very aware of that. That is why Ofcom has been given the tools through the Online Safety Act, which Members of your Lordships’ House discussed for eight years to try to get right. The tools need to be used and Ofcom needs to do its job.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, on Thursday, this House will be discussing threats to democracy. We are close to the point now where one has to see X— and Elon Musk—as something of a threat to British democracy, deliberately putting out misinformation, using algorithms to promote the most anti-democratic candidate in the Makerfield by-election, and so on. Do the Government not need to look at much tighter regulation on X and other social media which are actively attempting to bias the way in which people in Britain understand our democratic life?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Everything that every Member of your Lordships’ House does every day is to promote British values and ensure that they are protected. That is why we have the Defending Democracy Taskforce and why we have just had the Rycroft review; it is also why, in the most recent by-election, the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit was set up to try to tackle some of these issues. Although I am a huge advocate of freedom of expression—I ran Index on Censorship until the general election—it is about making sure that, within the prism of freedom of speech, we are protecting the values that we hold most dear. That is why we have given powers to Ofcom; obviously, we will continue to review those powers, and, if they do not work, we will need to do more.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in October last year, the Government indicated their intention to relax the rules on civil servants speaking publicly, including to the media and stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm when the formal guidance will be published? Will it include guidance on social media use?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. I should have anticipated a question on that; I thought that she might ask about the Civil Service’s principles on social media, as opposed to anything more substantive. I will write to her with an update on the issue she raises, but I assure all Members of your Lordships’ House that the Civil Service has to operate with impartiality, regardless of which platform it is using.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, most of our media—whether the press or social media—is controlled by the right wing. Is it not important that we have legislation that stops these people putting out propaganda, which is what they do every day?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I had a fascinating conversation with a very young member of my private office. When I suggested to him that the Daily Express had once been in a Labour-leaning newspaper, he was a little surprised; that shows either my age or his.
There is an issue here around making sure that people have access to genuine information sources that are real and accurate. Like me, my noble friend will remember that, in the general election in 1997, more than 80% of people got their information from BBC sources—at least, I believe so; I should say that before I get myself in trouble again over statistics in this space—but that is not the case now. Most people get their news online, which is why we need to make sure that free and fair journalism is protected.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right. When Iran shut down its internet to try to stop proper, fair protests in that country, we saw how many cybernats and other accounts went down in the UK for people who were seeking to sow division and separation in the United Kingdom. We know that bad faith actors try every day to undermine the very values for which we stand. That is why we have the Government’s media literacy action plan and why we are working at every level of society to highlight these issues. It is also, from my perspective, one of the reasons why we need to work every day to make things clear and to ensure that platforms take their responsibilities seriously.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, disinformation and propaganda go back hundreds of years. There are some good things to be said about X, but the antidote is as follows. It is very much to be regretted that young people no longer read newspapers. I call on the Department for Education to fund a selection of newspapers in every single secondary school in the country; that is the only way to get young people interested in serious, proper news.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. She is right that misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and counterpropaganda are not new. Last week, my husband wrote an article for his local paper in which he reminded everybody that there is one day of the year when we look at media with a level of cynicism: 1 April. We need to be doing that every single day of the year. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I will look at. A DCMS consultation is currently out; I will ensure that her point is fed in.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was a little alarmed by the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He does not like some things that are being said on X. He was not talking about incitement, harassment or the promotion of illegal activities. He specifically cited campaigning for a candidate whom he did not like—something that is legal but which he did not like. The Minister said, I think, that this might be a proper case for Ofsted toughening its regulatory powers. Would she like to clarify that, because I think we can all agree that we do not want to criminalise different political points of view?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am sorry if I gave that impression. That is absolutely not what I meant; I meant that, in terms of its responsibilities, X has to follow the law. With regard to anyone standing for election, all of us who have done so know that there are ways and means for us to beat our opponents, and that is at the ballot box. We will continue to do so. Personally, I enjoyed campaigning against the candidate who was referenced; it is an incredibly important part of all this.
Last week, I had the final Question just before the football. I have the same Question today. I do not want to tempt fate, but come on, England!
Armed Forces Bill
Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, I beg to move.
G7 Summit
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for being here to answer questions on this Statement. In these uncertain times, I wish her well for continuation in office—and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who has run away but I hope will be back.
Lord True (Con)
The Statement was made by someone who did not attend the summit and in the absence of the Prime Minister—a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in Downing Street, “them’s the breaks”. Many unkind things were said back then about my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was “a good day”, one allegedly impartial former official deplorably gloated. I will not follow the road of rejoicing in another’s downfall. I place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this Statement claimed. Indeed, can the Minister tell us why on earth he is going if everything is as amazing as the Statement says?
At the summit, Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support that he has given to Ukraine, so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr Johnson. We support that stand and will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Home to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we do not have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir’s resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity. The same old Labour, with tax and spend policies that were out of date even in the 1970s, will deliver the same dismal outcomes.
We are told in the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain safer and rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world. Really? Endless delays to the defence investment plan have not made us safer. With continued instability in the Middle East, war in Europe and an increasingly reckless Russia, any further delay in the defence investment plan is unacceptable. Can the noble Baroness tell us today when it will be published?
The stunning resignations of the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister did not enhance our reputation in the world. Two principled men, actually the best of the Labour Party, laid bare a bitter truth—their view, not ours—that a Government overdosing on welfare spending were unable or unwilling to find money for defence. It is a shambles. What on earth will the Prime Minister tell NATO on 7 July?
Mr Carns in his statement was also devastating about the injustice of the legal pursuit of our Northern Ireland Army veterans and the folly of the so-called remedial order. That was being rushed forward so the Prime Minister could offer up our compliance with the ECHR at the so-called EU reset summit. That has now been delayed, so can the noble Baroness tell the House that that vindictive order will also be shelved?
We welcome good news in the Statement on foreign direct investment from France, India and Japan. We welcome the free trade agreement with India. This is the Britain we want, opening to the wider world. But foreign direct investment cannot offset the devastating impact of Labour’s domestic policies. If we want real growth, the next Prime Minister must change course.
Change in terms of security is needed too to Mr Miliband’s obsessive pursuit of net zero. Did the House notice the outcome of the election in Aberdeen South? Working people want our North Sea open. Working people want to exploit our own energy resources and the jobs the oil and gas industry brings. We have heard it here from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and others. We have heard it from the secretary-general of Unite. For once, they and we are united in a common-sense cause: we must open the North Sea.
Speaking of common sense, I think the noble Baroness knows how pleased we are that this House stopped the disastrous Chagos deal. Did the Prime Minister try to resurrect this in any way at the summit, or is this turkey now dead?
We hope progress in the US-Iran talks will end barriers to free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We all want peace in the Middle East, but we must not soften our stance on the murderous regime in Tehran. We have been far too slow to take action on the IRGC, although I welcome steps now being undertaken. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we will remain in lockstep with our US allies in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon? Can she tell us when the Franco-British action in the Gulf and the strait will begin?
We agree that more should be done to ensure civilian aid gets through in Gaza and indeed Lebanon; it must flow more smoothly. But we are also clear in our view that Israel had and has a right to defend itself. Was I alone in thinking it truly astonishing that, in 360 words on the Middle East in this Statement, there was not a single word of condemnation of terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Hamas? Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Israel must tone down what he called “inflammatory language”. What are they supposed to say of the butchers of Jewish babies?
On illegal immigration, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to build on our 2018 Sandhurst agreement with France, and we welcome that. In contrast, this Government’s so-called one-in, one-out policy had to be rewritten after illegal migrants once removed returned to the UK. Can the noble Baroness tell us how many criminal gangs have been smashed?
Finally, the Statement referred with regret to the 10th anniversary of Brexit. Some people, it seems, will never accept the verdict of the British people or own that the fast first Covid vaccine, the free trade deal with India we have just heard about, the summer holidays VAT measure and so much else would never have been possible without that vote. I must test the tolerance of the House by declaring I voted for our freedom to choose our own destiny 10 years ago, and I would do so again. We need to look to the future, not plunge back to past battles. I wish the next Prime Minister well, but it is not a change of Prime Minister that this country needs, it is a change of Government.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing this Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. Self-evidently, I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it is a great—and unusual—pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand-in should be making this speech, as the original speech was also made by a stand-in in the other place. As a result, this Statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting.
Starting with Ukraine, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit on the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the full invasion started. What this hit on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles. Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The Statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established a 25 kilometre-plus wide kill zone, through which the Russians are finding progress has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they face from ballistic missiles and the need for more anti-ballistic defence. Russia has thousands of missiles that have yet to be fired. Europe has responded to some extent to that plea for help, but following the Iran conflict, defence systems are at a premium. It was clear from my visit 10 days ago to the factory in the USA where Patriot missiles are manufactured that the global shortage of such defensive weapons will be only very slowly filled—too slow for the Ukrainian people.
That is why anything we do in Europe to work together to design and manufacture alternative defence systems is really important. In the short term, it would help Ukraine; in the medium term, it would help the Baltic states and the rest of Europe. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in sourcing European anti-ballistic weapons? She may need to write to me with that answer.
Sanctions also remain important. Given the seeming changes to the Middle East, when will the Government hurry up and apply sanctions to Russian-refined jet fuel? Also, did the Government raise at the G7 the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine? If not, why not?
Turning to the Middle East, the Statement offers no new information. The key question is how any international coalition with the French can possibly operate safely when we are only a Truth Social posting away from a deadly flare-up. What is the government thinking on that? I am sure fellow Peers will have noted comments from the Iranians about tolls through the Strait of Hormuz. That was to be expected, but President Trump has been publicly musing on levying fees to protect tankers. Both options are equally unacceptable and have been reinforced overnight. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the US ambassador has been made aware that we do not support any such protection racket as that proposed by President Trump?
It is clear that the situations in Lebanon and Gaza remain unacceptable to the people living there, and destabilising to any possible settlement with Iran. The Statement says that bringing all partners together is the Government’s aim. Can the Minister please update your Lordships House on any actions that have been taken to bring people together in the last few months?
It is disappointing but typical that the terrible conflict in Sudan seems to have been ignored again.
On illegal migration, I would only note that, were we once again to have full access to all the policing and immigration data we used to have before Brexit, the number of boats would more likely fall to their low level before we left the European Union.
That swiftly moves us on to the final part of the Statement, on growth and investment. Speaking nine months ago, before he was burdened with any realistic chance of leadership, Andy Burnham openly referred to Brexit as a disaster and blamed it for making aspirations harder to achieve in Britain. He revealed his wish to see the UK rejoin at some point, but it was reported that he remained pragmatic about how long this would take.
Once Andy Burnham moves his bandwagon into No. 10 Downing Street and opens the books, he will see the full extent of the damage done to the life chances of ordinary people thanks to Brexit. At that point, I suggest his truly pragmatic action would be to accelerate things. I invite him to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ plan for the UK to join the customs union and re-enter the single market. We would be very willing to help him if he wishes to do that. Instead of urgency, however, everything is on hold. Yesterday’s events have caused the UK-EU summit planned for 22 July to be postponed. Does the Lord Privy Seal share my disappointment that even the partial progress expected from that summit is now delayed? Does she agree that the sooner we act to get closer to our real allies in the EU, the better the chances for growth and the more secure the United Kingdom will be?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I looked with some wry amusement at my notes, which start: “Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive suggestions?” Perhaps I should not always believe the notes I am given. I want to start—which I am sorry the noble Lord did not do—by congratulating the Conservative Party on winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I had half expected him to congratulate the Labour Party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield, and the SNP, who held their seat in Arbroath. All of us who put ourselves forward for election know that it is never an easy time, and consequences follow from winning and losing. I think we should be generous in this House to those who put themselves forward. I also thank the noble Lord for his comments about me and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms—the Chief Whip. I am grateful for such support. He has not always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment.
Both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine. I think all of us feel very strongly about this. You just have to think of how the Ukrainian people have for so long endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. Others may have seen President Zelensky’s statement on the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday, in which he said:
“Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we”—
that is President Zelensky and the Prime Minister—
“have had has always been filled with real substance. Thank you for always being in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help ... Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine”.
I think all of us in this House want that to continue, whoever is in No. 10 and whoever has a majority of seats in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord True, made some rather derogatory and unhelpful comments about the Member for Makerfield, who is standing to be the leader of the Labour Party, and therefore Prime Minister. I point out to him that, over the years, he has gained a lot more experience than many holders of that office have had. He is an experienced Cabinet Minister and an experienced mayor. I think we should see who takes on that position and give them all the support that we should in what are difficult times.
After praising the Prime Minister, the noble Lord then set about the reputation of the Prime Minister overseas. I have to say that, coming from the party opposite, I was not quite sure of the point he was trying to make. I am full of admiration for and very proud of the Prime Minister for the way he has engaged across the world in some of the most difficult issues there have been. Our international reputation was not high. I can think of previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries who did not enhance our reputation abroad.
On Brexit, which was mentioned by both noble Lords, the Conservative Party campaigned for Brexit without really having a plan of what Brexit meant; and after having an agreement on Brexit, there was no plan for growth following that. We have to ensure that we have a much closer relationship with the EU; that work will continue and is extremely important. It is obviously a disappointment that the EU summit is being delayed. There are important issues to be discussed, particularly the SPS agreement, which was not dealt with satisfactorily when the Brexit deal was done. It has had a terrible impact in those areas, so we want to have that summit as soon as we possibly can to address those issues, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about instability in the Middle East. He is right to address these issues, as this House has done many times; the ongoing work on this is extremely important.
Regarding the defence investment plan, the Government have committed to publishing this before the NATO summit, but we have not waited for the plan to be published before getting on and doing some of the work that is needed. Typhoons are currently being built in the West Midlands. Ships are being built in Scotland. A whole range of investment is going on that is needed.
The noble Lord is right, however, that the plan has to be published and taken forward. It is not just about the amount of money. The amount of money has been of great interest, but let us look around the world, at how we work with our allies in other countries and at our interoperability—how we work together. There is no point in the UK spending x billion in one area if that does not work with money spent in France and Germany and by our other allies. That working together is a huge part of the important role that we take.
The noble Lord is right to raise the Strait of Hormuz; it is essential that it is opened and that it is toll free. Wherever the tolls come from, they are wrong; it must be a toll-free passage through there. The noble Lord also asked about Iran. He will be aware of the state threats legislation that is coming before this House. I hope that we will co-operate to make sure that is on the statute book so that we can deal with state threats there as well.
A lot of questions were raised. I have tried to answer as many as possible in the time that I have been given. I would like to say something more about the recent support for Ukraine, as both noble Lords asked about this. We are providing 150,000 drones and 350 air defence missiles. In answer to the question raised, they are funded from the frozen Russian assets; that is probably the best use for those assets.
We have also announced £210 million of export finance support for enriched uranium. That supports power for Ukraine; as we get into the winter, we will need to ensure that Ukraine has the power that it needs. There is also a new package of sanctions. In total, we have committed over £21 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. I think the whole House would join me in saying that we need to ensure that this money is spent in the best way possible, both for Ukraine’s safety and security and for ours.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me respectfully say that they are Back-Bench questions, so we want questions and not statements. Bearing that in mind, I would ask the Conservatives to go first.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, this morning, a Russian ballistic missile struck a civilian target in President Zelensky’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, killing three people and wounding many others. It was a quite appalling incident, at 11 am Ukrainian time. In the G7 communiqué, there was a statement committing to an increased delivery to Ukraine of
“additional systems and … long-range capabilities”.
Can the Minister elaborate on what is meant by “long-range capabilities”?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord further information beyond what I have already said—I will look at whether there is any more information I can send to him that can be in the public domain—but I think that shows our commitment to doing all that we can to help Ukraine because of the constant pressure that it is under. The example that the noble Lord cites is one of many that happen regularly. I repeat that I have such admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine in withstanding this.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness say what more was said at the G7 summit about the atrocities in Sudan, given that it is a major root cause of displaced people, of whom there are now 120 million in the world? Will she look at the statements issued yesterday by the African Union and by the US State Department about the dangers now emerging in North Kordofan, and the danger that the genocidal attack that was made in El Fasher in Darfur quite recently will be replicated? Given our duties under the genocide convention to look for emerging signs of genocide, will she take this away as a matter of great urgency?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Of course. I think the noble Lord has raised these issues already with my noble friend Lady Chapman, who is well aware of them, and I will pass his comments on to her. Yes, it is a matter of urgency. It is something of a shock, when we think of what is going on in the world, that Sudan gets so few column inches and so little attention in our newspapers in this country. It seems sometimes that they move on to another issue and then another, but it is still happening and is still important. I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Chapman and see what more we can say to the noble Lord.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Government should act with our allies in the G7 to try to stop the illegal expansion, particularly in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, known as E1? Does she agree that it is important that we should create the momentum that is needed to tackle and create a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I am proud that we have taken the historic step of recognising the Palestinian state. Settlements that are damaging and oppose the two-state solution just make that harder to reach and undermine it. They are illegal under international law, and we urge Israel to take action against such settlements. My noble friend is right: the only way forward for a safe and secure Israel and a safe and viable Palestine is through a two-state solution.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update us on the coalition of the willing in terms of the final settlement that there will be on any peace agreement in Ukraine? Does she accept that the coalition of the willing will form the basis of European defence in the future if we have to defend ourselves against Russian aggression without help from the United States?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a useful point. The coalition of the willing that the Prime Minister brought together, and which he led, has shown itself to have real value. I mentioned that co-operation between countries in my first answer on the Statement; they came together largely because of Ukraine, but its resonance goes far beyond that. The coalition of the willing is something that we want to see continue, also beyond Ukraine. At the moment, though, we just want to do what we can to secure peace for Ukraine and give it confidence that we are with it. Whatever the Ukrainians need, we are here for them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the esteem in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is held by most foreign leaders—possibly with one major exception. I think we all share with her the desire that, whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy.
The Statement refers clearly to the increased number of sanctioned people under the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. That response is of course extremely welcome, but there is a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation grey-zone attacks, cyber attacks and arson, including on the Prime Minister’s property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely, in those circumstances, we should make sure that the public at large are aware of these threats and of the consequences of disruption and are prepared for them—not only those sorts of threats but indeed all the other risks on the national risk register. Can my noble friend tell us what plans there are—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise a number of issues around resilience. He said he hoped that whoever takes over from the Prime Minister will continue that work. The Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaking and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions, and that will continue.
We have some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that is incumbent not just on the Government but on all of us. We have talked in this House before about a national conversation, and I know my noble friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on it. I do not think the public really understand the scale and type of threats the country faces today. Of course, weather resilience is another issue, but I do not think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of infrastructure, including banking or transport. So a lot of work is being undertaken to try to get the public to engage on that. But it is not just the responsibility of government: the whole House, civil society, local authorities and public agencies, and companies important to national security need to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe because of the impact that has on all of us as well.
Lord Redwood (Con)
As the Government have decommissioned the last minesweeper and the last frigate we had in the Gulf, what assistance can we practically offer in the very important task of clearing the mines and safeguarding shipping, assuming the ceasefire holds?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is probably aware that clearing mines is something we are working on as part of a broad coalition, particularly with the French. We are engaged in that and working with them at present.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her comments this afternoon and to the Prime Minister for his work on Britain’s interests abroad. I particularly appreciated my noble friend’s comments on settler violence in answer to a previous question. I want to raise a second question about the Israeli Government’s policy. They collect tax for the Palestinian Authority every month, and for a year that tax has not been paid over to the Palestinian Authority. The result is that the public sector workforce and the civil servants are on small fractions of their pay, often working just for commitment to their country rather than pay. This is creating massive problems and a potential crisis. I urge my noble friend to put it to the Government that we need to put urgent pressure on the Israeli Government to pay over the tax that they have collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority so the authority can get it on with doing its job. I say this as the Government’s envoy to the Palestinian Authority on governance. Finally, I will say that I really liked the answer earlier on a Palestinian state being created and a two-state solution. A state with the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbours, has to be the outcome we all seek.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will know from his detailed question that he has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. If you look at hotspots around the world where there is conflict, you see that, at the end of the day, negotiation is the way forward to end these problems. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying, and having their lives forever changed. On tax collection, my noble friend may not be surprised to know that I do not know the details. His experience, knowledge and engagement are clearly evident, so will he allow me to take that away and come back to him? We have regular and constructive engagement with the Israeli Government; I cannot tell him whether that has been raised in recent meetings, but I will look into it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, now that we have recognised the Palestinian Authority, what discussions have the Government had with it, following worries expressed by the United States and the EU about the continued practice of paying a stipend to people convicted of killing Jews: “pay for slay” money? We have been promised that this would end. What discussions has she had with Palestinian authorities to ensure it finally does end?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have not personally had those discussions, but the Government have ongoing discussions. The noble Lord will know from his experience that you do not get everything that has to be done at first, but you have to start that engagement to make a difference. I cannot personally say what engagement or discussion there has been on that issue, but I will take it back. A point the noble Lord has made many times about a two-state solution as well is that you need to have trust and engagement on all sides and, as we move forward, we need to try to do what we can to engender that trust. That means change and understanding on both sides.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House on the presentation and content of the Statement. I also thank the Prime Minister for his work on deepening European co-operation, and his work with an Taoiseach in Dublin on deepening British-Irish relations. But, as we mark 10 years since the Brexit referendum, does my noble friend agree that the people of the UK do not want the old arguments reopened or renegotiated? They want practical leadership that deepens co-operation with the EU, where it is in the interests of the wider population, including in a forthcoming UK-EU summit, whenever that takes place, and with the needed work my noble friend referred to that is required on the SPS agreement, particularly in securing our agri-food industry.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very valid point. For many of us, the Brexit referendum is deep in our minds and we will struggle to forget it, but, for others, it is something that happened when they were very young. A lot of young people are not engaged in the same way. I say to her that there have to be new arguments; we have to deal with where we are now and act always in the interests of the UK. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the SPS agreement. When the original Brexit deal was done, this really should have been seriously understood and decisions should have been taken, but they were not. We are paying a price, or the agricultural industry is, for this not being addressed then. She is right that if we have the EU referendum—sorry, the EU summit, not referendum; I am not a great fan of referendums, as noble Lords might imagine—it should be as soon as possible, and this has to be addressed. I can give the assurance that every sinew will be addressed to ensure that we can get to that point as soon as possible.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and her answers. Having listened to such important strategic questions in this debate, I would like to pose a more personal one. My partner is Lebanese-Ukrainian, with family in both countries impacted by the terrible conflicts that continue to rage there. While I welcome the Statement, can my noble friend please explain what more could perhaps be done by this Government to support the people of both countries in their hopes for peace and, when it comes, eventual reconstruction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that sometimes, in looking at strategic and wider issues, we forget the personal. I have no doubt that his wife has found that having family in Lebanon and Ukraine is quite a harrowing experience at times, when you do not know where they are and what is happening. So I imagine there have been some difficult days in his household. In terms of more support, we just have to keep this at the front and foremost of people’s minds: we have to continue being the best friends that we can to Ukraine, as President Zelensky said. My noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, recently announced a further £13 million-worth of support for Lebanon, because, unless we actually engage with these countries, in both their fightback and their reconstruction, we will not be able to see them have a viable future. Everything we do should be geared to that aim: not just support now, but looking to the longer-term future of those who live there.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I welcome the words of the Lord Privy Seal about the need to engage all of civil society in the issue of what a dangerous world we live in. How does she reconcile that with the fact that, time after time, the heads of our armed services are saying that our Armed Forces have been cut to the bone and that they simply do not have the resources to deal with the threat against them? Is it not the case that we need to spend more on all types of defence—not just the defence of yesterday, but to fight the battles of today and tomorrow—and, thus far, have this Government not failed in that attempt?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that I think he has a short memory. When we look at what happened on defence under the Government whom he supported, the record is very poor. When the last Labour Government left office, we were spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence; that was then cut during the time the Conservatives were in office. We have now got it back up to 2.5%; we said that we would do that by the end of this Parliament, but we have done it sooner. Under the noble Lord’s Government, the Army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. His Government missed their Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers, we cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades-old kit and equipment; nor did his Government do anything to address the conditions that our military families were living in. We have made huge progress on a lot of those issues, particularly on accommodation and on procurement—which, I have to say, was a real mess. So it is a bit rich for the noble Lord to give lectures.
However, that does not mean that we do not have to do more. There are two things, as I said. One is how we provide the money, but the other is how we work with other countries to ensure that we can work together on our procurement and have interoperability between the systems that we use. We need to take this extremely seriously. When the noble Lord says, “You have failed”, he is not recognising the work that we have done to clear up the mess that was left, which we are proud to do. That is not to say that we do not want to do more. The world is a dangerous place, and there are a range of issues. I might suggest that the noble Lord writes a book about this—I feel a novel coming on. In the absence of that, I assure him that this is probably the most serious issue that is at the top of the current Prime Minister’s in-tray, and it will be at the top of the next one’s.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, my concern is about the relevance of the G7. It was held together by the economic might of various countries, but now India and China are challenging, and they are not part of the G7. It was held together by the advancement of the rules-based international order, which has been undermined by President Trump. G7 countries have been unable to find solutions to things such as poverty eradication, climate change, and even the taxation of corporations. Given that issues of common interest can be discussed at the UN and with the G20, the BRICS countries and the EU, and in many other bilateral and multilateral settings, what proposal do the Government have for making the G7 relevant?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, when I look at the communiqués and outcomes, and particularly at the engagement of the US on Ukraine at this G7, the message I have received from people who were there is that this was one of the most constructive G7s for many years. I say to the noble Lord that any opportunity for countries to come together, discuss issues and engage is beneficial. Sometimes they will make progress, sometimes they will not, but the fact that they are there together and willing to have these discussions is beneficial. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the communiqués and sees how productive this particular G7 was.
National Security (State Threats) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to open the debate on what is a vital Bill. I will start with the importance of the Bill and what it will achieve. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to discuss the content, direction and purpose of the Bill with a number of noble Lords outside the Chamber, and I am happy to have further discussions between now and later stages next week if Members so wish.
State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign Governments that fall below armed conflict but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the United Kingdom and our allies, manifesting across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety, and disruption of economic security. Noble Lords will know that certain states have both the intent and the capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives. This activity is often opportunistic, adaptive, increasingly integrated across multiple domains, and combining physical, cyber, economic and information tools. The threats are both evolving and enduring, and our legislation must keep pace.
In December 2024, the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, in his capacity as the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation and how they may be applied to the problem of state threats. I place on record, on behalf of this House, our thanks to Jonathan Hall KC for his work. He proposed that we should legislate to create a state threats power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Noble Lords will be aware of those powers as we have, within the last year, designated a number of organisations under that Act. This Bill delivers on that proposal and will strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counterterrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK.
The Bill will create a new power for the Secretary of State, in this case the Home Secretary, to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, modelled on proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies and will enable proxy organisations to be treated, in practice, like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf.
The Bill will strengthen the overall national security framework, so that the United Kingdom becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and those state-linked proxies. Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the accompanying offences, some of which will carry a life sentence. Designation will send a clear public signal to designated bodies that those prepared to assist them in their malign behaviour will not be tolerated.
In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police and the security and intelligence agencies. It has been a year in gestation, and I know from Question Time, Statements and elsewhere that noble Lords feel that that has been too long, but this is vital legislation and it is important to get it right. The Bill gives our operational partners the powers they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors. Jonathan Hall himself has said of the Bill, “It does the job”.
The Bill has come to us today from the House of Commons, where I know there was debate regarding some of its provisions. I will, if I may, use this Second Reading opening speech to address why I think the Bill is the right thing to do, and to address some of the comments around the Bill as a whole. There was debate in the House of Commons regarding possible amendments to the Bill. I assure people across this House that such amendments are not necessary and that the Bill as drafted does the job required. If the Government are to exercise the powers in the Bill promptly, a swift but thoroughly scrutinised passage through this House will, I suggest, prove beneficial. I will provide noble Lords with reassurances today to enable that passage to take place.
I particularly want to address three points in the Bill as currently drafted. The first is the prohibited purpose test, which is applied to the support offence in Clause 2. The Bill makes it an offence to express support for a designated body, including by arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of a designated body, when that support is for a prohibited purpose. Clause 2 goes on to define a prohibited purpose as a purpose that
“is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
We have had some comment on that from Members, both in discussions I have had and in the House of Commons. There have been suggestions that the prohibited purpose test should be removed from the Bill on the basis that no such test applies to the support offences in the Terrorism Act. I suggest that is to misunderstand the differences between state entities and terror organisations. While proscription under the Terrorism Act aims to ban the existence of an organisation, that cannot and must not be the case with this Bill. Even when a state entity presents a threat to the UK, there will still be cases in which there are legitimate reasons for engaging with that entity. Indeed, such engagement will often be in the UK’s interests as a whole, through British diplomats or NGOs doing vital work on conflict resolution or to deliver humanitarian aid. To remove the prohibited purpose test would be to criminalise such activity.
Secondly, there has also been some discussion that the Bill does not go far enough to criminalise individuals who provide assistance to designated bodies in relation to overseas activities. New Section 17B makes it an offence to provide such assistance when the activity undertaken is
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Although there has been discussion on this both in the House of Commons and in formal discussions I have had, it will mean that an individual in the UK who assists a designated body in hostile activity towards an ally, with a recognisable adverse effect on the UK, would be committing a crime under the Bill.
The Bill does not extend the UK’s criminal jurisdiction over all other acts anywhere in the world, irrespective of whether they affect the UK. It is an important principle of international law that there are reasonable limits to that jurisdiction, but where activities are contrary to our interests, this offence will bite. It is in line with the equivalent offences in the National Security Act. If we were to go further, we would not only go beyond what our operational partners have asked for; we would also push the limits of international law. I suggest that the Bill has the balance right on this issue.
Thirdly, there has been some comment and discussion in Parliament, and outside, in relation to the debate on so-called self-directed acts—that is to say, acts that are inspired by state threat actors but not directed by them. I assure noble Lords that such acts are caught within the offences in the Bill. Specifically, the offence at new Section 17B of providing material assistance to a designated body requires that a person intends their actions to assist that body. They do not have to be tasked or directed by the body for which they are working for the offence to apply.
New Section 33B also introduces the designated body condition to the National Security Act. This means that when a person acts with the intention to benefit a designated body, they may also engage the offences under that Act. This includes offences such as obtaining or disclosing protected information and sabotage, which both carry life sentences. Again, this does not need any tasking from the designated body. I hope that addresses noble Lords’ concerns and removes any doubt in their minds.
There has been considerable discussion on specific bodies that might or might not be designated under this Bill. I noticed an amendment in the House of Commons to proscribe the IRGC directly, and I have experienced a lot of pressure about that in this House as well. There have been calls for the Government to commit to designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I hope I can explain to noble Lords that while this Bill is being discussed, I cannot give that commitment today. The powers in the Bill are vital; their exercise will have profound implications for the UK’s foreign policy and our national security. It is right that Parliament should set the legal framework for the use of those powers and will be asked to endorse their use through the affirmative procedure, as the Bill provides. It is also right that it should be for the Secretary of State, on the advice of expert evidence, and in some cases sensitive intelligence, to determine whether the use of these powers is necessary.
I will not today pre-empt decisions that have yet to be taken in relation to a law that has yet to be passed. But I give the House a cast-iron assurance that where the Secretary of State judges it necessary, she will use these powers, if they receive Royal Assent, and she will not hesitate to do so. I am confident that noble Lords will hold me to account on that point. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner the powers within it can be used. The Bill remains a vehicle for the Home Secretary to determine whether a state threat designation is required on any body post Royal Assent.
We have had some discussion in Parliament around the speed on this. The Government are committed to a fast track on the Bill. That commitment reflects the urgent need to close a legislative gap. It also reflects the interest in this House and in our society in ensuring that government has the powers to deal with those state entities that threaten our national security. It was in response to a series of heinous antisemitic arson attacks in north London that the Prime Minister committed to bringing the Bill forward within weeks. We put it in the gracious Speech in May and brought it forward in both Houses at the earliest opportunity. I want to see it passed by both Houses at the earliest opportunity, so that we can get on with examining the requirements of using these powers as appropriate.
In our manifesto, we committed to take the approach used to deal with terrorism and to adapt it to deal with state-based security threats. The Bill does just that and fulfils a manifesto commitment. Ultimately, at stake is the purpose we are all sent here to advance, the most important thing we can do as a Government and a Parliament: to ensure the security of our nation and all who live in it.
I pay tribute to the men and women of our police and security services. Their work could not matter more, particularly at this dangerous time. As well as thanking them, we must support them to tackle the threats we face in a dangerous and uncertain world. To give that support, we need to equip them with the new and necessary powers in this legislation.
There is a wealth of experience across this House. I look forward to the further scrutiny that noble Lords will provide both today and next week, if the Bill is read a second time. We have a strong list of speakers today who will provide that fruitful debate. I suggest to the House that the urgency of our national security demands that the Bill be passed, giving the Home Secretary the powers to make assessments and use these powers at the earliest opportunity, where those threats exist. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming at long last the Government’s decision to bring this legislation forward. I say “at long last” advisedly and not as mere partisan point-scoring. This House will recall that the Opposition pressed the Government on no fewer than three separate occasions during the passage of the Crime and Policing Act in the previous Session to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. On three occasions, the House voted in favour of our amendments; on three occasions, the Government voted against them. Ministers resisted, delayed and demurred until, ultimately, the weight of public pressure, the urging of the Jewish community and the reality of what is happening on our streets became impossible to ignore. The Prime Minister made his announcement and here we are.
We do not begrudge the Government their change of position; we welcome it. The direction of travel is right, and this side of the House wants to see the Bill pass. But the circumstances of its arrival matter, because they help explain the deficiencies in the Bill as drafted. This legislation draws directly from the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whose report was published 14 months ago. Yet we are now told that this is so urgent that the Government will not consider any amendments, which is highly disappointing, given that the Bill before us today contains gaps that, if not rectified, risk rendering its central purpose unenforceable— I will come to those in a moment.
We must be frank about the threat we face. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a distinct threat. It is an organisation that has been active on British soil, targeting British citizens and funding terrorism across the world. In October 2024, Ken McCallum, the director-general of the Security Service, said that MI5 and the police had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots since January 2022 involving
“potentially lethal threats to British citizens”.
In May 2025, three Iranian men were charged under the National Security Act after a major counterterrorism investigation, and prosecutors said that one of the men had carried out surveillance, reconnaissance and online research with the aim of committing serious violence against a person in Britain. In March this year, we saw the horrific arson attack on Jewish ambulances in Golders Green, responsibility for which was claimed by an Iran-aligned group.
The IRGC funnels billions of dollars to terrorist proxies worldwide. It gifts rockets and advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. It manages thousands of fighters operating across multiple continents. It co-ordinates assassinations, kidnappings and sabotage operations, including here in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is entirely right that the law should treat association with, and support for, the IRGC as a criminal matter. That is what this Bill sets out to do and why we support its intentions.
However, good intentions poorly executed create only the illusion of security. I must be candid with the House: as drafted, the Bill contains at least four significant vulnerabilities that we believe must be addressed before it leaves this place. The first is the “prohibited purpose” requirement. The provisions in Clause 2 are modelled on Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the provision that makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. However, the Government have introduced an additional element that does not appear in the Terrorism Act: a requirement that the support be given for a “prohibited purpose”, which is defined as conduct that is
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
I ask the Minister a simple question that I hope he will answer directly: what form of support for the IRGC do the Government consider to be beneficial to the United Kingdom? What type of assistance to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism could possibly be regarded as in our national interests? If the answer is none—as it self-evidently must be—then why does this additional evidential standard exist at all?
What this provision creates in practice is a perverse hierarchy of culpability. Under the Bill, a prosecution against an individual for supporting the IRGC would require proof that their support was prejudicial to the United Kingdom. However, if that same individual were supporting one of the IRGC’s terrorist proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis—they would face a lower bar to prosecution under existing terrorism legislation. The organisation responsible for inspiring, organising, arming and financing those groups would receive greater legal protection than the groups themselves. That cannot be the Government’s intention. I hope that the Minister will listen and bring his own amendment to this effect; if not, I most certainly will.
The second concern relates to an omission of provisions on uniforms and insignia. Under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, it is an offence to display in a public place
“an item of clothing, or … any other article, in such a way … as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.
It is also an offence to publish an “image” of such an article or item of clothing. That is the provision used to remove Hamas flags from our streets and to seize Hezbollah insignia. The Bill contains no equivalent provision whatever. If the IRGC is designated under this legislation, its symbols, insignia and flags could be displayed openly in public with complete legal impunity. There is a gap in the legislation that is so obvious and damaging to public confidence that its presence in the Bill is difficult to explain.
I believe that the Government are of the view that this would somehow be inappropriate for this legislation. I wholly disagree. The Bill applies only to a UK person. We are not trying to ban Iranians displaying such insignia in Iran—of course we cannot do that—but why should anyone in the United Kingdom be permitted to wave the flag or wear the uniform of an organisation that we have deemed to be a threat worthy of designation under this legislation?
The third gap relates to the dissemination of publications and materials. Since 2006, it has been an offence under the Terrorism Act to disseminate terrorist publications. These are publications that encourage, glorify or provide practical assistance for acts of terrorism. That standard has been part of our counterterrorism framework for nearly two decades. This Bill makes no equivalent provision for designated hostile state bodies. Materials promoting, glorifying or facilitating the activities of designated groups could be distributed without triggering criminal liability. This is not a minor technical omission; it is a failure to apply a basic and well-established standard of counterterrorism law to a new category of threat.
The fourth and final concern is the absence of a preparatory conduct offence. The Bill as drafted captures those who assist, support or receive money from a designated group; it does not capture those who are in the process of planning to do so. Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 addresses this gap in the terrorism context, making it clear that preparation for terrorist action is itself an offence. By the time someone has completed an act of support for a terrorist organisation, the damage may already be done. Catching people in the preparatory stages is operationally essential for our security services. As the Bill stands, an individual who has taken concrete steps towards assisting the IRGC cannot be prosecuted unless and until the act itself is complete. They cannot be prosecuted for those acts because preparatory acts are not covered by any of offences in the Bill. That is a vulnerability that we do not have in our terrorism legislation. It is a vulnerability we should not introduce here.
I will make one final point. I have read Hansard and looked at the response from the new Security Minister to my honourable friend Alicia Kearns in the other place, and I must say that I found it wanting. The Security Minister said:
“There are a couple of themes that run through my response to the hon. Lady’s amendments. The first is that it is not possible to treat a state body the same as a terrorist organisation, because one cannot abolish a state body”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/26; col. 922.]
This argument does not stand. Proscription does not abolish a terrorist group. Hamas is a proscribed group of the United Kingdom, yet we all know it still exists in the Middle East. Daesh was not defeated because the British Government had proscribed it. Would anyone argue that Palestine Action does not exist now that it has been proscribed?
The purpose of proscription is not to abolish a group but to degrade its ability to operate in the United Kingdom by prohibiting all forms of association with and support for it. That is precisely what the Government say they intend to do with designation under this Bill. Therefore, the reality is that proscription and designation are not really as different as the Minister would have us believe. Given that was the Government’s main justification for rejecting my honourable friend’s amendments last week, I hope they will rethink their objections.
The rushed nature of the Bill’s drafting is, I regret to say, visible in the legislation. When a Government spend months resisting legislation, then reverse course under political pressure and move quickly to announce a Bill, the risk of corners being cut is very real. We see the evidence of that here. None of our concerns is insurmountable. In each case, the amendments would bring this legislation into conformity with the counter- terrorism framework it is explicitly based on.
As I have just outlined, there is no reason why this should not happen. The threat from the IRGC—and, indeed, other state-linked groups—is present, documented and ongoing. The House has an obligation to ensure that when legislation is passed in response to that threat, it is legislation that works, is watertight and enforceable, and does not permit those who support one of the world’s most dangerous organisations to slip through its gaps. We support the Bill. We want to see it on our statute book, but we will not allow the urgency of the cause to excuse the inadequacy of the drafting. We will table amendments in Committee and we look forward to constructive engagement with Ministers.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Bill. We have been clear that we also want this legislation on the statute book and we will not seek to hold it up. We fully recognise the unprecedented security challenges that we face, confronting more serious and less predictable threats than at any time since the Cold War. In 2025 alone, MI5 reported a 35% increase in state threat activity on the previous year, including more than 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill on British soil. We are in accord with the Government. This activity must be stopped.
However, while we will not obstruct the Bill, our support is not a blank cheque for lawmaking. The Bill was introduced just 13 days ago and was rushed through the other place in less than six hours. That begs the question: why did it take 14 months to act on recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, which were accepted in full in May 2025? To ask this House to deliver a watertight defence in a single afternoon is a tall order and risks the Bill being seen as a rapid answer rather than a complete answer. Such accelerated progress risks important areas not being properly covered or provisions having unintended consequences.
Good legislation also involves scrutiny and input from outside Parliament. The media and experts from a wide range of professional fields are normally critical in improving a Bill. However, the speed of this Bill’s passage runs a real risk that much-needed external scrutiny will be missed.
The Bill addresses a critical gap. Looking to existing terrorism laws to deal with state organs was, in the words of the independent reviewer,
“shopping in the wrong department”.
By creating a power to designate bodies involved in “foreign power threat activity”, the Bill creates the right tool to penalise the proxies and hired guns that foreign powers use to carry out sabotage on UK soil.
The litmus test for the Bill will be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the IRGC. My noble friend Lord Marks has constantly argued that if the IRGC was not in power in Tehran, it would be universally recognised as a terrorist organisation. Yet, as drafted, this Bill is gentler on the IRGC than our laws are on the terrorists it funds.
We must also ensure that these powers have teeth in the global financial system. My noble friend Lord Purvis noted on 11 June that these groups operate through complex commercial, financial and now digital trade routes. We must use this Bill to trigger robust investigations by Companies House and the Financial Reporting Council to unmask front companies and starve designated organisations of UK-origin funds. However, I remain a bit concerned by the Minister’s comment that a UK connection of some sort is required for designation. In an era of digital interference, when state-backed proxies can target our citizens and sabotage our interests from behind a screen thousands of miles away, we must ensure that this requirement does not become a loophole. We need an assurance that this Bill is equipped for the era of digital interference, ensuring that hostile actors cannot evade designation simply by operating entirely from abroad via digital means.
We must also listen to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Development Committee. They warn that new Section 17B is so broad that it could unintentionally criminalise impartial humanitarian aid. Ministerial “intent” is not a legal safeguard. We need an express exemption on the face of the Bill for impartial humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. Anything less leaves our aid workers at the mercy of a 14-year prison sentence for simply delivering life-saving medicine.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified another trap. Clause 1 currently allows for designation without even establishing a link to a foreign power for certain acts, such as those under Section 4 of the 2023 Act. That is both too weak against our enemies and too broad for a free society.
On future-proofing, the director-general of MI5 has rightly warned of the next frontier: autonomous AI systems that may evade effective human control. The Government’s own AI Scenarios 2030 report admits that such systems could cause “existential harms” without intervention. I will be moving a specific amendment in committee to ensure that “foreign power threat activity” captures the development of super-intelligent AI capabilities by a foreign power.
Finally, because this is a fast-track Bill, we must have a 12-month statutory review of its adequacy. We also need the safeguard that any removal of a designation must be approved by votes in both Houses. Parliamentary oversight must exist at the end of a designation, not just the beginning.
As I said, we will not hold this Bill up, but we will seek to amend it. We are talking about individuals who actively assist hostile states in sabotaging our nation. We owe the citizens and residents who are being specifically targeted by these lethal plots more than just sincere intentions; we owe them a law that holds up in the courtroom and at the border. We look forward to a rigorous, if brief, Committee stage.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill, based as it is on a proposal from my admirable successor as independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC. It is regrettable that the Bill is being brought forward more than a year after his recommendation, yet in a manner that telescopes and truncates the debate in both Houses. How much more useful and productive it would have been to have seen a draft Bill, its scrutiny unrestrained by tight deadlines and positions already taken.
My remarks today are aimed not at what the Bill intends to do but at the law which, I am afraid, it exemplifies: the law of unintended consequences. Two of the new offences, in proposed new Sections 17B and 17C, have the potential to damage conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and humanitarian activity—endeavours in which this country excels—in parts of the world controlled by bodies liable to designation. I shall explain briefly why that is and how I think the problem might be resolved.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a chair of Inter Mediate, an independent peacemaking charity founded in 2011 by Jonathan Powell, who is now, of course, the Government’s National Security Adviser. Inter Mediate’s staff work discreetly at the highest political levels to support complex negotiations and conflict resolution in some of the most troubled parts of the world. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that work of that kind requires intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult, even impossible, for western Governments to speak.
I am also grateful to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the various peacebuilding and humanitarian organisations, from Conciliation Resources to Save the Children and the Halo Trust, that have approached me with their concerns in relation to this issue. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for our discussions on this issue since the Bill was published two weeks ago.
What do I mean by the “unintended consequences” of the Bill? Take proposed new Section 17C, which is about obtaining, accepting, agreeing to accept or retaining material benefits from a designated body. That is an offence punishable by 14 years in prison—quite right, too, in the cases highlighted in the Explanatory Notes: a business assisting a hostile state with new military technology or a contract criminal who knew, or should have known, where his fee was coming from.
However, “material benefits” are defined in proposed new Section 17C(3) with remarkable breadth. They include
“financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information”.
Taking that definition at face value, the likes of Inter Mediate could contravene criminal law by accepting information from a designated body as to that body’s objectives or negotiating stance. The defence of reasonable excuse in proposed new subsection (7) applies only to the retention of information; there is no such defence for agreeing to accept information or accepting it. There is a protection for public servants in proposed new subsection (8)(b), but not for charities or churches, which often have reach that Governments do not. One thinks of a charity such as the Halo Trust. Wishing to clear a minefield, it asks the IRGC, once designated, where the mines were laid. That, too, on a plain reading of proposed new Section 17C, would constitute the criminal offence of agreeing to accept information—although only 10 years in prison for that one.
Section 17B, as the noble Baroness has said, presents similar problems. Humanitarian organisations are not usually exempt from paying taxes, duties and fees to establish and maintain their operations in a country or territory—for example, tax on staff salaries, import duties on aid items and visa fees. It is at least arguable that anything which swells the coffers of a designated organisation will be of material assistance to the activities of that organisation locally or, by subsection (4)(a), in the United Kingdom. Bluntly, it helps to pay for them. That legally prudent interpretation risks blunting the aid effort where it is most needed and criminalising those who would seek to provide it.
The Minister will remind us that the CPS prosecutes only in cases where that is in the public interest and that for these offences, the additional consent of the Attorney-General will be required. In other words, “Don’t worry: it may never happen”. However, with respect, and as anybody familiar with these sectors well knows, reliance on the wise exercise of such discretions, though important, is not a sufficient answer.
Charitable trustees, of whom I suspect that there are quite a few in the Chamber, are properly cautious about signing off on activity which could expose us or our staff to the criminal law. So, to a still greater extent, are bank compliance departments, insurers and suppliers of humanitarian aid—all essential to the activities of those operating in these fields. The experience of NGOs in conflict zones is that banks and others are highly risk-averse. Why would they take the reputational risk of getting involved with potential criminality, even if only on paper? That is precisely why Parliament has expressly excluded those engaged in humanitarian activity from at least one comparable criminal offence—the designated area offence in Section 58B of the Terrorism Act 2000.
We have a week to sort this out. The Explanatory Notes, as they stand, are not sufficient, for reasons that I do not have time to get into. A clear statement from the Minister that Sections 17B and 17C are not intended to operate as I have suggested would be a start. An explicit reference to Pepper v Hart could be a useful signal to prosecutors and judges. Also helpful at a more general level would be an undertaking to co-operate through the established tri-sector group dialogue in amending the applicable guidance and a clear and unqualified statement that the new offences are not intended to apply to bona fide organisations engaged in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or, in the words of the Explanatory Notes,
“humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs”.
These are sticking plasters, but it will take amendment to remove the chilling effect and place the matter beyond doubt. Though I shall listen with great care, as I always do, to what the Minister has to say, I fear that this is an issue to which we shall have to come back in Committee.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I very much look forward to hearing him develop those points in Committee.
Let me begin directly. Legislation of this kind is long overdue. As the Library briefing makes clear, the character of state threats has evolved over the years, and this legislation is necessary. It is not a criticism directed solely at this Government; successive Administrations have recognised the problem with reasonable clarity but have often been slow in delivering the remedy. We identify the threat, hesitate on the response and find ourselves, once again, playing catch-up. This Bill is an attempt to close that gap. It is necessary and welcome.
There is much within it that merits support: the updating of offences; the introduction of a foreign influence registration scheme; and the broader recognition, reflected in the Library material and other briefings, that hostile activity now spans a wide spectrum—it is no longer confined to classical espionage but extends into influence operations, economic pressure, covert funding and a steady shaping of information environments.
However, necessity should not be mistaken for sufficiency. My concern is that the Bill, while well-intended, is framed too much around the threats that we already understand rather than those that are evolving. Hostile actors adapt quickly. They learn from our frameworks and adjust their methods accordingly. If we legislate narrowly or too rigidly, we will find that the law is outpaced almost as soon as it is enacted. We cannot afford, once again, to legislate in arrears.
The reality is that modern state threats are often indirect. They are mediated through networks, proxies, front organisations and aligned movements that provide distance and deniability. Influence is rarely crude; it is incremental, sustained and frequently embedded within legitimate structures. That presents a challenge which the Bill does not fully meet. In particular, it requires us to take seriously the role of transnational ideological networks that may intersect with state interests, whether formally or informally.
The arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Godson in his recent article in the Spectator are both relevant and necessary to engage with. He draws attention to the way in which the Muslim Brotherhood operates less as a single organisation and more as a diffuse and adaptive network: a movement with affiliated bodies, overlapping structures and a capacity to project influence across civic, educational and political space. This strength lies not in overt confrontation but in persistence, organisation and reach over time. The point is not to collapse this into a simplistic category of state threat but to recognise that boundaries between state and non-state activity are often porous, and that serious actors are adept at operating across these boundaries.
Other countries have begun to engage with this reality. France and Austria, among them, have examined how such movements function, how they influence institutions and what risks they may pose to democratic resilience over the longer term. In the United Kingdom, our approach has been more cautious—arguably, too cautious—and the Bill reflects this caution. It is anchored firmly in the concept of state attribution which, while understandable, has created a limitation. If influence is exercised through networks that fall just outside that definition, a framework confined to it risks overlooking a significant part of the threat.
To be clear, this is not part of an argument for indiscriminate measures or broad-brush conclusions. It is an argument for clarity and completeness, to ensure that our understanding of modern threats is sufficiently wide, and that our response is capable of addressing them. At present, the alignment is not yet fully achieved. This is why the next stages of the Bill are so important.
As has already been demonstrated in another place, there is real scope to strengthen and redefine the framework. In particular, it is reasonable to apply three basic tests. First, flexibility: can the Bill adapt to new forms of threat without the need to repeat primary legislation? Secondly, scope: does it adequately capture indirect as well as direct forms of hostile influence? And, thirdly, clarity: are the definitions and mechanisms sufficiently precise to be both effective and enforceable?
If the Bill falls short against these tests, amendment is not an obstruction; it is responsible lawmaking. Those who seek to undermine open societies are neither static nor unsophisticated. They study our systems, identify ambiguities and exploit gaps with consistency and patience. If our legislative response is too narrow or too cautious, it will not be enough. The Bill is an important step forward, but it must also be a durable one. I believe that the Bill can be improved and that we can future-proof it, widen its scope where necessary and ensure that it addresses not only direct state action but the broader ecosystem in which influence is exercised. In conclusion, our task is simple: not to follow threat but to get ahead of threat and to stay there.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. The fact that we need it less than three years after the passing of the National Security Act demonstrates the evolving threat that this country faces.
In 2020 the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, published its ground-breaking Russia report. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it took three years for the then Government to implement most of the recommendations in that report, including the FIRS. Since then, we have produced in 2023 our report on China and in 2025 our report on Iran, and all pose a threat to UK security. The playbook they use is very similar: sabotage, cyber attacks, intimidation of the diaspora, misinformation, kidnapping, assassination in some cases—all carried out not just in this country but across Europe. Many examples can be found in open source material. Their strategy is not only well thought out but well funded. It is to undermine the trust in government, increase social division, weaken the rules-based order and, in Russia’s case, try to limit our support for Ukraine.
After the attack in Salisbury, thanks to the efforts of our security services and our international partners, we have made the operating environment in the UK and across Europe far more difficult for these actors. That is why they have gone to using proxies. Again, it is not just about acts of sabotage. There have been good examples across Europe, such as shopping centres in Poland being attacked. Earlier this year I was in Latvia, where the railway system is attacked on a daily basis—not because it is breaking down but because people are being paid to disrupt the network. We have seen Iran using organised crime networks across Europe to assassinate those who oppose the regime. We have also seen, closer to home, the example of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, Nathan Gill, who was paid by the Russians to put out a positive image of Russia and to undermine the West’s support for Ukraine.
This is a very difficult environment for law enforcement and security services to act in. For example, it might not be evident straightaway that acts of sabotage are being supported by foreign actors. We saw the case last year of the attack on a warehouse in east London that was being used to store supplies for Ukraine.
Will this threat increase and is it going away? No, it is not going away. I argue that it will increase. Certainly, in Russia, as Putin comes under more pressure, this is a low-risk element in trying to undermine the West. We do not know what is going to happen next in Iran in terms of the fallout from the war, but again this is a low-risk strategy for Iran because it can deny involvement in many of these attacks or misinformation campaigns, whether they are attacking warehouses in east London and synagogues or posting antisemitic rhetoric online. We also have increasing activity by the Chinese, who are targeting universities and looking for trade secrets, something that the Bill will take on. Will this Bill be the end of it? Will that be it? No, it will not. I think we will be coming back. As our adversaries react and adapt, we will have to come back for more.
There is an issue that the previous Government ignored, even though they gave a commitment on it: the review of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The problem I have with this legislation is that there is now going to be a huge disparity between 14 years for an offence under this legislation and two years for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. The review was promised in 2019 but shelved, and I urge the Government to revisit it.
It is often said that democracy is fragile. It is. It has to be nurtured. We have to ensure that in any legislation such as this we get the balance right between protecting our nation and its citizens and the rights of individuals. As chair of the ISC and a member of the ISC for nearly 10 years, I see the regular reporting on what is happening: the attacks not just in this country but across Europe. I think we need to have an honest public conversation about the threats. In his report, the reviewer said that statistics should be published. I think we need to publish them, whether in his annual report or in the ISC’s annual report.
I come to the issues around designation. Reference has been made to the IRGC. This was covered in our Iran report. Yes, the current legislation is not fit for purpose and I think this is a way forward, but I stress to individuals who are calling to put the IRGC in the Bill that that is not the way we operate because proscription is done independent of politics on a threat-based assessment. I think it will meet that threshold, and I hope we can see a movement forward.
I will just touch on some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I agree with him that there are concerns. We need to alleviate them; it is about getting the right balance between protecting our nation from harm and making sure that those who are doing good in the world are protected as well. There are instances where Governments, NGOs and others have to deal with some very nasty people. That is a fact of life. I have to say—it might not be very popular in this debate—that on occasion NGOs and Governments have to be involved even with individuals linked to the IRGC.
This is a movement forward. Will it be the final say on this situation? No, it will not. This is going to be an ever-increasing issue that we will have to come back to, and the Government will have to be agile to react to it. Finally, like my noble friend I say thank you to the members of our security services and the police who keep us safe 365 days of the year.
Lord Barrow (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. We have had many conversations about national security over the years and have not always agreed, but he knows what he is talking about, and I agree with him on this Bill. This is a necessary Bill, and the sense of urgency is necessary too. As others have said, the National Security Act 2023 was a big step forward. I welcome the cross-party approach that we had to that and have to national security matters generally. It is a huge help, including for those to whom we have already paid tribute in our services, our operating partners and the police.
However, threats change, our enemies adapt, and we must respond; as others have said, we must do so at pace and not get left behind. There has already been reference to Sir Ken McCallum’s comment that he saw a 35% increase in the number of individuals being investigated for involvement in state threat activity. I remember once being told off by a Prime Minister for “beguilingly precise” statistics, but the picture is what I recognise, including from my time as National Security Adviser and my time reading all the intelligence. We need to respond.
As I am sure those who know him would agree, Sir Ken is the sort of person who would tell you, in the same calm, professional tone, that you had won the lottery or that your house had burned down. We must not let that professionalism mask the day in, day out reality of what we are facing in terms of the threat to this country. That is why I support the Bill. I also support those who talk about the need for a national conversation about that threat; we need that in order to have the basis for taking our legislation forward. We need to respond to this evolving and increasing threat from state actors and their proxies.
I commend Jonathan Hall KC. We should remind ourselves that he is our independent reviewer. All across the House there is respect and support for what he has said. He has shown us a way forward and I commend him, not least because this is really difficult, as we have already heard. We cannot simply cut and paste from terrorism to state actors. I also commend the fact that operational partners have been involved in framing the Bill. In my view, the Bill will bring real and direct operational benefits. That is what it is about, and that is what we should support.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Anderson. Like others, I have been contacted by NGOs concerned about the effect of this legislation. I thank them for raising those concerns and I pay tribute to them for their extraordinary, brave work in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Clearly, they have to engage with actors who do not have our best interests at heart; that is what it takes to operate in those places.
I thank the Minister and his team for the briefings that have allowed some of us to raise these concerns. It is clear to me that the Bill is designed to meet that challenge through the concept that the offence is committed only by conduct
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
There is an intent element to this as well. Legitimate humanitarian assistance would not fall foul of this test.
There are other safeguards too, but I encourage the Government to continue discussions with the NGOs to see whether anything more could be done through guidance, including for the CPS. I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson about the use of a tri-sector approach as well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, listening, so I await further legal analysis in this respect, but I would not support an amendment creating an exemption. Surely that would be a loophole that our opponents would seek to use. I think it would put the NGOs in a place of greater danger. But let us continue the conversation and see what we can do.
I also understand the motivation of those who have called for putting a particular actor on the face of the Bill, but I do not agree. In my experience, national security legislation should be as actor-agnostic as possible. It should create the framework through which the Government can act with the best intelligence, advice, involvement and engagement with the operating partners as possible. I do say to the Minister that, if the Government should get their way, as I hope they will, and fast-track this legislation successfully, there will be an expectation in this House, and more generally, of rapid action in exercising these powers with the same sense of urgency and purpose as in pursuing the Bill itself.
I have one question for the Minister, and this goes to a point that the noble Baroness made about a 12-month review. Since this is a Bill amending Part 1 of the National Security Act, as I read it, I understand that the independent reviewer will be required to carry out an annual review of these provisions. Can the Minister confirm that? That would allow for us to respond quickly if there are deficiencies—and they could be on either side of the debate. Indeed, it may not be that we have got this wrong but that our opponents will move and react, so we need to know quickly whether there is more that we should do in this area and take it upon ourselves to respond accordingly. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on that.
In conclusion, we all know that we cannot legislate away the threats to our country, but we should do what we can as quickly as possible to try to keep pace with evolving threats. I therefore support getting the Bill passed by the Summer Recess. I would welcome any improvements, but not at the cost of delay. Let us do what we can now. We will do the best that we can in the time that we have available to us, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and others have said, we will for sure be coming back to this issue in the future because the threats will not go away. They will continue to evolve.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. I agree with his comments. Like him, I welcome the Bill, and, like him, I think we have been waiting a long time for it. It is not just that it seems to have taken the Government a long time to get going on the issue; it is that real life affects those who are at risk, not only the Jewish community but certainly and definitely that community, so we need to get on with this legislation, and I am therefore among those who do not support further delay.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—for me, they introduce a new element, but one that quite clearly has real force—require us to try to get a balance between, on the one hand, contact with organisations of which we deeply disapprove and whose activities are malign, but for purposes that serve our interests and which are for the general good, and, on the other, not creating loopholes by inventing, if I can put it that way, motives that would lead to the courts excusing their conduct. It is not difficult to see that a defence could make it quite difficult for the prosecution to land its point if there is an argument in court about motivation and it has to prove that it was for a prohibited purpose. One thing that we need to concentrate on in the short time we have is getting some careful drafting into the legislation to get the balance right.
The Minister said, and I see his point, that he could not guarantee that this legislation would actually lead to the proscription of the IRGC. All I can say is that, in the real world, if it does not lead to that, there is something very wrong. I would expect to see that happen. We do live, I think, in the real world, not in one that is composed of nicer situations than actually prevail.
On the prohibited purpose requirement, as I say, it is obvious that we need careful drafting, but that applies also to the provision on prosecution regarding the risk of people planning activities in this country for malign activity abroad. Again, it is not difficult to see that, unless it is possible to land the point, the defence will have quite a good time arguing about motive. When this legislation is passed, we must not get into a situation where it turns out to be a great deal less effective than it should have been because we put into it clauses that enabled the defence of these individuals to make a monkey, if I can put it that way, of the legislation that we put in place.
Finally, I think it was my noble friend Lord Pickles who made an important point about future-proofing. We should try to include in this legislation individuals who are not directed by or acting under the influence of an organisation but who are themselves motivated to support state organisations, so that we can also convict them. If one looks at current terrorist activity, it is very clear that the self-motivated individual is a feature of the threat scene. It is important that we should try to include people acting on their own authority in this legislation. It is an important Bill. I support getting it through but I hope we will not do this at the expense of getting the provisions and the balance of the legislation right.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who has such deep expertise in this area. I support this Bill which, as others have said, is long overdue, and draw attention to my membership of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—a point to which I will return.
It hardly needs repeating that we live in a deeply dangerous and volatile world and face an array of rapidly evolving threats to our national security. Geopolitics is rapidly changing and we must be ready to respond and place the national security of the country at the top of our agenda. As we have already heard, this Bill builds on the National Security Act 2023 and is intended to strengthen the UK’s ability to deter, detect and disrupt threats from foreign states and their proxies, including by introducing a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity.
We have also heard that the Bill follows the review by the independent reviewer Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address these state threats. Well over a year ago, he found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead we have this legislation which will now designate bodies, including proxies, and be applied to bodies such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group.
The geopolitical context is stark. We face very different threats from Russia, China and Iran and must be able to respond to them all individually. It is not a case of one size fits all. Tactics being employed include attempted and actual assassinations, cyber attacks on major British companies and institutions—Marks & Spencer being a case in point—espionage, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in the UK’s political system. Along with other noble Lords on all Benches, I am sure, I was simply appalled when it was confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. Our very democracy and the values we hold dear are under threat as never before.
Shocking as that was, it was not an isolated event. We have already heard from others who have quoted the remarks of Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5 who, last year, pointed out that state threats had risen by over one-third and are now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. Back in May 2024, the director general of GCHQ said that the service devoted
“more resource to China than any other single mission”
and that:
“China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK”.
Clearly, that deployment of resources is necessary, but it is chilling none the less when you consider that this is a country we also try to court as an economic partner. This twin-track approach, in my view, is fraught with danger and I ask the Minister to set out more clearly the Government’s position in relation to China.
While I share the concerns that have been raised across the House about rushing a Bill through so quickly without adequate scrutiny, I well understand that we need to take action quickly, particularly on being able to designate the IRGC, which has long been the architect of brutal domestic repression, as well as a threat to UK security and the safety of Iranian and Jewish communities across Britain. That is the reason why this legislation should, frankly, have been introduced earlier in the Parliament, so we will need to ensure that there is appropriate post-legislative scrutiny and a statutory review after one year, as proposed by my noble friend Lady Doocey.
This legislation is very relevant and builds on the work carried out by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. As a committee, we have raised concerns about the Russian state using proxy actors to commit sabotage in the UK—that was in our inquiry on the national security strategy—and on internet cables and landing stations, which were part of our subsea cable inquiry. It is also very relevant to the current inquiry that we are conducting on options for punitive deterrence against Russia and trying to impose upstream costs and constraints. I hope that the Government will continue to work closely with the Joint Committee on all these issues.
I would like to finish with a few questions for the Minister. First, it is my hope that the Bill will help with disrupting proxy activity. It appears to reduce the need to prove a chain of connection all the way back to the intelligence services: as long as the Government can prove a link to the proscribed proxy organisation, which might be an organised crime group or some front organisation, apparently that would facilitate a prosecution. Can the Minister assure me that I have got that point correct?
Secondly, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has estimated that 600 Russian officials were expelled by NATO states after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, of whom 400 are thought to be intelligence operatives. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, Russian services have now reportedly adapted to using proxies, organised crime groups and freelancers, likely increasing both flexibility and deniability, but at the cost of decreasing operational professionalism. While much of the discussion around the Bill focuses on Iran at the moment, following threats and arson attacks, can the Minister say whether he feels that these measures will directly assist in our work regarding Russia, which I have just spoken about?
It is relevant that the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, which was published before the Bill, also makes the important point that the ultimate source of aggressive activity is often the intelligence officer running the operation. Arresting the proxy actors might mean that the intelligence officers just find new proxies. How confident is the Minister that intelligence officers from Russia and elsewhere will be deterred by this Bill, or will they simply, as has been suggested, remain untouchable?
Finally, I very much share the concerns that have been raised by my noble friend Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others, about unintended consequences, specifically the impact on humanitarian organisations and charities. Is the Minister able to give me an assurance that the offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations that are acting and working in accordance with international law?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, no one should be under any illusion about the dangers facing the United Kingdom, principally from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Whether it is assassins hunting down and murdering Alexander Litvinenko, or attempting to kill Sergei Skripal in Salisbury; the attack on the Prime Minister’s London home; the hate-driven scourge of antisemitism; cyber attacks—recall North Korea’s crippling cyber attack on the National Health Service in 2017—hacking and false narratives poisoning minds through social media; the presence of Chinese spies, even inside the Government and Parliament, with two more sentenced last week; or bounties on the heads of British residents and coercive sanctions on parliamentarians, it is clear that these are dangerous times.
I have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Across several reports, we have highlighted threats to both national security and the human rights of our citizens—two sides of the same coin. We condemned the failure to bring to justice 400 British citizens who enlisted in ISIS, committed genocide against Yazidis and other minorities in northern Iraq, and then returned to the United Kingdom. Not one of them has been prosecuted for genocide or crimes against humanity. How many of them have the Government assessed as a future security threat?
As we have heard, MI5’s chief says that threats have risen by more than a third in a single year, with over 20 Iranian-inspired plots to kill, maim or kidnap on our sovereign territory. Perhaps more than anything else, the depredations of that barbaric Iranian dictatorship have been reflected in our debate today and driven the need for these new measures. Having been sanctioned by Iran in October 2022, along with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others, I might be forgiven for saying—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said earlier—that this Bill has been a long time coming.
Back in April 2001, I initiated the first of several debates, dozens of Parliamentary Questions and many cross-party meetings about Iran’s egregious violations of human rights, its nuclear threat, its proclaimed wish to eradicate the State of Israel, its export of terror, and the pernicious role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, both here and in Iran. In the 2025 JCHR report on transnational repression, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on 26 February, we highlighted appalling attacks on pro-democracy activists and journalists, some of whom had been forced to flee the country and one of whom had been left bleeding on the street after an attempted assassination. Even if we cannot go as far as Sweden, where TNR is defined and illegal, I would like transnational repression to appear on the face of the Bill, at least as an aggravating factor.
Since its foundation in 1979, the Iranian regime has been based on two pillars: domestic oppression and the export of terrorism and chaos abroad. Death sentences issued by the revolutionary courts have led to endless waves of executions—some 2,159 in the last 12 months. Let us also recall the death of 22 year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested by the morality police for wearing clothes that had been disapproved of by the theocratic regime.
In 2023, I spoke in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that called for the proscription of the IRGC, and I was happy to support the Opposition when they moved similar amendments. I recognise that there is a difference between proscription and designation, and I welcome the steps taken in this Bill, but may I ask the Minister about the letter that was sent to him on 26 June by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey? It was sent to the Home Secretary with a copy sent to the Minister. Today, I received a response from the Minister; I am grateful to him for that, but it arrived only about two hours ago. I would be grateful if he would agree to place copies in the Libraries of both Houses and circulate it to everyone who has participated in today’s debate. The response the Government have sent is important, because it deals effectively with some of the points raised by the JCHR probing the power to designate a body on the basis that it involved “foreign power threat activity”, despite there being no link in these circumstances between that body and any foreign power. We ask that consideration be given to an amendment to ensure that, under new Section 33A, only activity linked to a foreign power can be relied upon to satisfy the test for designation. We also asked about “Assisting a designated body”, about “Obtaining … material benefits from a designated body”, and for greater clarity on the “safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
It was suggested in the House of Commons that there is inconsistency in the thresholds and a more lenient treatment of hostile states than of terrorists—it has been referred to during our debate today as well. Is that so and can it be remedied? I want also to ask about the point raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich and others in the debate about humanitarian organisations operating where state-linked actors exercise territorial control. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to the letter that was sent to the Home Secretary by the chair of the International Development Select Committee, the admirable Sarah Champion MP.
In a letter to me, the International Red Cross asked for an amendment so that
“The offences established in Section 17 shall not apply to exclusively humanitarian activities carried out by impartial humanitarian organisations in accordance with international law”.
I echo the remarks of others and hope that issue might be addressed before next Tuesday. It would be passing strange if Red Cross humanitarian work were to be compromised while more than 13 organisations masquerading as charities can stoke the fires of hatred and threaten community cohesion. Why are we not using this Bill to take powers to close them down?
And what about China, a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others? Recall the collapsed spy case and last week’s convictions of CCP regime spies. The Bill should enable Ministers to close the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, a point I referred to yesterday in Questions. It is a spy hub, a cat’s cradle of spies and malign actors; we should have a power to close it down.
Ten months after the JCHR’s unanimous recommendation to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which we do for Russia and Iran, it has not happened. Will trade deals always trump security, human rights and even genocide? The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the point the head of GCHQ made about
“a genuine and increasing cyber risk”
—her words—and how GCHQ devotes
“more resource to China than any other … mission”,
while Parliament has been warned of infiltration of our universities and threats to our liberties via mass surveillance from Hikvision and other cameras. Chinese-made EVs incorporating Chinese cellular modules, along with SIM cards or software, raise significant espionage and national security concerns, with internet-connected vehicles described as a hostile state’s “smartphone on wheels”.
The Joint Committee is currently looking at AI and human rights. I hope the Government are also looking at the way that AI and software and internet powers can be used to undermine our public debates and indeed our security. I hope that before next Tuesday, we can have the opportunity—more than the six hours that was provided in the House of Commons—to debate these questions. I hope we will be able to come to some agreement around some of the concerns that remain.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too support the Bill and commend the Government for bringing forward this long-awaited legislation. I join others in paying tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, who has done much of the work that has paved the way for this legislation, both as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and as Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation. As he repeatedly pointed out, we cannot deal with state threats, including state terrorism, by simply using the same approach that we have used for terrorism legislation. There are political, diplomatic and legal differences.
One of the key legal reasons why state threats need a different approach is that state officials enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction in our courts in respect of their official conduct. I suspect that immunity is one of the main reasons why the Government decided that we cannot have a straightforward membership offence which mirrors the offence under general terrorism legislation.
My questions are about the scope of some of the offences, and in particular new Section 17B of the National Security Act 2023, the offence of “Assisting a designated body”, which would be introduced by Clause 2. To understand the reach of the offences, it may be helpful to test them against some examples, and I have two.
The first is that of an IRGC plotter based in Tehran who has co-ordinated attacks by proxies in the United Kingdom. If that IRGC plotter happened to fly to the United Kingdom, or to another country from which he could be extradited to the United Kingdom, what, if any, conduct would we say has taken place in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the new Section 17B offence? Section 17B will criminalise the provision of assistance to a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities. Subsection (5) provides that the offence
“will apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom but applies to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdon only if the person engaging in the conduct is a UK person”,
or acts on behalf of the Crown or holds office for the Crown.
In my example, the person is not a UK national and does not act on behalf of the Crown, and that person will presumably say that, in those circumstances, his conduct, such as it was, took place wholly outside the UK, so the offence does not apply. They would be able to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in El Khouri which dealt, in the context of extradition, with the definition of the word “conduct”. The Supreme Court held that
“the word ‘conduct’ would normally and naturally be understood as a synonym for acts done by the requested person in the specified location and not as including effects (whether intended or not) felt in that location of acts done somewhere else. A compelling reason is needed to interpret ‘conduct’ as bearing such an abnormally wide meaning”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is here. The Supreme Court dealt with one of his speeches in another case, that of Cando Armas, in which the noble and learned Lord had taken a different approach. If that had prevailed, we would not have the problem we will have under Section 17B in my example.
It is true that in my example, the person may be relying on, or invoking, immunity, but immunity is quite specific to the facts. That person may not have been a state official, or a former state official, so in the facts of the case they may not be able to invoke immunity successfully but, in any event, immunity is a separate issue and it is not a reason for limiting the definition of the offence. Thus, on the question of the scope of Section 17B, assuming that all the work had taken place in Iran—outside the UK—what would we say is the conduct that has taken place in the UK, so that we can potentially prosecute that person under Section 17B?
My second question on scope concerns the definition of “UK-related activities”. The offence of assisting a designated body is committed if the person intends that conduct materially to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities, which are defined in subsection (5) as
“activities taking place in the United Kingdom”
and
“activities taking place outside the United Kingdom which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Let us take another example: that of a person who is based in the United Kingdom and engages in the conduct of assisting the designated body in the UK, but the activities the designated body is pursuing are activities against an ally of the UK, be it Ukraine, the UAE or Israel. The Government will argue—the Minister referred to this in his opening remarks—that the UK-related activity would include activity against our friends and allies. However, if I understood him correctly, he also said that it would still be necessary for there to be some “recognisable effect” in the UK. I think he mentioned that international law requires—I am still a bit confused about this—certain jurisdictional links between the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and the state. However, in this case, there is an obvious link: the conduct would have taken place in the United Kingdom. The person in question would have done the planning and provided the support to the designated body in the UK, and then the designated body’s activities would have targeted one of our allies. As I understand the position under international law, there is already a sufficient nexus with the UK territory for us to take action against such an individual, so why would a further nexus be necessary? It is an important question, because it will define the extent to which we will be able to use this legislation against individuals who will use the United Kingdom as a base for planning activities against allies abroad.
In closing, I raise the question of the time allocated to this Bill. There is broad support for it, and we all agree it has to be put on the statute book quite quickly, but some points have emerged that require further discussion. In addition to those I have raised, I want to explore the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We have only two days to table amendments and then just one day to debate them. I very much hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, that we are going to have a long session next week to debate the amendments.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to making sure that its passage is as quick as the Minister wants, but of course, there will be amendments that need to be addressed.
I want to focus on two or three questions that I will put directly to the Minister. My concern is around AI, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised. The use in this country of AI in two or three areas really concerns me. The social contract between the people and the state has broken down quite a lot in recent years. Technologies are being used through people born and brought up here to attack their own country. Can the Minister explore the way we protect our critical infrastructure? How do we ensure that those who manage and run it are well-versed in how to protect it, and that internal or external influences do not attack our country and bring it to a standstill? The energy sector is a prime target, but we have seen attacks on Marks & Spencer and on hospitals. These attacks can be carried out by people sitting in our own country, using artificial intelligence and other means to get into our systems.
This takes me to the other point I want the Minister to consider. Given that we are outsourcing so much of our work to other countries, how do we make sure that, while we are not directly impacted in the UK, information that belongs to the people of this country is not being targeted by foreign actors outside the country, in places where we are utilising outsourcing?
Finally, I am concerned about how we ensure that information is being protected, and how this legislation is going to work. Proscribed groups such as the IRGC and others are beginning to use people in this country as their proxies. My worry is that we have failed to proscribe them simply on the basis of arguments that have never made sense to me—I know the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree on this. Time and again, people have been attacked on our soil by the Islamic guard, and we have failed to proscribe it and to protect our own nationals here.
It is about trying to understand why we have not got to that stage yet, not just with that grouping but with others that are now taking shelter under the umbrella of where we have not proscribed. Other groups are now beginning to utilise their own proxies, and I am afraid that those proxies are going by the wayside at the moment, because our attention is not on them. It is too much focused on China and Russia, when other actors are beginning to also come into our systems and utilise our young people in particular, through technologies. We must be very careful.
I have come in on this debate only because we get caught up in the matter of the day and fail to see the wider issues bubbling underneath in all our communities. The Minister knows that I raise this with him here often, and every time I see him outside the Chamber. Communities that we know have issues bubbling are very vulnerable to the sorts of attacks we are trying to protect against here. This is an ideal time—in this legislation—to make sure that we also cover those.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill.
The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of the people they serve. In an increasingly uncertain world, where hostile state activity can take many forms, from espionage and cyber attacks to foreign interference and intimidation, it is right that Parliament considers how best to respond to those threats.
I therefore support the principles behind the Bill and the Government’s determination to ensure that those acting on behalf of hostile foreign powers cannot undermine our national security, our way of life or the safety of the people living in our country. The threats posed by hostile states are real and evolving. They can affect individuals, communities and our democratic institutions, and it is right that the Government respond to them.
As the Bill progresses, I hope we will also recognise the importance of community trust and cohesion in strengthening our response to those threats. Many of our towns and cities are home to vibrant diaspora communities with deep family, cultural and historical connections across the world. These communities make an enormous contribution to our society, economy and public life.
It is important to recognise that diaspora communities can themselves be the target of intimidation, harassment and surveillance by hostile foreign actors. Indeed, some diaspora communities are among those most directly affected by hostile state activity, with individuals and groups experiencing attempts at coercion, interference and intimidation here in the United Kingdom.
Given that the Bill introduces powers to designate organisations linked to hostile foreign state activity, it is important that legitimate diaspora organisations, community groups, charities and cultural bodies have confidence that they will not be inadvertently affected by those powers. That is why it is so important that measures designed to protect national security do not create fear or uncertainty among law-abiding communities.
Trust is hard won and easily lost, particularly in communities that may already feel vulnerable to intimidation or interference. Experience has shown us that however well-intentioned legislation may be, we must always remain alert to unintended consequences, particularly where community confidence and trust are concerned. Where concerns are identified, there should be a willingness to listen, engage and act swiftly to address them.
The overwhelming majority of people maintain family, cultural, charitable or professional links overseas entirely legitimately. We must ensure that there is a clear distinction between those legitimate activities and the actions of individuals or organisations acting on behalf of hostile states. Can my noble friend the Minister say more about the safeguards that will ensure that legitimate community organisations and diaspora groups are not inadvertently affected by these powers? What steps will the Government take to listen, engage and act swiftly should unintended consequences emerge?
I support the aims of the Bill and look forward to following its progress through this House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres. She was absolutely right to remind us that the Bill is not an esoteric subject, nor is it part of some kind of sophisticated spy novel, but that, rather, it affects potentially every citizen in this country, and that is why it is so important. As she said, it is the first duty of government to protect its citizens from harm, and that is exactly what is being done by the delivery of the Bill. Therefore, in principle, and in most of its content, I support the Bill entirely.
I am very grateful to Jonathan Hall KC, my successor-but-three as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation —how to feel old in one sentence—who has done an excellent job. On the subject of Jonathan Hall, I remind noble Lords who have called for a review after 12 months that he is in fact required by law to give a review after 12 months, so that amendment is entirely unnecessary, with great respect to those who suggested it.
I remind noble Lords, too, that every Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and Jonathan Hall in his current role as Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, can of his own volition and motion create a report at any time. My successor as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, my noble friend Lord Anderson, his successor, and Jonathan Hall and I have all done exactly that, or at least made moves to do exactly that, and have obtained proportionate and helpful reactions from government when that has arisen. The reassurance provided by having an Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, who does much the same as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—and at the moment is the same person—gives great reassurance.
In relation to the content of the Bill in detail, I do not want to repeat what was said by my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame about some of it. Much of my noble friend Lord Anderson’s suggestion about the need to review proposed new Section 17C of the National Security Act 2023 can be covered very simply, probably by removing five words—
“by virtue of retaining a benefit”—
from the amended proposed new Section 17C(7), but that will be a matter for consideration in Committee.
I regret that the Bill has taken quite a long time to reach the Floor of the House, but I am bound to reflect after 40-odd years in one or other House of this place that there is an awful lot of “glass houses” about those complaints. There is not a Government who have not been guilty of serious delays, and much longer delays than this. We should not waste time on matters of that kind; we should simply get on with it. My own view is that we need two Committee days. If we have two Committee days, we will complete the necessary amendments to the Bill without difficulty and with proper debate. If we need one day, then I agree: let us make it a very long day and get the work done.
State threats in recent years have been described in detail by Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 Director-General. He reminded us in October 2025 that we had seen
“a 35% increase in the number of individuals”
being investigated
“for involvement in state threat activity”,
in one year. That is a matter for real concern and reflects remarks made by my noble friend Lord Alton.
I will also reflect something that my noble friend Lord Barrow and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said on what I shall call the subtlety of what we are doing. One should not assume that this is simply extending counterterrorism legislation; there is much more subtlety to this subject than that, as my noble friend pointed out. We cannot simply cut and paste from counter- terrorism legislation in order to deal with countering state threats, because they are different in nature. They have been defined—very well, in my view—by MI5 as covering
“overt or covert actions by foreign governments which fall short of direct armed conflict with the UK but go beyond peaceful diplomacy and expected statecraft to harm or threaten the safety or interests of the UK or our allies”.
In the Terrorism Act 2000, the definition of terrorism is much simpler than that. This is a much more complicated subject. There is a view—it is one that I, and perhaps others here, share—that designation under this Bill is much more suitable to deal with the IRGC than proscription under the Terrorism Acts, because those subtle arts referred to in that MI5 description are needed to deal with organisations such as the IRGC.
I turn to the question of charities and other independent organisations. I have a great deal of sympathy with what they do, but—as my noble friend Lord Anderson has heard me say privately on many occasions; I know he is bored of me doing so—I do not think that we should overlook the importance of the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in this Bill, the Attorney-General not to prosecute. It is an extremely important protection, which is used on public interest grounds and has been used fairly frequently, although it does not arise in what one might call ordinary crime.
I hope that we can deal with the Bill in short order and that we can keep our mind on the issue we are trying to deal with and not muddle it up with straight- forward terrorism, which is much more straightforward than this. We must take into account the need for subtle, clever and extremely able members of the various services that protect us to be able to talk, where necessary, with people who are implicit in doing terrible things, so that members of our services may make the world a more peaceful place and our country one in which the citizens are safe.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, national security is, of course, a fundamental responsibility of government. We all recognise that the nature of security threats has changed significantly. We know that we need to step up our military preparedness, but we now also increasingly face challenges such as cyber attacks, foreign interference in democratic processes and indirect covert operations. We need not only to build national resilience but to tackle such threats and others as they evolve. We all share that aim.
Jonathan Hall KC was asked to identify gaps in our legislation, and the Government aim to tackle some of these in this fast-track Bill. The Government have had over a year in which to address these gaps, yet they came forward with this Bill only in the past few weeks and expect it to be rushed through Parliament. That is rarely a recipe for good legislation, so it is vital that we examine it carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—a concern that many noble Lords have already flagged.
As I read the Bill, I wondered whether some of the people potentially implicated in recent attacks would be covered; the Bill covers those who would or should know for whom they might be working. There is a new development whereby young men in particular are being recruited online for tempting cash payments to take photos of venues or even to carry out attacks. They never think that foreign state involvement might lie behind these activities. Some have termed these actors “useful idiots”. In some ways, they are similar to drug mules, as the consequences of their actions—and the question of who is asking them to do things—are far from their minds, as their focus is simply the financial reward. Will such so-called useful idiots be caught by this legislation? We know the use of such proxies is increasing, giving deniability.
Then there are other areas where people may be inadvertently included. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has decimated the Government’s current response on humanitarian work. I am very glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is listening to this debate.
The chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion, has urged the Home Secretary to amend the Bill over concerns that it has negative implications for humanitarian organisations. The IDC wants to see
“an express humanitarian exemption making clear that offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations acting in accordance with international humanitarian law”.
The IDC points out:
“Humanitarian organisations often operate in areas where state-linked actors exercise territorial control. In such contexts, engagement with all parties to a conflict may be necessary to secure access to affected populations, obtain security guarantees, maintain staff safety, and deliver life-saving assistance”.
The committee also notes that
“the Bill creates offences of supporting a designated body, assisting a designated body, and obtaining or accepting material benefits from a designated body”.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, notes that simply getting information on where landmines might have been laid could fall foul of this legislation.
The Minister in the Commons stressed that the offences are not intended to criminalise conduct relating to humanitarian assistance, but as my colleague in the Commons, Monica Harding, noted, although safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, they are not in the Bill itself. Bond, the Halo Trust, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others argue that there is a risk here that this may have, at the very least, a chilling effect on their work. Among other challenges, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, noted, broadly framed offences may lead banks, suppliers, donors and others to refuse to assist, as they do not want to take on the risk.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said about the defence used by NGOs in court, but the last thing that they wish to do is end up in an expensive court case. They will seek to avoid that by avoiding the work. I also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about them not being prosecuted, but they are likely to try to avoid that risk, so they will not undertake that work.
I understand the reaction of the Minister in the Commons—that the Government do not want an exclusion to be exploited by malign actors. The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, referred to that. However, there are diplomatic exclusions in the Bill, so there are ways of doing that. Therefore, I hope that the Government are giving thought to how they could amend the Bill, to make sure that humanitarian organisations are equally and explicitly protected. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, a Pepper v Hart statement would be useful, but will NGOs know the significance of that or even look at our debates, which is where they would have to pick up the references to a Pepper v Hart protection? An amendment would be much safer.
To return to the challenge of drawing up legislation in a rush, however worthy the aim, I was struck by what Alicia Kearns said in the Commons:
“We must not write a law for the IRGC alone. We are writing a law for every hostile state organ that comes after it, and the next may look nothing like the last”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/26; col. 870.]
I am also puzzled that—and Alicia Kearns pointed this out—under the Bill, unlike other terrorism legislation, people cannot be charged until they have committed an act, rather than when they are planning such an act. The noble Lord on the Conservative Benches made reference to this. Is there a reason for this, and if it is inadvertent, will it be addressed?
As we did in the Commons and as my noble friends have emphasised here, we support the intentions of the Bill; we recognise that we face attacks by state-sponsored and state-linked actors who actively seek to undermine our democracy. This is now widespread across the democratic world, where Russia, for example, wishes to create instability in the UK, across the EU and NATO, and beyond. Just look at its recent actions in the various elections in Romania, Moldova, Armenia, and Hungary. Threats to the UK from foreign states are indeed evolving rapidly. With people receiving their news via social media, and social media platforms amplifying division and disagreement, this is likely only to intensify.
As we are asked to fast-track the Bill, it is important that we look at its potential limitations. I am glad that the Minister says he is willing to work across the House to address these concerns, and I hope that we can therefore get robust legislation on the statute book and that he really means what he says about working with us to try to resolve some of these problems.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, no one can be under any illusion about the nature of the threats we face. Other noble Lords have spoken about this in some detail, so I will not be repeating that. It is right that the Government seek to update our laws in response. I pay tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, whose careful review has identified areas where the law requires strengthening. The Bill introduces significant offences relating to organisations associated with foreign state threats. I welcome the Government’s clear intention to close loopholes, address the use of proxy actors and strengthen deterrence.
However, in pursuing those objectives, I have three concerns. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has already pointed out, we must not create uncertainty for those who work for and serve an altogether different purpose. Humanitarian organisations and development agencies, including conflict resolution experts, operate in some of the most fragile and dangerous environments in the world. I have seen the value of their work first-hand, not only as a supporter of their work but as a recipient of their aid when my own family was displaced by conflict.
Humanitarian work is often challenging and uncomfortable. In conflict zones, engagement with de facto authorities is frequently unavoidable in order to negotiate access to civilian populations, obtain permits, rent premises, pay utility charges, employ local staff or secure safe passage through territory controlled by actors humanitarian organisations neither support nor endorse. Without such engagement, the most vulnerable people may receive no assistance at all. Today, many organisations are concerned that this legislation could have unintended consequences. The ICRC has warned that aspects of the Bill are drafted broadly enough that routine humanitarian activities could fall within its scope. As others have pointed out, similar concerns have been raised by the International Development Committee. Humanitarian organisations do not seek to weaken our ability to counter hostile activity. They seek clarity that they can continue to provide vital, life-saving assistance.
Ministers have offered assurances that the Bill is intended to distinguish between hostile conduct and legitimate humanitarian engagement. I welcome those assurances, and do not doubt the sincerity with which they have been given, yet there is an important distinction between assurance and certainty. Courts interpret statutes, not ministerial statements or footnotes. We have seen before that where Parliament relies on assurances rather than clear statutory language, uncertainty can persist for years. I refer here to my own amendment on parental alienation and judicial colleges. I was given all sorts of assurances that Ministers and the Government would work with judicial colleges, but nothing ever happened. It really takes time: people change, Ministers go and Governments go. If it is not written in the law, it means nothing. It can be a lovely intention, but it does not produce the desired effect, so I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to that: it happens.
My second concern is how the protections identified by Ministers would work in practice. Ministers have referred to provisions concerning agreements with the Government. However, if those provisions are to safeguard humanitarian action, much more information is needed about how organisations would seek, obtain and rely upon such arrangements. Experience from sanctions and counterterrorism regimes shows that ambiguity can have far-reaching consequences. Even where aid agencies are confident that their activities are lawful, the institutions on which they depend may decide that the risks are way too great. This can lead to the withdrawal of banking facilities, delays in transferring funds and obstructions to the delivery of assistance where it is needed most. While it is clearly not the intention of the Bill to catch organisations such as these, their experience of similar legislation is that, for as long as there remains even a paper risk of criminal liability, charitable trustees will act cautiously. No one can blame them for that.
There is also the wider problem of de-risking by banks and financial institutions. The net effect is likely to be a reduction in vital work in some of the world’s most troubled countries, including humanitarian relief and conflict resolution efforts, both of which depend upon necessary dealings with state bodies that may be designated under the Bill. Ultimately, civilians bear the consequences: aid arrives late, access is reduced and suffering is prolonged. These are not hypothetical concerns; they have been documented repeatedly across humanitarian operations around the world.
Such an approach would not be novel. As others have mentioned, Jonathan Hall KC has previously highlighted the tension that can arise between national security legislation and humanitarian action, drawing attention to the principles reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 2664. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing that resolution and should show the same leadership here. Humanitarian action and national security are not opposing concepts. Conflict, displacement and humanitarian crises can fuel instability and create conditions in which wider security threats flourish. The Government’s own strategic assessments recognise that reality.
My third concern is one of consistency. The Bill rightly acknowledges that threats to security may be advanced indirectly through proxies, coercion and conduct that undermines international norms. If we accept that proposition, we should apply the same standards consistently. States that obstruct humanitarian access, contribute to instability or disregard international humanitarian law should be subject to scrutiny, irrespective of whether they are competitors, adversaries or allies. The credibility of a rules-based international order depends on that consistency.
The Bill seeks to address a genuine and pressing threat, and I support that objective. However, if humanitarian activity is not intended to be caught by these provisions, that protection should be stated clearly in the Bill. Doing so would provide certainty, support compliance with international humanitarian law, and help ensure that measures designed to counter hostile state activity do not inadvertently hinder those working to save lives, protect civilians and uphold human dignity in the most challenging circumstances.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I think this is the first time ever that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and I am delighted to do so.
I begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for meeting some of us and going through the Bill in detail. I welcome the Bill, as so many others do, but continue to believe that there is a lack of clarity on some important issues and that this may result in unintended consequences—a very well-rehearsed phrase in the context of this debate. The points that I would have wished to make have been eloquently reiterated by many of your Lordships, notably my noble friend Lord Anderson, so I am going to cut to the chase in a minute, although I would add that some of the points that have been made repeatedly are so serious that they bear repetition.
My main concern remains the danger that humanitarian organisations could fall foul of a future law that forbids supporting or assisting a designated body or obtaining material benefits from such a body. As we have heard, designated bodies could include emergency assistance and/or development aid bodies, peacebuilding bodies and demining organisations which deal with sensitive material—as indeed does Inter Mediate. These entities regularly communicate with foreign government departments that are likely, under the terms of the Bill, to be designated. One example given by the Norwegian Refugee Council concerned a tax rebate rightfully owed to it by the Iranian Government.
Another concern is the stringent bank requirements surrounding the sending of funds to dubious foreign government departments—which, again, we have heard from many different Peers. The banks, which have a low risk threshold, as is the case with suppliers, donors and trustees, have made it increasingly clear that they do not accept verbal assurances and demand explicit protection to be on the face of the Bill.
The Home Secretary in the other place cited new Section 17B(6)(b) as providing the necessary protection. She assured the House that anything that has been approved by the UK would not be caught and urged humanitarian organisations to talk to the FCDO—which they already do, at length and frequently. However, the Bill as it stands does not make it clear what exactly will be covered or how such an arrangement could be confirmed or sought. Emergency responses require licences, if operating under current sanctions, that necessarily take time: for example, humanitarian action following the earthquake in Myanmar in early 2025 took over a year to negotiate, by which time most people affected by the earthquake had either not survived or had recovered.
Furthermore, any doubts about the legality of communications with designated bodies will have if not a chilling then certainly a delaying effect on humanitarian action—which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to—and on the transfer of resources. No trustee of a charitable organisation will be happy to risk the reputation of a charity, or even legal action, unless there are clear terms of engagement. Moreover, the courts, if it got to that stage, would not be bound by the Explanatory Notes, which are subject to interpretation.
The Bill targets state bodies, and this implies that whole ministries could well become designated: for example, the interior ministry of a country subject to severe UK sanctions such as Iran. Humanitarian organisations of many different kinds necessarily have to deal with ministries to obtain official agreements to operate in a country, and to receive licences and work permits. These take time and, should a humanitarian organisation be refused permission and subsequently make an application to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her power under Section 33A to remove the designation status, this would take even longer, with no guarantee that the Secretary of State would find in the organisation’s favour.
Again, the Minister in the other place, responding to this concern, cited the “prohibited purpose” clause, which has been discussed and which serves as an additional safeguard that protects legitimate conduct, in that it requires any conduct to be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the UK—although it is not necessary for the individual involved to know that a body is designated for the offence to apply, which seems somewhat odd.
I trust that the Minister accepted our concerns at the meeting that we recently held and undertook to look again at the Bill following its completion in the other place. However, the Bill remains unamended, and our concerns have not, so far, been fully addressed.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.
I was not entirely persuaded that this Bill was strictly necessary. I remind the House that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese Government, and for many years that fact was cited as a reason not to proscribe the organisation in its entirety. Yet in 2019, Hezbollah was fully proscribed without the need for new primary legislation. However, I accept that the threats posed by hostile threats and their proxies are real, and for that reason I support the Bill.
For years, hostile states have sought to undermine our democracy and intimidate and threaten communities within the United Kingdom. The Jewish community has lived with this reality for decades. Synagogues, schools and community centres have required extraordinary levels of security. Families have become accustomed to armed protection outside places of worship. My own grandchildren are growing up believing that security barriers and guards are simply part of Jewish life in Britain. That is not normal, nor should it ever be accepted as normal. Allow me to thank the police, the security services, the CST and Shomrim, which have protected and protect the community—but they should all be doing other things.
The Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use intimidation, proxies, surveillance and violence against those it regards as its enemies. It has exported instability, extremism and fear far beyond its borders. These threats are real, persistent and increasingly visible on our streets. The fact that many of these threats have been directed at the Jewish community and members of the Iranian community should never have led us to regard them as matters affecting only one particular group. The principle at stake is far broader. A hostile state willing to target one group of British citizens is a hostile state willing to challenge the security of our country as a whole. When it seeks to spread fear within our communities, it is attacking the fabric of our society, and that is why I welcome the Bill.
As the Minister said, because the legislation is so important, it is equally important that we get it right. The Iranian regime has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt its methods, operate through proxies, exploit legal ambiguities and maintain plausible deniability. The challenge we face is, therefore, not simply one of identifying a hostile state but of ensuring that our legislative response is capable of addressing the full range of methods through which that state seeks to advance its interests. For that reason, I am concerned that there are areas in the Bill that do not go far enough.
As drafted, there appears to be a higher threshold for prosecution of designated state threat than exists under terrorism legislation. There are also legitimate questions about whether activities planned in the United Kingdom but carried out overseas would always be captured by the offences contained in the Bill. Likewise, as hostile states increasingly rely on propaganda, online influence and indirect encouragement, we must ensure that those who act in furtherance of a hostile state’s objectives cannot escape accountability simply because they were inspired rather than directly tasked.
Iran’s activities are not confined to formal state actors or uniformed operatives. They encompass proxies, criminal networks, online radicalisation, covert influence and individuals recruited or encouraged to act at arm’s length from the regime itself. If our legislation does not truly reflect that reality, we risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to exploit the very gaps we are trying to close.
Nor should we view these issues solely through the lens of Iran. The purpose of the Bill is not merely to respond to one hostile state, however pressing that may be; it is to establish a framework capable of protecting the United Kingdom from future hostile states whose methods may differ, evolve and become more sophisticated over time. As others have said, legislation that is drafted too narrowly may address today’s threats while leaving us exposed to tomorrow’s.
In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of the honourable Member for Rutland and Stamford, Alicia Kearns MP, who tabled a number of constructive amendments in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister could address just two of them. Following on from the words of my noble friend Lord Davies, on the question of uniforms, insignia and propaganda, if a state-backed organisation such as the IRGC were to be designated under this regime, why would it not be an offence to display its insignia on Britain’s streets and to glorify it online, mirroring the provisions in Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000? If we recognise that such organisations seek not only to operate abroad but to cultivate support networks here at home, we must address the propaganda that sustains them.
Secondly, on travel document seizure powers, Jonathan Hall KC supported in his review the case for allowing the police to seize the passports and other travel documents of those who are suspected of assisting designated organisations. If the Government accept the threat posed by individuals facilitating or supporting hostile state activity, why will they not provide the police with these powers now? Why defer such an important safeguard to future legislation when the opportunity exists now? There is always a temptation to prioritise speed over scrutiny when confronted with an urgent threat—although we have been calling this matter “urgent” for many years—but the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged not by how quickly it passes through Parliament but by whether it gives our security services and law enforcement the tools needed to confront the threats that exist.
If there are areas where the Bill can be strengthened, we should strengthen it. If there are provisions that fall short of the standards Parliament has previously deemed necessary in the fields of counterterrorism and national security, we should examine them carefully. If amendments are needed to ensure that hostile state activity is met with the full force of law, we should not hesitate to make them. I suggest that the choice before us is not whether to support or scrutinise the Bill. We must now do both. For that reason, I support the Bill and look forward to ensuring that it emerges from this House stronger than it arrived.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, we have already heard a lot about how our adversaries are looking at the UK and seeing a permissive environment for causing chaos, as well as recruiting foot soldiers on the same social media platforms they use to manipulate the British people—which, incidentally, they have been doing for years.
This subversion is not new. It has been grinding away at our democracy since well before the Brexit referendum. Some of us remember it vividly. I remember scrolling through my feeds years ago and receiving highly targeted anti-EU questionnaires on social media. Platforms such as Facebook were not just places to connect: they were actively weaponised to push anti-EU propaganda in order to manufacture chaos and systematically shatter public trust in not just the EU but the United Kingdom’s core institutions. What we are seeing today is simply the terrifying escalation of that campaign.
According to the briefing by the House of Lords Library, MI5 has just dropped a metric confirming that investigations into hostile state activity have skyrocketed by 35% in a single year. This is no longer just a quiet war of digital propaganda: the line between foreign espionage and domestic terror has evaporated completely.
First, let us look at how our adversaries have moved from online manipulation to physical violence. It should come as absolutely no surprise that our major political parties, most vital companies and public infrastructure are being targeted relentlessly, but let us discard the illusion that these are ad hoc attacks by random, frustrated individuals. These are highly co-ordinated campaigns by hostile state actors whose focus and objectives are to undermine Britain’s power, credibility and influence on the global stage. Look at what Russia is doing today. It has moved from manipulating algorithms to hiring street criminals. It sits safely behind keyboards, hops on to social media platforms and encrypted apps, and recruits cheap local proxies, such as the six Bulgarian nationals who were convicted in May 2025, paying them in cryptocurrency to carry out dirty operations on British soil.
How far is it willing to go? Look no further than the shocking reports of a steady stream of Russian-commissioned arson attacks targeting the private properties and vehicles of our own Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. If it is willing to put a torch to the Prime Minister’s personal property in order to spark domestic fear, what will prevent it targeting anyone else? At the same time, Russia continues to deploy massive, automated networks of sponsored bots—expanding the very digital warfare that polluted our social media feeds a decade ago—all of them calibrated to pump out venomous disinformation, trigger panic and actively incite civil unrest in our towns and cities.
Secondly, we have to talk about the direct physical terror being unleashed on British citizens. Many noble Lords have already spoken about how Iran has become so emboldened. In just 12 months, MI5 had to hunt down and stop more than 20 separate, potentially lethal, plots backed by Iran. Following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East in early 2026, those threats directly hit our streets. We have seen a wave of targeted, terrifying attacks on Iranian dissidents and our Jewish communities. Much has also been said about the IRGC, which, as has been noted, is hiring local thugs as foot soldiers to terrorise Jewish neighbourhoods, in effect dragging foreign conflicts directly on to British soil in order to settle scores.
Thirdly, we are letting our intellectual and economic future be plundered in broad daylight. China is running an incredibly sophisticated “total society” operation against the UK. Through its massive, sweeping cyber breaches and aggressive campaigns to lure away UK academic experts, our cutting-edge technology is being drained away. It is exploiting our supply chains, university partnerships and FDI in order to steal commercial secrets and feed them straight into its own military and economic machines.
Therefore, this Bill—the National Security (State Threats) Bill—should be welcomed by this House. But I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, how exactly do the Government intend to pierce the veil of the encrypted apps, cryptocurrency networks and automated bot networks that Russia is using to build its criminal proxy network? Secondly, when Iran co-ordinates lethal plots against our Jewish communities and China systematically plunders our universities, what is our concrete, immediate diplomatic and economic retaliation?
I say to those who want more time and want to deliberate that, today, the United Kingdom faces an aggressive, relentless surge in covert state threats. These are hostile operations planned by foreign Governments that stop just short of a declaration of war, but their objectives are identical: to sabotage our safety, bleed out our economic prosperity and shatter our democratic freedoms. That is why the Bill is a crucial step, and I support it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, in what has been an informative, if alarming, debate—alarming because it has highlighted the degree to which the freedoms which my grandparents’ generation fought and died for are now under grave threat. The need for this Bill underlines how much the social context has changed, as my noble friend Lady Verma alluded to. I doubt that the older generation could have anticipated just how strong a sense of entitlement to those freedoms their great-grandchildren would develop. It is as if their great-grandparents’ sacrifice, made in blood, sweat and tears, was ancient history, something that belonged in a Hollywood blockbuster, but which was irrelevant to today’s apparently so much more sophisticated world.
I suspect that, having made that sacrifice in order that we might be free from the racist, genocidal, Jew-hating Nazis, my grandparents’ generation would appreciate far more than we do the trouble we are in and the urgency of getting the measures in this Bill, and perhaps others, on to the statute book. They would see the extent to which the threat to our democracy posed by hostile states’ use of proxies and malign non-state actors is exacerbated by society’s privileged, desensitised indifference to the danger they pose.
The Lord Privy Seal said shortly before we began this debate that the public do not appreciate the threat. I agree with her, but I would go further. I fear that some are in denial, desperately clinging to a delusion that peace is permanent, that the welfare state is inviolable and that deterrence does not matter enough to justify the necessary recalibration of resources. Meanwhile, hostile states and their proxies exploit our weakness ruthlessly and insidiously, turning those hard-won freedoms that we take for granted against us.
Take racism as an example. This country outlawed racism based, among other criteria, on ethnic origin, 61 years ago. Yet our enemies cynically weaponise democracy, exploiting demonstrations featuring pernicious racist chants as if they were somehow a celebration of democratic rights rather than a concerted attempt by some to single out and intimidate a particular race—our Jewish brothers and sisters—and thereby undermine our social and cultural cohesion. Shamefully, we let them do it. We let them undermine a crucial aspect of our democracy, supposedly in the name of democracy.
I welcome this Bill because it goes some way to addressing the threat we face. My question is whether it goes far enough. Are its measures truly commensurate with the scale of that threat? I will not rehearse the points already made, but I join with those who wonder whether it takes into account sufficiently the rise of what could be termed “hatred for hire”, such as we saw in the arson attacks on the Jewish community ambulances and the attack on the Prime Minister’s former home, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, mentioned.
I close with three points. The first is a thank you to our wonderful security services, who work so hard within difficult democratic constraints to keep us safe, particularly in our case as parliamentarians. The second is to highlight the importance of pre-emption as a means of prevention. One only has to consider that the odious Chinese Communist Party regime operated a secret police hub here in London to spy on and intimidate Hong Kong dissidents to know that in some cases, our enemies are running rings around us. Their aggression and hostile intent are palpable. I ask the Minister, who we all appreciate is dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of our country, whether he is absolutely sure that the powers in this Bill are sufficiently aggressive and pre-emptive in return.
My final point is this. Is the Minister confident that the Bill takes account of the incredibly unstable context in which we consider it? The Hormuz sell-out seems to be unravelling as we speak. A previously reliable partner is becoming reliably unreliable, yet some would say that we are still tripping over ourselves to observe legal niceties. I fear that we make our enemies laugh. I hope that our combined determination to close any gaps in the Bill, mentioned during this debate, will ensure that they have no reason to laugh at us—either today or in the future.
Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and other noble Lords. I thank the Minister for the measured and thoughtful way in which he introduced Second Reading. As many have said, there is no more important issue facing our country than our national security and, more broadly, our defence.
We are living in the most dangerous period in Europe since the 1930s. That is not hyperbole or geographic sophistry. I studied at the Rostov technical institute in 1990, during the collapse of the Soviet Union. In Rostov, on the bank of the River Don, our hosts would proudly point to the other bank and tell us, “That is where Europe starts”. We might have said that it is where Europe ends. But that is where a war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia has now lasted longer, for each country, than in both world wars.
That Russia is a hostile state with few if any sympathies for western democratic norms or our liberal institutions is beyond doubt. That we live in a dangerous world that is getting more dangerous is also beyond doubt. As has been mentioned many times, the director-general of MI5 has openly reported a substantial increase in the number of investigations of state threat activities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others, have mentioned, the convictions just last week of a Romanian and a Ukrainian national for arson on property connected to our Prime Minister shows how emboldened bad actors have become.
I know that the Minister will not wish to name individual organisations which may fall within the remit of the Bill. However, we also know that Iran and its proxies are increasingly active. That state actors and their proxies are attempting to commission surveillance, sabotage, arson, theft or physical violence is manifest and self-evident. The review of counter- terrorism legislation carried out by Jonathan Hall KC has set out the need for a Bill such as this clearly, as so many noble Lords have said.
There are several areas in the Bill which describe the critical issue of finance in relation to potential offences. An offence can be made when financial assistance is provided by a designated body or where financial assistance is provided to a designated body, either directly or indirectly. That financial benefit will, as has been mentioned, almost always take the form of cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is now the payment method of choice for criminal gangs, hostile state actors and it appears, for reasons known only to itself, for the Reform party. With payments made to wallet addresses and not individuals, without the involvement of banks, these payments are, as we know, far harder to subject to anti-money laundering rules or sanctions compliance. Some cryptocurrency products are specifically designed to avoid detection. In my view, the legitimate use of crypto is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
A parallel can be drawn between social media and cryptocurrencies. The first smartphone was launched in 2007, and you could argue that social media, as we understand it today, came into being a year later with the launch of the App Store. Only now, 18 years later, are we seeing a concerted effort across jurisdictions to try to address the harmful effects of social media on children using smartphones, relying less on the professed good faith of big tech and other providers—rather, through comprehensive regulation and even prohibition. Future generations will look back on our handing over smartphones unregulated to children in the same way today we look at photos of Victorian children smoking a pipe. They will ask, “What were they thinking?”
The year 2008 was also when a seminal and anonymous paper was published, setting out the rationale for cryptocurrency. The first cryptocurrency was created the following year. Social media and cryptocurrencies are essentially the same age. Is it not also time for a similar concerted approach to regulate crypto more effectively and make it less obviously useful to criminals and bad actors, or will future generations ask, “What were they thinking?” What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the individuals responsible for cryptocurrencies used by any organisation or person designated under the Bill will be held accountable? Are there any more general plans on crypto regulation being made much more effective?
No one should be above the law or beyond its reach. The security and defence of the country is our first priority, as many noble Lords have said. For that reason, I strongly welcome the Bill and the provisions contained within it.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Docherty. There is one person who I wish we could have heard from today: our dear friend Meta, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale. She was such an extraordinary expert on these issues for many years in the House and in her career as an intelligence officer. We said goodbye to her at a very moving funeral last Friday in Glasgow. I was gathering memories and stories about Meta, and one that is pertinent to share just now is when she gave a speech, I think in Tel Aviv, on Iran. This erudite, softly spoken woman, who everyone really wanted to be their great-aunt, gently said that the IRGC
“must be eliminated—and I really do mean eliminated”.
My friend recalled the jaw of the British ambassador next to him dropping as she said that.
Those words are pertinent, because I really hope that the Minister will listen to that and agree to be a little bit more Meta on this Bill. Although I welcome it like everybody else, it does not achieve the Government’s and Jonathan Hall’s stated aim of an equivalent measure to terrorist proscription. It is weaker in an array of respects; there are excuses provided by the Government for each, but the cumulative effect is a significantly weaker regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, made a pertinent point about Hezbollah. Unlike the majority of noble Lords who have spoken—including learned noble Lords with much greater experience on the subject of terrorism—who appear to have accepted Jonathan Hall’s analysis, I still question why we cannot take the approach that we did in 2019 with Hezbollah and which the US, Canada, Australia and the European Union have taken in fully proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation.
That said, we are where we are. We are going to get the Bill on to the statute book, apparently with extraordinary speed. Despite us having asked for this and the Government having thought about it for more than 14 months, I really hope that they will agree to take an extra day or so to strengthen the Bill, rather than railroading a weaker measure through to the Commons. I am afraid one would have to assume, if the Government maintain this speed of timetable, that they are doing it as an excuse to get a weaker Bill on the statute book rather than taking that a couple of extra days potentially to strengthen it.
The Government talked about the system of immunity and the Vienna convention demanding a higher bar as reasons for some of these measures not matching terrorist proscription. However, we are not proscribing Tehran here; we are prosecuting operatives who are using all the tools of terrorism to do their work. Perhaps this points to the need for the IRGC to be treated as a conventional terrorist organisation, unlike some of the other organisations to which this legislation may end up applying. Although I take the argument that, in many circumstances, you would not wish to fully treat the people who are operating as part of a state enterprise as terrorist operatives, it is the case that the IRGC has been, effectively, a full-blown terrorist organisation under our very eyes for many years. It would send a strong signal to treat it as such, with all the authority and the taboo which would surround even those state officials. They would try to claim diplomatic immunity, but we would say that the way this organisation operates is so heinous that they deserve the full force of terrorism law. I hope the Government are open to strengthening the approach.
In Committee, I intend to explore the approach to the displaying of insignia, the dissemination of publications and self-directing promotion of the group. My preference would be simply to put that on to the statute book. I would like also to explore the prospect of a flexible, discretionary approach to be applied to particular organisations by the Secretary of State through regulation. I hope that is an issue that we can get into in Committee.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friends have said, we on these Benches strongly support the Bill, but with some caveats about process, scope and drafting. We felt bafflement and frustration as this Government—and indeed the last one—failed to act on the very obvious threat from the IRGC. The Conservative Government promised to in 2023 but did not deliver in office. But we then accepted that the tool of proscription had to be replaced by a new formula of designation for state bodies, although I note what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said about Hezbollah, which was interesting. Jonathan Hall KC’s report was delivered over a year ago, and now, having dragged their feet, the Government want to rush the Bill through at unseemly speed, and at the possible expense of precision. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested, understandably, that a draft Bill might have been preferable.
As the Minister said in his introduction, state threats are “both evolving and enduring”. The Bill needs to be scrutinised and stress-tested sufficiently in Committee that it produces lasting but nimble legislation, which is capable of future adaptation. We know that we are experiencing the equivalent of terrorist acts emanating from states such as Iran and Russia, in sabotage, physical attacks, arson, firebombing and propaganda—with Jewish communities often targeted, shamefully—as well as from China in spying, harassment and death threats to Hong Kong pro-democracy activists. Often proxies are used for these nefarious activities, in parallel with espionage and cyber threats from state intelligence agencies.
The Bill must be fit for designation of foreign power entities backed by any state. However, the IRGC is the clearest and most obvious one. These Benches therefore envisage seeking to amend the Bill so as to ensure, on its face, that IRGC designation is properly pursued within one month. This is an urgent priority. If not the IRGC, and not in this Bill, then who and when? The Minister made encouraging noises about designation for the IRGC, but no commitment. A commitment is needed—not the wiggle room that one suspects some bits of Government still seem to want.
We also wish to extend the offence of material assistance to a designated body to include the setting up and use of companies or trusts to hide the true ownership of assets belonging to that body, and we will explore that in Committee. My noble friend Lady Doocey also sought clarity that organisations could not escape the Bill’s net by operating from abroad in this digital world. She also suggested that foreign state threats in the Bill should be capable of including superintelligent AI tools.
Many noble Lords referred to humanitarian activities, conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. Some of this activity requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it,
“intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult … for western Governments to speak”.
I think we all accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained the Opposition’s objection to the prohibited purpose offence having the limitation of being
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
One problem with removing this limitation is that it might expose the activities of humanitarian and peace- building organisations to criminalisation. Indeed, the fact that this limitation of the offence, or defence to it, does not appear in proposed new Sections 17B or 17C on assisting or material benefits, but only in proposed new Section 17A on supporting a foreign power entity, illustrates perhaps the worries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Northover, and others.
Other organisations besides the IRGC are in our minds. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office has been mentioned in the debate, and it was debated yesterday. No doubt it was once an office that did what it said on the tin, but it now seems to be an extension of the transnational repression perpetrated by China.
The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, also raised the issue of organisations which might pose a threat but do not fit the definition of state-sponsored threats, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. One could, no doubt, think of others.
All noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed the Bill as an important step forward but will seek to ensure that it is watertight but adaptable, durable but not inflexible. We have a task before us in Committee. The Government would do well to benefit from all the expertise which has been on display in the Chamber today—and to listen and to incorporate changes where justified. As well as legal, diplomatic and other expertise, we are fortunate to have heard from not one, but two, former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, in the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, as well as the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Let us draw on all the skills and talents to perfect the Bill. The Government would be making a mistake if they were just to rush through without listening to all the very well-intended suggestions for amendments that have been made.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House who have contributed to this thoughtful and stimulating debate. It is a great privilege to give the closing speech for the Opposition Benches, having heard from many noble Lords with a huge amount of expertise and experience in the legal, security and ISC sectors.
Before reflecting on the specific provisions in the Bill we would like to see refined, it is worth outlining the context in which your Lordships have received this legislation. The Opposition Benches have long recognised the growing threat posed by hostile state actors and their proxies, and we wholeheartedly support the aim of strengthening the tools available to protect the UK’s national security. Of course, we support the general principles of the Bill and concur with the motivations behind it.
I accept that the Bill goes beyond the IRGC. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave a long list of both threats and, sadly, events in the UK in recent years. The Bill rightly should cover state threats in general, but the IRGC is obviously and rightly the first target of the Bill. It is undeniable that the legislative provisions here should have been brought before Parliament long before now.
For many months, noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have repeatedly called for stronger action against the IRGC, most recently in the Committee and Report stages of the Crime and Policing Bill, where time and again calls were made from many different quarters for proscription of the IRGC or an equivalent. Those calls were resisted, amendments were opposed, arguments were dismissed; the opinion of the House was tested but ignored. Yet we now find ourselves considering a Bill whose principal and primary purpose is to establish a legislative framework through which organisations such as the IRGC may be designated. That raises the question: if the Government accept the need for such a framework, why has action not been taken sooner? The threats posed by the Iranian regime and the IRGC did not suddenly emerge in recent weeks. Had the Government listened to arguments that were made in this Chamber months ago, Parliament would not now be scrutinising significant national security legislation to such compressed timescales. That matters because legislation must be more than well intentioned, it must be effective; where Parliament identifies legislative gaps or ambiguities, it is our duty to address them.
It is in that spirit that we approach this Bill, and it is in that spirit that I wish to address and emphasise a few of the concerns that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower raised. The first is the prohibited purpose test. As it stands, Clause 2 enables hostile state proxies to receive greater protection than terrorist organisations, because it imposes a greater a burden on the prosecution than the Terrorism Act 2000. Pausing there, the point has been made most powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, that we should not expect to simply cut and paste the Terrorism Act into this Bill. I acknowledge that, but the Terrorism Act remains the blueprint, and throughout Jonathan Hall’s report, he uses the phrase “equivalent to powers in the Terrorism Act” again and again. I appreciate the need for subtlety, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile called for, but, while the threats may be different, these are analogous statutory regimes. They are equivalents. The regime in this Bill should not be weaker than the Terrorism Act and any differences should have a clear rationale.
Returning to Clause 2, there are two conditions for the offence of supporting a designated body. They are inviting support for or expressing a belief that is supportive of a designated body and—this is the additional part—a requirement that support was given for a prohibited purpose that was prejudicial to the safety of the UK. The additional requirement that prosecutors must prove conduct as well as the defendant’s prohibited purpose creates an additional evidential burden. It makes it harder to prosecute and harder to secure a conviction, as well as adding another layer of bureaucracy in a process that should be fair but streamlined. As I have said, much of this Bill has been drafted with Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as the blueprint, yet there is no similar provision in the Terrorism Act.
Turning secondly to preparatory conduct, there is a gap in the Bill as drafted in the prevention and prosecution of hostile activity before actual harm takes place. The purpose of national security legislation is to punish hostile activity and prevent it occurring. The Bill focuses primarily on completed acts of support, assistance or financial benefit to a designated body, and that leaves a gap, because it may be entirely feasible that law enforcement agencies are aware of an individual actively preparing to assist a designated organisation but lack the power to intervene until further steps have been taken. That is particularly concerning given the nature of modern hostile state activity, which often relies on recruitment, facilitation, planning and preparation long before any substantive offence is committed.
Parliament has long recognised that challenge in other areas of national security. The Terrorism Act contains a range of preparatory and precursor offences, and it reflects the principle that intervention at the earliest possible stage is often necessary to protect the public and safeguard national security. If the Government believe that designated organisations pose a sufficient threat to warrant the creation of this new designation regime, it is difficult to understand why similar preventive principles should not apply. In the other place, the Government said that the Bill had been deliberately drafted as a targeted and narrowly focused piece of legislation. Ministers stated that the Bill was intended to be narrow, but did not explain why this gap remains. The Bill being narrow does not necessarily mean it is complete. I hope that the Minister will clarify this point, because national security legislation is most effective when it enables disruption and prevention, as well as prosecution after the event.
Thirdly, on uniforms and insignia, the Bill creates an inconsistency with existing national security legislation by failing to address uniforms and insignia associated with designated organisations. It has been established in Parliament that support for dangerous organisations is not demonstrated solely through direct assistance or financial support. We know that uniforms and insignia can be used to demonstrate allegiance to a hostile organisation, they can intimidate communities and political opponents, and they can promote and legitimise dangerous organisations. Section 13 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offence to wear clothing or display articles in circumstances that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, yet no equivalent provision appears in this Bill. That creates the illogical situation whereby Parliament can determine that an organisation presents a sufficient threat to warrant designation, but public displays of support for the same organisation remain lawful. The Government’s argument is essentially that designated organisations are different from terrorist organisations, but this again does not answer the central question. Why should organisations deemed sufficiently dangerous to be designated under this legislation be subject to weaker restrictions than terrorist organisations?
In closing, I reiterate that the concerns that my noble friend Lord Davies and I have raised are not objections to the principles of the Bill: rather, they are attempts to ensure that the framework we establish is as effective as possible. Legitimate questions have been raised during the course of this debate about the operation of particular provisions and the gaps that remain in the legislation. Narrowness is not a substitute for completeness. If there are weaknesses that can be addressed, Parliament must address them now. We should not leave them to be discovered later, in the course of prosecutions under this legislation. I thank the Government for finally bringing forward legislation in this area, but the task before your Lordships is not simply to welcome the Bill but to improve it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the 24 noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I am particularly grateful, if I may say so, for the contributions from the Front Benches of HM loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Doocey, who gave broad support to the Bill but raised important questions—as did other noble Lords—which I will seek to respond to during the course of this debate.
I pay tribute also to Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who contributed to this House right up to very recently. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were welcome.
I start by reminding the House that this legislation was a manifesto commitment. According to Members today, it is long overdue or has been rushed. I am trying my best to find a happy medium that says that a manifesto commitment was put in place and the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to produce a report three or four months after the commitment in the manifesto was ratified by the electorate. We commissioned that report. The report was produced to this Government in May or June last year. We have had time to consider that report. Colleagues in the House will know that last year’s parliamentary Session was very busy and crammed, and we wanted to bring legislation forward at the first opportunity. At the first opportunity, in the gracious Speech, we brought forward this legislation, and we have brought it forward now to give a framework—again I say to the House—for the Home Secretary to be able to act on that framework in very short order if Royal Assent is achieved. So, whether it is rushed or long overdue, I hope the House will have patience that we are trying to do the right thing to deal with severe threats.
I noted particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said we had to stay ahead of the threats. I accept that in full. We had my noble friend Lord Beamish speaking from the ISC perspective. My noble friends Lady Gill and Lady Dacres of Lewisham, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who speaks with great experience, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Enfield and Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, all pointed to the important fact that the director-general of MI5 has said to the Government, the House and the public that state threats have increased by 35%. So we need to take action, we understand we need to take action and we need to do it in a way that maintains the cohesion of the community, as the noble Baroness has said.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that his personal experience is one that should not be acceptable to society as a whole. His grandchildren should not fear walking to school or face barriers that my grandchildren do not face just because, although we were both born in the same city, we have different cultural and religious backgrounds. His grandchildren should not face threats for those reasons. The impacts on individuals should be in our minds in all that we do to progress this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the freedoms for which our grandparents and great-grandparents fought; they are important in all that we do.
A number of major issues have been raised; I will try to deal with each in turn. They include the IRGC, self-evidently, as well as issues with other nations; the preparatory act issue; the prohibited purpose issue; uniforms and insignia; the humanitarian issue, which a lot of noble Lords have spoken to in detail; the issue of a review; and a series of other issues that I will try to touch on if time allows.
The House has tempted me to talk about individual nations: China, Russia and, indeed, Iran. I will explain to the House again that the Bill is a framework through which the Home Secretary can take action, on advice, via the affirmative resolution procedure—to go to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—for designation of any particular body.
The IRGC has been mentioned, in particular, by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Beamish, Lord Barrow, Lord Walney and Lord Alton of Liverpool, as well as by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Neville-Jones, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Verma. I understand those concerns. That is why we have put sanctions on the IRGC and taken a range of measures against IRGC members already. However, the powers under this Bill are a framework for the Home Secretary to look at the significant implications that this will have for national security and for foreign policy. Parliament should set a framework about how these powers are used.
I say to all those who have raised the IRGC in particular that the Government understand that absolutely but, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, the framework will be for the Home Secretary to determine how and when this power is used. Again, I come back to the point that there will be an affirmative instrument in the event of any designation being proposed, but I will not comment on the IRGC in particular. As I have explained privately to both Front-Benchers, the hybridity of this Bill, with the IRGC included, would damage early on its capability to take these matters forward. I hope that we can look at the power in the Bill without, at the moment, looking at how it will be used.
The second issue, which was raised by the Opposition Front Bench in particular and which I understand, was about the preparatory conduct offence. I argue that this additional offence is not needed. Preparatory conduct is an offence in the existing National Security Act under Section 18, and that offence applies to specific offences, including spying, espionage, entering a prohibited place for a prejudicial purpose and sabotage. It also covers acts of violence, serious risk and issues impacting on members of the public in the UK. I argue that such an offence is not needed in this Bill. We may end up having a debate in Committee on that but I just want to say that to the noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the prohibited purpose test in his opening remarks. It had been suggested that this test, which applies to the support offence in new Section 17A, is unnecessary and should be removed. I reiterate that doing so would criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid activity. The inclusion of this test reflects that there will be occasions—even though we might not like it—where UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with a state entity. That will be so whether it is a British diplomat or an NGO delivering humanitarian aid. To remove that would, in my view, be very difficult and challenging. Again, we may revisit that in Committee, but I hope that we can accept those arguments for the moment.
There has also been a question about overseas activity. It was suggested the Bill does not go far enough in the support offence as it applies to overseas activity. It is claimed that the offence should reapply to assisting a designated body in any activity overseas. Again, we can reflect on this in the next few days, but I suggest that such an amendment would be unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, touched on this. I will come back to his point in a moment, but new Section 17B, to be introduced by Clause 2, will make it an offence to “assist a designated body” in its overseas activity where those activities are
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
To give a concrete example, a UK person assisting a designated body in its efforts to disrupt the military supply chain of an ally would commit an offence, because the ally is still an ally; that is the key necessary test. Similarly, the Bill already deals with those who are inspired by state actors to commit self-directed acts. That is because the offences at new Sections 17A and 17B do not require there to be any direction or tasking from a designated body, only an intention to support that body.
The fourth issue that has been raised is the important issue of criminalising the wearing of uniforms and insignia. We asked Jonathan Hall KC to review this area of legislation. His report, which was independently produced, made it clear why it was necessary to take a different approach for state bodies. It would impact on legitimate engagement with a designated state body, which would need to continue, for example, on diplomatic channels. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world at large. We have instead crafted the support offence to ensure that it would capture conduct that was calculated to advance the harmful activities of the designated body. This would include the use of insignia and publication of images to support the designated body where the person wears, displays or publishes for a purpose that is prejudicial to the UK—again, that key legal test.
In touching on that area, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, about passport seizure. We are committed to legislating on that. We are going to do it; we are just not going to do it in this Bill, which is a specifically designed piece of legislation to give powers to the Home Secretary. We will have further national security legislation later in his Parliament.
A number of noble Lords mentioned humanitarian aid. I will focus on that in detail as it is an important issue. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Barrow, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised these issues. I assure noble Lords that we have crafted the Bill to ensure that legitimate activities, such as diplomacy and activities that support basic human needs, are not caught within the offences. The key test here is that support for a designated body or overseas activities by the body must be
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Our officials have already talked with a number of NGOs. Ministers will meet with the Red Cross very shortly to listen to its concerns and we are satisfied that the tests in the Bill properly protect legitimate humanitarian assistance. The noble Baronesses, Lady Helic, Lady D’Souza, Lady Northover and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, all raised this issue.
I will try to help the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by covering Pepper v Hart. Receipt of information by an aid worker would not be criminalised by this Bill. “Information” in the Bill does not mean any information, as is clear from the preceding words. It has to possess an inherent value that enriches the recipient. I am happy to make a Pepper v Hart statement that new Section 17C does not apply. Likewise, I am happy to confirm that new Sections 17A and 17B will not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid, as that is not contrary to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, there is a legal backstop on this, in that the security decisions on those prosecutions are ultimately taken by the Attorney-General in these areas.
I also do not want to create a blanket exemption that could be easily exploited by state actors. That is an important issue. I have a genuine concern that exemptions could potentially create a relatively simple loophole for hostile actors to exploit, but I reassure all those who have spoken on this issue that it is not the intention of the Bill to criminalise the provision of legitimate humanitarian aid, and that is not the effect of the offences as drafted. This was clearly set out by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other House last week, and we will of course look at this in detail.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister has referred a number of times to humanitarian aid and to diplomacy. Of course diplomats have a special defence or exemption of their own, but he has not said anything about those engaged in the prevention or resolution of conflict. I wonder if he would like to associate them with the statements he has made about humanitarian aid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am happy to do that, but I want to give clarity on these matters. If the noble Lord will allow me, given that that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that and share that with both Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of that. I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect, on these matters.
Baroness Northover (LD)
When is the Minister intending to meet the Red Cross?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Life and diaries are fluid, but it will be before Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill next week. So it will not be after that. It will be before that. As we speak, representations and diaries are being co-ordinated. I will leave it at that.
The sixth vital point, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, is the issue of whether there will be a review. That is a valid and significant point but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the National Security Act 2023 already gives the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation the right to oversight and mandates them to carry out an annual review of the operations of the provisions of the Bill. I hope that is sufficient to head off at the pass an amendment on this issue, not because an amendment would be right or wrong or unnecessary but because the Bill is already covered by the National Security Act on those particular points.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, mentioned in passing the question whether the offence of assisting a designated body would not capture non-UK nationals. I say to him that a non-UK national planning an attack in the UK from overseas would be materially assisting activities taking place in the UK. It is the activities of the designated body, such as an attack in the UK, that determine whether assistance is captured. The Bill also introduces the designated body condition, which allows the existing National Security Act offences to apply to activity linked to designated bodies, not just to foreign states.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, continues, correctly, to chew at my ankles about the issue of transnational repression. I would argue that the Bill will make it easier to achieve prosecutions where there is a designated body, such as a proxy organisation, involved in transnational repression. We will continue, as I said yesterday in our Statement, to try to tackle transnational repression in a number of ways.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful for the opportunity to chew at the noble Minister’s ankles again. I want to ask him specifically whether he will continue the discussions that the Security Minister’s office has been having about the United Front Work Department that acts on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, which would not be covered by the terms of the Bill. Although I agree that he would not want to put actors on the face of the Bill, the generic issues that it involves should be there. Perhaps he could also take the opportunity of confirming whether he will circulate the reply that he has sent to me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Members who have spoken in today’s debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. I will make sure that the reply I gave to the noble Lord in recent times is sent out, because this is moving at a fast pace and we are trying to get the matter sorted. I will do that for the noble Lord, and I will refer the points that he has made to the Security Minister.
My noble friend Lady Dacres rightly mentioned the question of diaspora. The power is actor agnostic and applies equally to all individuals in the UK, so we are not targeting any particular diaspora. It targets conduct that is carried out for a purpose prejudicial to the UK’s safety.
The question of—I use this phrase guardedly—“useful idiots” was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and echoed by my noble friend Lady Gill. The new offences concern various thresholds for criminals to be caught. For example, criminals can be caught by the offence of assisting a designated body where they ought to know that their conduct is materially existing a designated body. However, it is also important to put on the record for the noble Baroness that criminals do not need to know that a group has been designated for offences to be committed. I hope that deals with the issue of “useful idiots”—I call them terrorists, but “useful idiots” is also a reasonable phrase that we can attribute to them.
My noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, mentioned the issue of how cryptocurrency used by designated bodies or individuals can be held more accountable. The Government have already committed to tackling all forms of economic crime, including the misuse of crypto assets. All UK crypto asset firms are now required to register with the Financial Conduct Authority to comply with money-laundering legislation. We have also strengthened law enforcement through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and we are now going to go further with the introduction of further measures, including the Financial Conduct Authority delivering a new crypto asset regulatory regime, UK crypto asset firms being required to conduct due diligence and the financial services Bill 2026 introducing targeted powers to allow more crypto asset recovery powers.
I am trying to cover all the points that noble Lords have mentioned in the time available, and I hope I have done so, but I will read Hansard and, if there are further points, I will respond to them. What I want to do, and this is the key point, is get the Bill through to Royal Assent so the Home Secretary can determine how she uses its powers to deal with the issues that have been raised on the Floor of the House today. That is an important measure. I want to ensure that, between now and next Tuesday, we deal with those points and get a consensus to pass the Bill, make it an Act, get it to His Majesty the King to give Royal Assent and then, as a matter of some urgency, determine how we tackle the many threats that are facing this country at the moment.
I thank noble Lords for their engagement and the expertise that they have brought to this debate today. Ultimately, I commend the Bill for Second Reading, and I hope that the House will support it tonight.
Carbon Budget Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:58 - Division on the amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 60 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 June be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its consideration. The draft Carbon Budget Order 2026 was laid before the House on 2 June and the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026 on 14 April.
Given that we are sitting here this evening on the second of the four hottest days there ever have been in June, after a similar number of hottest ever days in May, we may think that the question of whether we should debate doing anything about climate change answers itself. We have a far more scientific way to act on climate change at the moment, as this Carbon Budget Order sets a science-led budget to reduce emissions by about 87% for the period 2038 to 2042 compared to 1990 levels. This is in line with the level recommended by the independent Climate Change Committee and endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee.
The detailed impact assessment published alongside the Carbon Budget Order provides a rigorous assessment of options, all showing significant benefits of continuing towards net zero over abandoning it. The proposed seventh carbon budget sets a pragmatic and achievable path that will enable the UK to continue seizing the benefits of clean energy and climate action, including energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth, and health and nature benefits. This is also consistent with the action needed globally to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, building on the UK’s 1.5 degree-aligned nationally determined contribution for 2035. We can fight for our national interest only by pushing for global action built on the power of our domestic example.
A delivery plan setting out how carbon budget seven will be met will be published as soon as reasonably practical after Parliament has approved the budget. I emphasise that what we are debating today is the level at which carbon budget seven should be set. We are not debating—or should not be debating—the policies that will be set by the Government in response, to make sure they can meet that level. Those policies, as I have emphasised, will be published shortly but are not really a question for debate in detail today.
Under the Climate Change Act, the Secretary of State is required to set a limit on the number of international credits that can be used towards a carbon budget at least 18 months before the budget period starts. That is very relevant to the second SI we are discussing tonight, concerning the credit limit order. This order sets a zero credit limit for the carbon budget five period of 2028 to 2032. It does not represent a change in policy but reflects the fact that carbon budget five can be met through domestic action. All other carbon budgets to date have been delivered solely through domestic action. The order takes into account the advice of the independent Committee on Climate Change that carbon budget five can, and should, be achieved without the use of international credits, and this also ensures that the UK economy will profit from the co-benefits of the transition.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported on the Carbon Budget Order, and I am grateful to the committee for its report and the careful consideration of this draft instrument. The committee noted the importance of incentivising the shift to clean electricity. The Government recognise that rebalancing the price ratio between electricity and gas is important to long-term fairness so that electricity prices reflect the falling cost of clean power.
We are taking steps to address this from Budget 2025, removing £150 off energy bills due to the success of the contracts for different scheme in bringing forth new renewable assets at fixed competitive prices, which are beginning to decouple electricity and gas markets. Reformed national pricing enables us to further bear down on network constraint costs and improve system efficiency.
I recognise the non-fatal amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for discussion today and I will address the points he has raised in turn. In relation to the Carbon Budget Order, the noble Lord first suggests that this will increase reliance on intermittent renewables. The Government are, in fact, strengthening energy security by reducing dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets and delivering a diverse, secure and clean energy system. This will be backed by unabated gas only when it is essential, and any residual emissions would be offset by removals.
The noble Lord suggests that the order will cause higher energy prices. The main driver of high energy costs has been global gas prices, which have also pushed up electricity prices. Clean power is what will give us control over prices, with the offshore wind secured in a recent auction being 40% cheaper than building and operating new gas plants.
On causing deindustrialisation, this Government are committed to supporting UK industry to decarbonise, while protecting and creating thousands of jobs across the UK. We are taking ambitious steps to lay the groundwork for further industry investment. Last year, the Government set out their modern industrial strategy, which will drive forward ambition for UK business operating in the clean energy space.
With regard to economic growth, setting carbon budget seven at this level builds on the UK’s pioneering Climate Change Act 2008, providing a framework for combining economic growth and climate action. I have a fairly simple and straightforward comparison. The UK has cut its emissions by 54% since 1990, while growing the economy by over 85%. In other words, emissions reduction and growing the economy have been fully and effectively decoupled over that period. Indeed, since July 2024, the UK has seen over £100 billion of private clean energy investment announced and the Government’s clean energy plans are expected to support 400,000 extra jobs by 2030.
With regard to claims that retaining the carbon tax negatively impacts households and industry, the biggest threat to energy security is the UK’s dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets, not the carbon price applied under the emissions trading scheme. The UK has had an emissions trading scheme in place for over 20 years. It provides stability to UK businesses and industries, supporting them to take long-term investment and planning decisions, while “free allowances” protect sectors at risk of carbon leakage, ensuring we decarbonise over time without undermining UK competitiveness, and limits many sectors’ exposure to the carbon price. It has already played a key role in ending the burning of coal for electricity, setting us on our way to being a clean energy superpower.
On behaviour change, the noble Lord suggests that the Carbon Budget Order relates to a reduction in livestock numbers and meat and dairy consumption. This Government have been clear that we will meet our targets in a way that does not tell people how to live and behave. The transition will be led by consumer choice. Accepting the CCC’s recommended target does not mean we replicate its pathway.
I am sure a number of other issues will be raised in the debate, including offshoring UK emissions. Clear actions are being undertaken—CBAM and various other things—to make sure that does not happen and we are taking precautionary action to prevent carbon leakage.
In conclusion, these orders set a clear, credible pathway to net zero and ensure that these emissions reductions are delivered at home. I urge noble Lords to act together in the interest of current and future generations by agreeing these statutory instruments, which will give us energy security, lower bills, good jobs, cleaner air and protect our homes for our children and grandchildren. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will increase the UK’s reliance on intermittent renewables, causing higher energy prices, further deindustrialisation and lower economic growth; is contingent on retaining a carbon tax which will impoverish households and industry; requires a reduction in livestock numbers and meat and dairy consumption; and will encourage the offshoring of emissions to countries with more polluting energy systems.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, while preceding my noble friend Lord Deben, I pay tribute to his lifetime work on climate change and, while our views will certainly differ this evening, I share with him a passionate belief that we should work towards tackling climate change—he will agree that there are many different routes to achieving that goal. We are meant to be the revising Chamber, capable of detailed consideration of government measures, yet we have just six minutes each and, as the Minister has shown, that is insufficient.
As Minister for Energy in the salient benchmark year of 1990, I launched the first renewables round, the non-fossil fuel obligation, while encouraging the growth in offshore gas, with strong environmental prerequisites to ban non-essential flaring, and securing gas to CCGTs, thus creating firm low-cost power to generate economic growth, jobs and prosperity. Low-cost electricity is the lifeblood of a successful economy. My business career and time in politics have taught me that a headlong rush based on DESNZ zealotry will be costly and unattainable; it will not just jeopardise but destroy economic growth.
The UK produced circa 367 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2025, meaning that by 2039 we will have to reduce our annual emissions by more than two-thirds, with all the low-hanging fruit already picked. The capital and finance costs alone are estimated to be £880 billion. Government claims for the benefits are all target-derived prices to justify the policy, and we have seen the stumbling blocks impeding the rollout of heat pumps and zero-emission vehicles, not to mention the commercial challenges facing carbon capture and storage.
The Climate Change Committee has estimated that, in order to meet the emissions target, household consumption of meat and dairy would have to fall by 25%. The number of sheep and cattle would have to fall by 50%. Farmers will be required to diversify away from livestock farming to double tree-planting rates by 2030 and double peatland restoration by 2040. Where is the plan? When will the Government tell the public that they intend to halve the number of sheep and cattle in the United Kingdom, with inevitable price increases in the supermarkets? When do the Government intend to tell the residential building sector that it will have to spend up to £15 billion a year on low-carbon heating systems?
Add to all this the costs we introduce through this measure: demand management to apply to air travel, increasing the cost of short-haul flights, such as between London and Alicante, by £150 and long-haul flights, such as between London and New York, by £300. Industry is already facing the stark reality of the highest prices for electricity in the OECD, but the Climate Change Committee now estimates that British industry would face net costs of up to £3 billion per year in every year between 2025 and 2050. Does Ed Miliband have the remotest idea of what this will do to British industry and the economy?
What is worse is that my reading of the economics is that the capital expenditures required for solar and offshore wind are hugely underestimated. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the CCC expects offshore wind to cost around £1,500 per kilowatt hour, whereas actual projects such as Hornsea 3 are expected to cost over double that. If he cannot, the up-front capital costs are underestimated, making the CCC’s claim of operating cost savings compared with fossil fuels highly questionable. I look for the CCC’s total gross cost of its pathways and I cannot understand why they are absent. No wonder the UK boss of EDF Energy has said:
“We should stop building wind farms and focus instead on raising demand for electricity … As a country, we’ve always got it wrong … So now we have this large infrastructure, twice as much as we need, which means we also need to build twice”
the transmission grid. No wonder almost £800 million has been spent on so-called curtailment payments so far this year alone, putting 2026 on course to eclipse the £1.4 billion spent on switching off turbines last year.
Heavy manufacturing and chemical sectors have argued that the orders before us this evening introduce additional bureaucracy without tangible environmental benefits. Customers are understandably worried about the costs burden and the major lifestyle changes required by law—not by choice, as the Minister just said, but by law—in how people heat their homes, what they can eat and how they travel.
All this is based on an accounting policy which wholly ignores the impact on global warming from the supply chains that we rely on. We are blind to the coal-fired CO2-belching furnaces in China, many in Xinjiang province with Uyghur labour, which produce the polycrystalline in solar panels for us. China delivers an estimated 140 million to 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually just by manufacturing solar panels, accounting for about 1% of China’s total annual emission, and we do not count that. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s cobalt—a core component in the lithium-ion batteries used for electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage—with its forced evictions, land disposals and child labour, and we do not count that. We ignore that.
We do not have clean, home-grown energy. It is time to prioritise cheap energy over clean energy, remove the heavy weight of carbon taxes from our electricity prices, and exploit all remaining North Sea oil and gas reserves, in the same way the Norwegians do on their side of the median line, with gas which is four times less polluting than the LNG that we have to import instead from the States. That would strengthen our energy security.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been chairman of the Climate Change Committee for 11 years. I also chair a company advising on sustainability, business continuity and risk, and I am a partner in a small organic arable and livestock farm—so it may be said that one knows a little bit about what we are talking about.
I say to my noble friend that I listened to him make a brilliant speech yesterday on sport, and the brilliance of it was that he explained, first, why the Government had got it wrong and, secondly, how to put it right. The problem with his speech this evening is that neither of those has been part of it. It is no good standing up and saying that they do not like this or that. The truth is that a Conservative Government, when previously in opposition, were the creators of the Climate Change Act and they turned it into a cross-party agreement. Every Conservative Government have supported these policies to end up with meeting the Paris Agreement, which a Conservative Government signed. Yet at the moment all we hear is opposition to what is being proposed by the Government, on the basis of the very best advice that they could have.
There are a number of things that I think the Government are getting wrong. Any idea of loosening the movement to EVs is a great mistake, and the Government are also spending too much money on carbon capture and storage, as a matter of fact. But those are reasonable arguments to have from the point of view that we actually have to protect ourselves from the climate change that, surely, we are beginning to understand—as all the businesses I deal with understand —is no longer on the risk register: it is on today’s issue. How do we deal with this? The public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if what we do is to pretend that we are in favour of it in general, but not actually prepared to take the measures that are necessary. These figures are the necessary measures and are done far enough in advance for us to be able to deal with this.
It is very interesting that we should talk about intermittent renewables. The intermittency at the moment is with fossil fuels; the problem is that we cannot rely on them. It is also interesting that this is evidently “causing higher energy prices”, as 67% of the higher prices in this country and around Europe are because of the higher price of gas. What my noble friend proposes is to spend more money and more time on gas, instead of recognising that there is another fault of this Government, which is that they have wrongly continued the Conservative policy, which I opposed for 20 years, to put the costs of the necessary change on customers’ bills, instead of what they did between 1945 and 1951, when the Labour Party made the last huge change in our system and rightly said that that was a taxpayer’s price. If that came off now and was put on to the taxpayer’s bill, we would be properly competitive, and we would become more and more competitive as we moved.
It is all right talking about the Chinese—the Chinese are going to reach net zero by 2060, which means 2050, because they always promise in advance much less than they actually deliver. Every other country in the world that is thinking about the future is moving in this direction, because renewables are dependable and they are also cheaper. There is this idea that renewables are somehow deindustrialising Britain, but, since the Climate Change Act was passed, the GVA of the manufacturing industry has grown in real terms, and the CBI points out that there was £105 billion in added value in 2025 alone. This is a whole operation presented improperly. There is nothing in this order that is going to change whether I can grow my excellent red poll cattle.
The fact is that the reduction in our meat eating that the Climate Change Committee suggests we make is considerably less than that the medics think we ought to make; considerably less than Dimbleby, in his food strategy, said that we ought to make; and is less than what is now happening naturally. We have seen a 10% cut in the way people are eating, and there is nothing in this order that forces people to do more than that. We have to recognise that many of the people who will oppose this tonight are the same people who told us how wonderful leaving the European Union was, and the truth of the matter is that we can look at that. We have to look forward to a society in which we have protected our children and grandchildren from the menace of climate change, and until the Opposition are prepared to stand up with an alternative system that delivers that, it must be right to support what the Government are putting forward.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, as a Member of Parliament, I was unable to vote for the original climate change legislation. It seemed to be totally unrealistic, it was likely to be extremely expensive, and I thought it would be self-defeating. It was quite obvious that a large number of important economies around the world would not adopt this. It was extremely likely that an economy such as China would use the huge opportunity of our self-inflicted wound to export more and more to us—burning lots of coal and gas and marine diesel to get it here—and that we would deindustrialise too rapidly. Of course, that is exactly what is happening.
My noble friend on these Benches has just asserted that we have not deindustrialised, but he needs to look at the facts. We are losing massive amounts of traditional industry in petrochemicals, ceramics, glass and glass fibre. Many companies have gone down, many plants are being closed, and we are losing our traditional steel industry. It is true that we have had great success in industries such as pharmaceuticals. That may have been what my noble friend had in mind with the figures he was quoting, but he cannot get away from the fact that this is now doing huge damage: closing factories, closing plants, and causing a loss of jobs.
My first objection to the Government’s proposal tonight is that we should not adopt a very tough national carbon budget without knowing what the impact is going to be on carbon dioxide produced elsewhere in the world. You need to look at the net position, not just at the UK’s position. I suspect that the future will be like the last 20 years: there will not be a big net reduction in world CO. There will probably be an increase in world CO, because of all the extra marine diesel needed for the imports; because of a shift from gas down a pipe from our own fields to LNG, which my noble friend on the Front Bench has stressed is much more CO intensive; and because, for traditional industrial products, we will be more and more dependent on countries that may use methods that are more CO intensive—as well as all the obvious extra environmental costs those countries will incur, from the way they get the raw materials out of the ground, to the social costs of the conditions of labour that they use for producing the products, and the extra transport involved in the imports.
My second big objection to this order is cost. We are given a provisional figure of £880 billion, or £35 billion a year. My noble friend is right that this is likely to be a gross underestimate of the true cost. I challenge the Minister on how much he thinks grid expansion will cost, because the grid expansion will have to be on a completely unprecedented scale. When all the energy sources come from renewables, rather than the more dependable gas-fired sources—which do not need nearly so much grid—the Minister will need a much bigger grid to deliver the current amount of power that we need. Further, since electricity is still a minority part of the power we use, if we are going to treble or quadruple our use of electricity to replace the gas that we burn in our home heating, and the petrol and diesel we burn in our transport, the mind boggles at just how many pylons there will need to be around the country, and at just how much grid capacity there will have to be to deliver all that extra power.
The Minister also needs to understand that, while he is right legally that he can meet his commitments now by coming up with a—probably completely fictional—plan for the amount of carbon the country will produce over the next 12 to 16 years, he does not have to show in any detail how we might get there. My advice to all Governments is not to try to predict the future beyond 10 years, because nobody can. Everything is going to change. A year ago, we could not even predict who the Prime Minister of the current Government was going to be, but we meet tonight on the eve of a new Prime Minister. So how on earth can we predict how big the UK economy is going to be in 2040? How can we predict whether any of our industry of a traditional kind will survive or not? How can we predict what the technologies will be? It may be that the so-called new technologies around the lithium-ion battery—currently the main marketing ploy of those who favour this kind of policy—will be completely old hat in 10 or 15-years’ time. There may be something genuinely better. There may be an electric product that I want to buy because it works well and is genuinely cheaper.
My next challenge to the Minister is that I do not believe this line that electricity is cheap and will get cheaper with the more renewables we use. The evidence is there for all to see. We have gone further than most with renewables. We have the dearest electricity in the advanced world, and one of the reasons for that is the cost of renewable—a lot of renewable power is contracted at very high guaranteed prices. Worse still, we need the gas power stations, and we need to pay them for doing nothing, because you need the backup. Of course it is going to be a lot dearer to have electricity from renewables, because you have to pay twice to have two different lots of capital equipment. The Minister has wisely limited my time, so I will have to suffice with just those few very strong objections. I back my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. I thank my noble friend for his very detailed explanation of the order before us. I am not sure that we are spending much time on the detail of the order, as he requested, and we are clearly turning this into a debate about net zero and climate change. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged climate change, I must say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is very difficult to square what is being said tonight by Members of the party opposite—and, I suspect, by rather a few more of them as the debate ensues—with what the Conservative Government did. After all, it was the Conservative Government who legislated for net zero. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, did not vote for it, but it was their responsibility. They signed the Paris Agreement. The Sunak Government made a bold statement that
“energy transition and net zero are among the greatest opportunities facing this country”,
as indeed they are. We may hear a little bit about North Sea oil and gas, as the party opposite now seems obsessed with that. It is worth pointing out that, between 2010 and 2024, production in the North Sea halved under the Conservative Government’s stewardship.
I come back to the pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, have criticised carbon budgets and the whole net-zero approach by the Government, but what is the alternative? It is rare now for members of the Conservative Party to say that they do not believe in climate change, but it is almost, as St Augustine said, “Oh Lord, deliver us from sin, but not yet”—“We will tackle climate change at some point in the future, but let us carry on with our obsession with oil and gas”.
I turn to business. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the CBI report, but this is one of the most thriving sectors of our economy. In fact, looking at the last year of the Conservative Government, it was the one sector that actually gave us some growth in the economy, yet they want to snap it off, whereas our competitors have seen that the impact of the green/net-zero economy can be profoundly changing and progressive and give so many opportunities to people. The CBI report says that the net-zero economy now supports 1.1 million full-time equivalent jobs—and they are good jobs, jobs that our young people can go into.
On China and the international experience, we are lectured that, somehow, by going into a leadership role in relation to decarbonisation, we are letting other countries take great advantage. If noble Lords look at the reports of the International Energy Agency, particularly its 2025 report on renewables, they will see that there is a huge advance in the use of low-carbon energies globally. China currently accounts for 60% of global renewable capacity growth. It is going to meet its targets way ahead of schedule, in 2035. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it tends to set conservative targets and then meet them much more quickly, so to talk about China as if it is simply carrying on with oil, gas and coal is misleading.
The North Sea, if I can just end on that, has been a tremendous asset to our country. If only we had set up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in our infrastructure, like Norway did, I think we would be in a much better condition. The people working there are brilliant people, but if noble Lords look at the North Sea Transition Authority’s estimates, it reckons that only around 10% of the basin’s historic output could be recovered in the future. Analysis by the University of Oxford’s Smith School, using pre-crisis price data, suggests that households powered fully by renewable energy could save up to £441 per year on energy bills. By comparison, maximising North Sea oil and gas extraction was estimated to reduce household costs by around £16 to £82 per year. As we know, increasing UK production—and it would be a marginal increase in UK production—would not directly reduce prices, because we do not influence global prices and we buy on the global market.
I also point out that the Conservative Government, over 14 years, issued many licences for expropriation and extraction in the North Sea. That actually led to only 20 developments, which, I understand, would produce the equivalent of just 36 days of extra gas. So the challenge for the party opposite, it seems to me, is to stop running down the approach and the consensus that we have on net zero, and if it is opposed to it, it should come up with some suggestions about how we might go forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will address carbon pricing in the UK, its unfortunate consequences for policy-making, and its devastating results for the public purse and the future of our economy. This confusion is embedded in these instruments, so I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I refer the House to my registered interests as an owner and developer of wind and solar energy generation projects, and as an owner and developer of forests that target carbon sequestration under the Woodland Carbon Code, as well as growing timber that addresses the UK’s structural deficit in construction-grade timber. I am also a partially regenerative dairy and beef farmer.
Our carbon pricing in the UK is muddled. UK Woodland Carbon Code units trade at around £30 per tonne; the UK Emissions Trading Scheme is trading at around £55 to £60 per tonne; the Government’s internal valuation for carbon emissions, used in calculating the relative merits of policy and projects, ranges from a low case of £130 to a high of £390 for this year, and that rises to £568 in 2050. The average carbon emissions per head in the UK are nine tonnes per annum, and that includes scope 2 and scope 3—so offshore emissions. That can be offset for a total cost of £270 through woodland carbon units or £510 through the emissions trading scheme, yet the Government’s cost, used for policy, implies up to £3,510 per head. The first two figures sound reasonably affordable to me, the third does not sound at all affordable.
I believe we are expecting the Government to publish an update to this valuation framework alongside this Carbon Budget Order. I ask the Minister, first, when is this five-year review of valuation of greenhouse emissions likely to be published? Secondly, is he prepared to look again at the whole basis of how this valuation is done, in order to create an environment for better policy-making? The argument that this is based on marginal abatement cost is ludicrous. In effect, the Government are using the extortionate cost of some of the technologies they are throwing money at to justify that cost. In Microsoft Excel, this would cause a circular reference error.
Net zero can be achieved through pragmatic decision-making based on an orderly market where technologies are assessed based on the cost of carbon set by buyers and sellers. Unfortunately, this Government are chasing fantasies around green hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture, as well as some of the renewable projects coming forward, and these have been justified by this ludicrous carbon pricing. It is leading us to ruin, discredits any efforts to keep atmospheric carbon down, and needs to be reassessed. It takes no heed of affordability for the consumer, who feels cost of living pressures everywhere, and is already providing huge subsidies to renewable energy and grid improvements through electricity bills, and suffering the tax burden of funding fantastical technologies, when this money really should be spent on our defence. It pays no heed to industry, which is forced to compete with peers that can access considerably cheaper power almost anywhere in the world. As my noble friend has described, this will simply lead to our jobs and industry being taken offshore, and probably means that the best chance of meeting these targets is by deindustrialising our economy even further.
My noble friend’s amendment regrets the impact on meat and livestock production and consumption, which I fully support. Latest scientific evidence and dietary advice concludes that animal protein, fat and vitamins are critical to our health. Calculations underpinning livestock’s impact on greenhouse gases are highly biased and unfairly penalise livestock for the transitory impact of methane in the atmosphere. They fail to recognise that livestock farming, particularly in a regenerative system, is simply recirculating carbon, in the same way as supposedly sustainable aviation fuel, Drax and renewable heating installations. Why are animals being villainised while these are promoted and grant-aided? This also undermines the affordability of dealing with climate change, exposes the Government to ridicule and poses a threat to our health. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I declare my interest as the owner of a Welsh upland portfolio with agricultural tenancies, livestock, woodland and heritage assets serviced by renewables. I am therefore someone who lives with both the duty of stewardship and the economics of the transition we are debating. Let me say at the outset that I am not going to deny the science nor unpick the architecture of the Climate Change Act: climate change is a real and present threat to our food, our water, our coasts and our security, and the Conservative tradition of conservation demands that we take it seriously. My concern today is not with the direction of travel, it is with the means. The means before us are too reliant on central direction, too costly and too inattentive to the people and the industries asked to carry them.
Let us consider the foundation of this budget. The Climate Change Committee tells us that electrification must deliver around 60% of the savings through heat pumps in our homes and electric vehicles on our roads. Yet we ask families and businesses to electrify while our electricity remains among the most expensive in the developed world.
The ratio of electricity to gas prices in this country is roughly 4:1, against the European average of 3:1. If we want people to make the switch, the most effective step this Government could take is to make clean electricity cheaper, through levy reform, market reform and competitive auctions, rather than through state-led projects that risk crowding out private investment and adding further cost to the bill.
Let me give your Lordships an example. At the house in north Wales that I mentioned in my interests, the domestic hot water and heating is generated by two water-source heat pumps. However, electricity becoming so expensive has blown out of the water all the projections of cost saving and non-domestic RHI—they went completely out of the window. We have had to consider whether it would be more worthwhile to turn them off and go back to LPG. I am sure we are not alone in facing that cost crisis. Affordable power is not a threat to this budget: it is the condition for delivering it.
Then there is the land. The committee’s pathway implies halving the national flock and herd and reducing consumption of meat and dairy by a quarter. I know the people who farm that land. They are the ones who plant the trees, restore the peat and work to hold carbon in our soils, because good farmers have long been among our first conservationists. However, we do not decarbonise this country by reducing British livestock production and importing food from countries that farm to lower standards. That approach moves emissions abroad, rather than removing them. The better course is to reward farmers for the public goods they already provide and support domestic food production alongside the recovery of nature.
I put this question directly to the Minister: if the Government intend to press ahead with these reductions in livestock numbers, will they pay farmers full market value in compensation for the herds and flocks they are asked to give up, or is this simply another thinly veiled attack on farmers and the rural economy?
This brings me to the second order, and to the concern that my noble friend Lord Moynihan sets out in his regret amendment, which I support. A limit of zero on overseas credits, set against a carbon price among the highest of any market in the world, risks a self-defeating outcome. Energy-intensive industry may relocate abroad, taking its jobs, tax revenue and emissions with it, so that those emissions reappear on another country’s account while global emissions are no lower at all. Carbon leakage of that kind is not decarbonisation, and it weakens our industrial base in the process.
Let me conclude where I began. I support the framework and the goal. The United Kingdom should lead, but leadership means delivery that is affordable rather than not, that supports our farmers rather than reduces them and that keeps industry here rather than driving it overseas.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid director of the company Net Zero Watch.
It was 10 years ago today that we had the referendum that decided whether we would be governed from Britain or the EU: “Who Governs Britain?”. However, when I look at the carbon budget and the piece of legislation before us today, I wonder whether the actual Government of Britain is the Climate Change Committee. I do not make that point rhetorically; I make it seriously. Once the carbon budget is in place, it affects every aspect of what the Government and much of the private sector do. It constrains activity and shapes what can and cannot be done. It is an essential feature of the way this country is governed, and we are just waving it through tonight on the basis of a piece of secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that we were not paying enough attention to the detail. Well, perhaps the Government would like to provide some time to debate the detail. The carbon budget is 400 pages long and there is a supplement of 60 pages. We are spending an hour and a half discussing something that will affect the entire UK economy, if we are to believe it, for a period of five years—so let us get serious about this.
There are a number of problems with the carbon budget and this legislation which have been mentioned to some extent by others. First, even on their own terms, the Government are not choosing the cheapest path. Probably all the figures before us are completely worthless, but the impact assessment’s own table shows that option one is better in cost-benefit terms as it has a higher net present value. Ministers are choosing the more expensive path because they are focused on achieving the target rather than worrying about what happens to the British economy.
Secondly, a lot of the savings are meaningless paper numbers. Of the so-called £1.6 trillion headline benefits identified in the impact assessment, almost all of them —over 90%—are simple carbon savings. These values are not set by any objective reality; they are defined by what is necessary to reach the target. It is an entirely circular process; these are not real benefits in the sense that any normal person would recognise them in any way.
Thirdly, the generation of technology cost figures are implausible, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has already stated. They consistently underestimate the cost of renewables: offshore wind and onshore wind. There is also a belief that the costs of products such as heat pumps, and many other things, will fall in the future: a belief for which there is no evidence, as far as I can see.
Fourthly, on carbon capture and storage, I am very glad I can find something to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on, because, as far as I can see, the assertions are based on nothing. The target requires us to capture 80 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent every year by 2050, using what we are told is “state of the art” technology. Unfortunately, the state of the art is that these technologies do not work and cannot be made to work, and are probably never going to work. We are being asked to legislate for a fantasy.
Fifthly, there is dishonesty about lifestyle impact, which other noble Lords have already mentioned. The Government say they will not do what the Climate Change Committee says is necessary on farming. Okay—what are they going to do? As I have said, these carbon budgets affect everything. If you do not make the saving in one place, it has to be made somewhere else. Simply saying, “We’re not going to do that”, is not really an answer.
There is simply no reflection in the discussion of the legislation of the policy reality: the fact that the rest of the world is paying much less attention to this than we are. The US has, in essence, moved away from the net zero policy entirely, and even the European Union is beginning its internal discussions to question whether this is absolutely the right way forward. If they are, then we really should be.
To conclude, a number of speakers today have already asked us, “What would you do then if you’re not happy with this? How would you deal with the problem of climate change?” I say in return, why should we take seriously those who have a policy that simply cannot achieve its declared goal? They seem to have a belief in the miraculous powers of action in this country to affect what happens all round the world. Carbon budget 7 means the destruction of the British manufacturing economy over the next 20 years and huge hits to the lifestyle of the inhabitants of this country.
If we use the methodology of the IPCC, we are asked to do this to reduce global temperatures by 0.01 degrees centigrade in the year 2100. That is the effect we are going to have. This is a crazy, irrational policy and one that simply should not be followed. That is why I support the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We can speak against the Government’s policy today and perhaps vote against it, if we can. Obviously, it will make no difference, but I take comfort in the fact that by 2038, when this budget comes into force, the full irrationality of this policy will long have become evident, and it will never come into force.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and forestry interests as set out in the register and will speak in support of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I also associate myself with the comments made by my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lord Roborough.
There are a few challenges with the proposed Carbon Budget Order 2026. The issues I have are not so much ideological and technical as more practical. In the wider context, if passed, the Carbon Budget Order will increase the UK’s reliance on intermittent renewables, causing higher energy prices, further accelerating deindustrialisation and driving lower economic growth, as we have heard many times this evening. Even the Climate Change Committee has estimated that British industry would face net costs of up to £3 billion per year every year between 2025 and 2050. Clearly, this will make UK businesses uncompetitive and add to the general cost of living for the British public.
The area I would like to focus on is the impact it will have on British farming, particularly livestock farming, and the UK’s future food security. Two weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated the impact of Labour Party policy on the rural economy, and it was widely agreed that a number of policies that have been introduced—such as the family farm tax, national insurance increases and the hike in the minimum wage—have had a strong negative impact on sustainable farming and food production across the UK. With this in mind, further negative impacts should really be avoided, otherwise rural productivity will fall even further. This seems challenging given what is proposed in the Carbon Budget Order 2026.
As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this 2026 order means that by 2038, we will have to reduce annual emissions by more than two-thirds. What that translates to on the ground, according to the Climate Change Committee’s own report, is that household consumption of meat and dairy will have to fall by 25%. In farming speak, this means that the number of sheep and cattle will have to reduce by 50%, forcing farmers to diversify away from livestock farming and further reducing our national food security. I ask the Minister: is this sensible or even realistic? If we were to reduce livestock by 50%, it would render every livestock farm economically inoperable, threaten the future of many of our livestock breed varieties and collapse meat and dairy production and any domestic meat supply completely, leaving us wholly dependent on foreign imports. Why would we want to do this, particularly at a time when food security should be higher up the Government’s agenda, given what is going on in the wider world?
Suggesting that meat and dairy consumption is going to drop by 25% flies in the face of all current statistics. There is no indication that this is happening now or that it is likely or even desirable in the future. It just seems pie in the sky—excuse the pun—unless the Government are planning to restrict what the public want to eat. In essence, if this Carbon Budget Order proceeds, the most likely outcome will be that meat and dairy consumption will stay exactly the same and domestic production will collapse. Suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring the reality of living in the world as it is today.
We live in an era of global commodity prices and international trade, so if our domestic prices go sky high, the supermarkets and the public will switch to imports from other countries, which will increase to fill the void. As well as collapsing our domestic food security, it is just offshoring emissions to countries with more polluting energy systems, and that will negate any savings at home. This is a hopeless outcome and will ultimately make little or no difference to anything.
Rural communities are always at the sharp end of the climate change policy debate. In addition to the farming community, I also raise the issue of additional costs for those who live off grid. This might sound like a niche issue for a small number of hillbillies living in the outback, but it is not. There are 1.7 million oil-heated rural houses that are not connected to the gas grid. Can the Minister say what support he might offer to the 1.7 million households who, according to the Climate Change Committee’s own estimate, will consistently pay more to decarbonise through electrification?
As I said in my introduction, there are quite a few challenges with the Carbon Budget Order. The impact will be felt across many areas, although my comments have been largely focused on farming. Pursuing the Carbon Budget Order seems the wrong route for UK farming and the wrong choice for the British public. It will achieve little or nothing in the way of carbon savings.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the unintended consequences that flow from the 16 words in the order that place an arbitrary cap on our nation’s economic potential. There are hard truths that need to be told about the practical effects, which include incentivising the importation of the most polluting products while jobs are lost at home. I do not deny the importance of decarbonisation—the oil is going to run out eventually—but setting a cap of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2038, more than a whole decade away, in a world of uncertainty is to take a path that makes our people poorer and, counter- intuitively, makes global emissions worse in the rest of the world.
I declare my interest as someone involved in the fertiliser trade. While I do not produce it, I am involved in the trade that brings it to our shores.
It is always useful to follow the money. From 2013 to the end of last year, EU ETS auctions have raised over €258 billion in revenue for the EU. In 2025 alone, EU ETS revenues totalled more than €43 billion. This is a tax gusher dressed up as environmental virtue signalling. On that basis, it is hardly surprising that the EU has introduced trade barriers to keep everyone else out, and now the UK wants to follow suit.
Let us deep dive into the industry I know best, which will be subject to insane fertiliser taxes from next January. I know about carbon budgets and the paraphernalia that flow from them: the emission trading schemes, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, free allowances and default values that, bizarrely, will create powerful fiscal incentives to send the most polluting fertilisers to the UK. They all sound so good in theory, but the CBAM and its evil twin, the ETS, are making us structurally uncompetitive—and, as a double whammy, the way Britain has chosen to implement them in the UK, like VAT, is architecturally incompatible with the EU system, which relies on permits and registries.
These orders tie us to the EU ETS, but there are many other ways in which the UK ETS differs from the EU equivalent. Not only is the denomination euro versus sterling but there is the EUA versus the UKA, reflecting two different economic territories. There is no CBAM hedging liquidity, alongside all sorts of arbitrages that place the UK at a competitive disadvantage. There is also a wilful refusal to provide the clarity on free allowances, which the EU is now diluting but which are essential to enable future trade in our country.
Why would we tie ourselves to the EU via the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026, which is so incompatible with the UKA, sterling and default values? This is not dynamic alignment or mutual recognition; this is fossilising our future based on today’s values in an uncertain world, putting a cap on our country’s ambition and capability. The risks are that, if the EU changes the goalposts for any of the carbon components—as it is doing at the moment—we would be left at a comparative disadvantage for the next 15 years. The EU has seen us coming—something our Government cannot see for themselves. Why are we running towards this danger?
Worse, we are hard-coding numbers 12 to 16 years hence, yet the Chinese, who do not share our worldview, have unilaterally changed the way in which they calculate carbon emissions, leaving us high and dry up that proverbial creek without a paddle. The naive “good chap” way in which we have chosen to account for carbon—in divergent ways to the EU and the rest of the world—will make us the natural dumping ground for the world’s most polluting fertilisers. Success was never to be like that. In the past two months, the Chinese have reversed a fertiliser export ban and turned up coal-fired urea production to eleven to exploit global shortages.
Our proposed default carbon values, which flow from these orders, provide perverse incentives to import these polluting products at the expense of cleaner products. The system of free allowances has diverged into an Alice in Wonderland fantasy land where, with the aim of levelling the playing field, we will be taxing imports of certain carbon-intensive goods that are not even made in this country. All that does is drive inflation. The UK is proposing free allowances for a fertiliser industry that no longer exists in this country, making farmers pay even more for their most expensive input. That is clearly contrary to the WTO and the rules-based order, which the outgoing Prime Minister purports to support. It is madness.
Last week, the EU announced that carbon taxation would be extended to secateurs and gardening tools. I ask the virtue signallers to accept that, by making UK energy feedstocks uncompetitive by forcing the highest energy prices on our chemical industry, they will actually increase global emissions by outsourcing production to more poorly regulated nations, throwing thousands of Britons on to the dole in a crass deindustrialisation, just so the members of the London Labour Party can virtue signal how green they are while sipping negronis on their step-free bifold-access terraces, grazing on tofu picked up at Whole Foods.
The facts are that, for everyone else, these carbon budgets and the taxes are driving up the cost of beer, biscuits, bread, butter and barbecues. I hope the Mancunian Messiah recognises that simple truth in the coming weeks.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to express my regret at these statutory instruments. Let me begin by recognising that carbon budgets are a vital part of the UK’s approach to tackling climate change. They provide long-term clarity on the pathway to net zero at some future date, set a direction of travel for policy and investment, and signal the seriousness of our ambition. My concern lies not only in the pace, the manner and the potential consequences of the course now proposed but on the realism of the pathway itself and the practical deliverability of the measures that underpin it.
The Carbon Budget Order sets an exceedingly ambitious and legally binding cap to reduce emissions to little more than a quarter of their current level for the period 2038 to 2042—a period still far removed from present realities. In doing so, it risks committing the United Kingdom to a trajectory of decarbonisation so steep as to be impracticable. It is one thing to aspire, quite another to legislate, for a future shaped by uncertainties in technology, economics and geopolitics.
Today in this country, oil and gas account for roughly three-quarters of our own energy demand, and they will remain a significant part of our energy mix for decades to come. This very evening, about 50% of our power is generated from gas. We already use roughly 10% fewer hydrocarbons than the global average consumption by country, and make no use of coal, which remains a substantial contributor to energy consumption worldwide.
Domestically, we already face some of the highest electricity costs in the G7, placing a heavy burden on households, business and industry alike. There is every indication that these pressures will intensify. The latest round of offshore wind licences has been awarded at a strike price of about £90 per megawatt—almost twice that of AR6—and yet the Climate Change Committee suggests that there needs to be a sixfold increase in offshore wind, a doubling of onshore wind and quadrupling of solar power. I wonder what the next round of auctions will actually cost. This is without mentioning the necessary grid expansion required to cope with the transmission of this power to the end-user, which my noble friend Lord Redwood mentioned. The CCC also suggests further enormous demands on the heavily troubled agricultural sector, as has already been noted.
Carbon dioxide emissions may fall sharply under this framework, but at what economic price, and who pays? We are already seeing signs of industrial migration. Companies are reconsidering their presence here, with some relocating production overseas. The implications for jobs, investment and the long-term resilience of our industrial base are deeply concerning. One must ask how long heavy industry can be sustained under such conditions.
I would also hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but the situation in the North Sea provides a cautionary illustration. Our offshore sector, developed over many decades, supports not only oil and gas but also technologies of the future: carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore electrification. These capabilities are deeply interconnected. They depend on a skilled workforce, a resilient supply chain and an active industrial base, as we saw from the electorate in Aberdeen South. That system cannot be maintained or scaled if the investment environment becomes unstable or uncompetitive and the resources left unexploited. The sanctioning of Jackdaw, Rosebank and renewed drilling would assist this immeasurably, as opposed to relying ever more on more polluting imports.
As to the means of achieving these targets, much rests on technologies that are not yet proven at scale. Renewable energy, as suggested by the CCC, will play a vital role, but alone it cannot meet the demands of electricity, heating and transport. Nuclear capacity takes time to deliver, while large-scale carbon capture, hydrogen and long-term storage remain in development. To anchor binding commitments upon their rapid deployment is, I fear, a considerable gamble.
We have often reflected in this noble House on the United Kingdom’s relatively small share of global emissions: 0.8% of world emissions. The top three emitters account for over 50%. There is a real danger that, in acting unilaterally, we merely displace emissions abroad while inflicting further disproportionate harm on our economy. That would serve neither our national interest nor the global emissions cause.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we debate the seventh carbon budget on a day when our warming climate is making itself known. The Conservative Party may feel that fighting climate change is no longer urgent or possible, but the extreme heat begs to differ.
We support the carbon budget and credit limit orders. We express our disappointment at the regret amendments. CB7 is not a discretionary gesture. It is a statutory requirement, setting the path to an 87% emissions reduction by 2040. To waver now, as these amendments invite us to do, is to ignore both scientific certainty and economic opportunity.
Our ever-warming climate is an existential threat. Until recent times, we have all benefited from a cross-party consensus on climate change. It is regrettable to see the Conservative Party’s continued retreat from reality. The Conservative Party introduced the Climate Change Act and implemented half of our carbon reductions to date. In 2013, it introduced the carbon price support, and in 2019 the carbon emissions tax, which, in this very amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, now seems to regret.
There are real issues to debate, but the need to fight climate change is not one of them. To describe this transition as a threat to “industrial sovereignty,” or a cause of “impoverishment” is a serious mischaracterisation of the risks. It is the abandonment of the Climate Change Act, and its implementation, that would put our energy security at risk and strip away the legal certainty that investors in British industry rely on.
On intermittent renewables and higher prices, the evidence does not support the argument. The Climate Change Committee has shown that renewable electricity and electric vehicles are now cheaper than fossil-fuelled equivalents, and that the cost of the path to net zero, every year out to 2050, is less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock. It is fossil fuels that are insecure in supply and volatile in price.
The price of electricity is too high, but that is not the fault of renewables. It is hard to defend a market in which a unit of electricity costs 4.3 times as much as a unit of gas. That is the real barrier holding back heat pumps and EVs, which is why my party continues to call on the Government to break the link between gas and electricity prices, strip policy costs off bills and introduce an essential energy guarantee.
On deindustrialisation, the risk runs precisely opposite to the arguments advanced. CBI Economics has found that failure to transition our car industry to EV manufacturing could cost the economy £34 billion and over 400,000 jobs. The net-zero economy generates over £100 billion a year in value and supports 1.1 million jobs, with nearly half a trillion pounds of investment in the pipeline. Conservative and Reform plans to weaken net-zero targets would pointlessly destroy business confidence, investment and the jobs and growth this country needs.
The regret amendment also misrepresents the credit limit order. It sets a zero limit on the use of overseas carbon units for the fifth budgetary period. This is not a loophole; it is the opposite. We support this order because it sends a clear signal to investors that the UK’s reductions will be delivered through domestic infrastructure and domestic supply chains, not purchased on paper from elsewhere. Support for this order will not obstruct us in pushing the Government further to improve energy security for individuals and business.
It is sensible for the Government to keep open the option of joining the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. Properly designed, this framework protects British industry from offshoring. Farmers need fair reward. Last year’s harvest was one of the worst on record, costing arable farmers more than £800 million. My party continues to call for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes so that farmers can diversify into woodland creation and peatland restoration. The Government have the opportunity to implement a policy reset.
On electrification, around 60% of the emissions reductions required by 2040 will depend on EVs and heat pumps, yet reports suggest that the Government may weaken the ZEV mandate’s 2030 target from 80% down to as little as 50%. That mandate is the single biggest carbon reduction lever that this Government hold, so I hope the Minister can rule that out. UK heat pump sales are the lowest of 19 major European economies because of price.
The nature and climate crises are conjoined. Both tree planting and peatland restoration need to double. More must be done to restore our habitats and fight the growing threat of wildfires. Labour’s airport expansion plans for growth go well beyond the targets. By 2040, aviation will be our single biggest emitting sector. The Government’s plans seem incompatible with the budget. My party opposes all airport expansion in the south-east.
In 2008, this country led the way with the Climate Change Act. Some 76 other countries have since followed. The seventh carbon budget is, in the Climate Change Committee’s own words,
“the most credible and balanced option”
open to us. It will shield households and businesses from price shocks and an increasingly volatile fossil fuel market, as well as strengthening our energy security.
We must not let short-termism undermine the only path to a cleaner, more secure and prosperous Britain. Our message to the Government is, “You need to go further and faster. Don’t do things to people. Work with them. Support them. Help them benefit from community energy. Fight for climate and nature. Adapt. Above all, bring down the cost of electricity; that would do the most to put the transition within reach of every family and business”.
I welcome the citizens’ panel. Its message is clear: this transition must be equitable, affordable and fair. The Government must do more to make it so.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, first, let me thank noble Lords for their valuable—that is what it says here in my brief—contributions to this debate. I cannot say that I endorse that entirely. I also cannot quite get my mind around the parallel universe that some noble Lords seem to have been inhabiting while making their points this evening.
On that parallel universe, I draw noble Lords’ attention to a very significant speech that was made today just a few hundred yards from this building. It was given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who, as part of London Climate Action Week, made an impassioned speech on climate change, including what we need to do about it, how quickly we need to do something about it, and what we need to do on electrification and low-carbon economies in particular.
I hope that noble Lords will go away and look up that speech, because among other things it completely gives the lie to the idea that no one else in the world is terribly interested in this climate change business, that no one else is doing anything about it, that the activities we are undertaking on climate change are just blowing in the wind, and that we are giving away our industries to other people who will take advantage of them. A number of the industries that they are talking about are sunset industries that are being replaced by low-carbon industries which, if we are not careful, the rest of the world will run away with. They would then overtake the advantages that we have at the moment in green industry, which we are doing very well in. The green economy has grown three times as fast as the general economy in the last few years.
The people who live in this fantasy parallel world appear to be saying that none of that counts. We are making tremendous changes to how energy is distributed in the low-carbon economy. This is a good thing for climate change purposes and will bring people’s bills down in the long term. The energy we will be using will inevitably be cheaper, more affordable, less volatile and more stable than the energy we are using now. It will produce a very large number of jobs: £100 billion in green investment has come into this country over the last two or three years.
However, none of this appears to have any effect whatever on the parallel facts that are put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, appeared to be saying that the rest of the world was moving away from action on climate. I was at an international meeting this morning where people from around the world were standing up and saying what they were doing about this, how committed they are to a low-carbon future and how important it is for their own countries and for the world that we continue down this path.
This climate budget has to be set in the context of the real world of facts and information about where our world is going and what we need to do to make sure that it does not continue in the direction that it appears to be going at the moment, rather than in the context of quite a lot of what we have heard this evening about why all of this is a waste of time. I am afraid that I must single out the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, in this respect. One really cannot make a serious case that, because we cannot completely know the future, we should do nothing whatever about it and just hope that the market somehow sorts it out. We have got to take action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, we took action with the Climate Change Act, which was carried by everybody in the Commons except five people. I can name them.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is with us this evening. At least I can say that the noble Lord is consistent. He did not sign it in the first place and I do not think he would sign it now if he had the opportunity.
That Climate Change Act, which requires us legally to carry out these carbon budget examinations, set up the Climate Change Committee to advise us on the science behind the proceedings and tell us what we need to be doing, not just now but in the future, so that we have time to make policy for what we will be doing to match what is required in those carbon budgets. We have that legal obligation, because we passed the Climate Change Act together in that year.
It has stood us in very good stead. It has directed what this country tries to do, without telling us what we do in detailed policy. Some of the discussions this evening have set up what the Government are apparently going to do and then said, “We don’t like it very much”. No, the Government are not going to go around shooting cows and rounding up livestock for slaughter. The Government will be doing what it is doing now and investing £5 billion over two years in farming. This is perhaps the largest investment in sustainable food production and nature recovery in this country’s history.
Alongside that, the Government are actively exploring ways to reduce livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, including through scientific research on mitigation strategies and management, feed, such as the increasing adoption of methane-suppressing food products, and breeding. There are many alternative ways of making sure that agriculture and land use plays its part in climate change emission reductions without the straw man that some of the opponents of climate change action seem to have set up in this Chamber—that the Government are somehow going to chase livestock out of the country in order to meet climate change restrictions. To produce alternative theories, I am afraid you need alternative facts.
The impact assessment has, among other things, a fairly exact examination of the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the costs of doing something. This has been a long-standing theme. The University of Cambridge, for example, estimates that climate damage will reduce global GDP by up to 24% under a high emissions scenario by 2100. There are pages of other information about the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the cost of doing something, and I always advise noble Lords to go to impact assessments if they want to know the truth about what is happening on any piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Hunt underlined that the regret amendments that we have in front of us are big on things that are not liked very much and tiny to insignificant on what, if anything, to do about it. Indeed, one has a responsibility, if one does not like what is being done now, to say what should be done alternatively. Alternatively, if one does not like, say, the climate change legislation, stand up and say that, and say what else you will do instead, or, as some Members have said, just deny that the whole thing is an issue and have an alternative universe of facts to try to underpin that.
I am conscious that I will have to write to a number of noble Lords on specific issues, but I thought it necessary to put what we are doing tonight in the right context. What we are doing is making sure that our futures are secure in this world.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I asked two specific questions relating to these orders. One was about the timing of the update and the valuations for carbon, and the second was whether the Minister would reconsider the faulty basis on which I think they are calculated. If he does not have answers today, would he commit to write?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, indeed. The noble Lord makes those points, which I have taken well on board. The question of carbon pricing, of course, is a long-standing issue as far as carbon valuation is concerned, but I certainly will write to him about the particular points he raises as soon as possible.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the Minister on one thing: I think this was a valuable debate. I thought that contributions from every Member of your Lordships’ House have been helpful and constructive. I do not think it has been, to quote him, “a waste of time”. I do not think anybody who spoke this evening wasted anybody’s time. There is cross-party recognition of the importance of addressing these issues, addressing the carbon order and addressing climate change. The question before us this evening is about the Carbon Budget Order 2026.
The Minister is completely right to say that we should address this in the context of the impact assessment, which he considers to show us the truth. He is completely right to have identified that importance. Everything in my speech related to that—everything. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that the public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if we destroy our economy with high energy prices. That is a real concern across this Chamber. We currently have electricity prices that are four times higher than the United States. That is the issue that we need to address. The impact assessment shows us that prices will go even higher if we follow these measures.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we share this factor: neither of us is obsessed with anything. There is no obsession on this side of the House, but there is real concern. There is cross-party concern with what is being proposed. Tony Blair has said that the net-zero policies that are being pushed forward are viewed as
“unaffordable, ineffective, or politically toxic”.
Gary Smith of the GMB, who is absolutely all over these issues, has recently said that the policies being pursued by the Government are “economic madness”. Even the Unite the Union says “No ban without a plan”.
These points are worthy of consideration, because the North Sea issue is very important. I know everybody may have been distracted by Makerfield, but an important referendum was in effect being undertaken in the constituency of Aberdeen South, which was overwhelmingly won by the Conservative candidate. It was an overwhelming rejection of both the measures that are in this climate change Carbon Budget Order and the current Government’s policy on the North Sea, which is referred to.
In closing, it is important for all of us to recognise that there is a universal position across this House that we have to get policy right. I do not think this order does. We cannot afford to damage our economy irreparably through a zealotry on net zero that goes too fast, too far, too early, and jeopardises our economic recovery and the key underlying policy of the Government, with which we agree—economic growth. The impact assessment is fundamentally flawed, not least on the important point about CCS, which, interestingly enough, is one point that was criticised by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is one of the three fundamental pillars on which the whole of this is based.
With those concluding comments, and with my gratitude to everybody who has contributed to this valuable debate, I seek to test the will of the House.
Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 April be approved.
Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Moynihan
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will constrain the means by which UK businesses are able to reduce their emissions; and will incentivise the movement of energy-intensive industry overseas, thereby weakening prospects for growth, employment and the UK’s industrial sovereignty.”
Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I kick off, I am sure all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight’s match.
I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will address the points that he has raised. For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on 28 April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward: to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three to six months.
The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 applies to England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this House, both instruments will come into force on 1 October this year.
I turn first to the regret amendment. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. I assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing case load. That is why we are working across government to ensure that the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Rights Act.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution task force. It brings together representatives from business, trade unions, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer-term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach, with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure that the employment tribunal system has the capacity that it needs for the future.
The noble Lord raised concerns that a longer claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three-month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point that the Law Commission recognised in 2020. Extending the time limit to six months strikes a better balance. It preserves the principle of timely resolution while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice.
I turn now to the instruments. First, the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from three months to six months for a range of workplace rights. These include rights for part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists, and certain NHS-related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1 October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.
Secondly, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months. This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to secure a corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid-November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits.
The order will apply where the termination giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Where the contract was terminated before that date, the current three-month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six-month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens.
In closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim. This is particularly important in sensitive cases where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations extend the time limits for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three months to six months without sufficient regard to the present capacity of the employment tribunal system; and considers that a longer claim window may mean disputes remain live for far longer, thereby adding further pressure to already burdened tribunals.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the Minister’s wish for every possible success tonight for the English team. I also declare my own interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple.
In moving the regret amendment in my name, let me explain why. The latest official statistics show that in 2025-26, employment tribunals received 50,000 single claims but disposed of only 26,000. At the end of March, there were 64,000 open single claims—a rise of 55% in a year. Behind those figures are people who have lost a job, suffered discrimination, not been paid wages or raised concerns at work. There are also employers, often small businesses left with disputes that cannot be resolved promptly and with witnesses, documents and recollections becoming less reliable as time passes. In many instances, small businesses in particular are being forced to live under the shadow of vexatious claims—claims without merit that any effective system of triage would filter out in no time at all. There is now evidence of cases in some areas being listed for hearings as late as 2030. This is a warning that in all parts of the country, access to an employment tribunal is ceasing to mean access to justice within any meaningful period.
The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House anticipated precisely this concern during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill. It noted the Government’s own assessment that there was already a backlog, with waits of about a year, and that extending time limits was uncertain but likely to add pressure. The Committee said that
“a potential increase in the number of claims seeking redress in employment tribunals combined with the extension of applicable time limits could have a significant impact on the existing backlogs in the employment tribunals and therefore on the constitutional principle of access to justice”.
That conclusion is not the view of opponents of the Government’s programme; it is the Government’s own assessment. It accepts that the effects of extending time limits are uncertain but likely to add further pressure to a system that already has waits of around a year. It estimates additional claims and recognises that, unless capacity rises, the practical benefit of these new rights will be reduced.
Why has this taken so long? Why was there no credible funded and operational plan for employment tribunal capacity before the Bill was even introduced? Why were Ministers content to legislate first and ask the most basic implementation questions later? The Government will surely point to consultation with businesses, other stakeholders and employee representatives. Of course, such engagement is welcome, but it is also revealing. When the Government are now seeking views on how to make these changes work in practice, the obvious question is: why on earth was that work not done before Parliament was asked to enact them?
The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that there was no new consultation on these regulations. The Government instead rely on a Law Commission consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019, in a different context, before the current scale of pressure on the tribunal system had emerged. So this goes to priorities. The Employment Rights Act contains a substantial programme of new rights, duties and protections for trade unions. Ministers found urgency, legislative time and administrative energy for those provisions, yet the machinery that permits an individual worker to vindicate an existing right—the tribunal system—was left without an equivalent plan for capacity, speed or access to advice.
So we on these Benches remain sceptical. But let us, for the purpose of this short debate, take the Government at their word. Let us assume these measures will indeed confer genuine, valuable and much-needed protections. Even then, the Government’s case collapses unless those protections can be enforced. A right that cannot be vindicated within a reasonable time is not a right.
So I say to the Minister: we really need some answers as to what the solution should be. When the Government made these choices, why was so much effort devoted to strengthening the institutions that speak for workers, yet so little to strengthening the system through which workers actually enforce their rights? We have so many questions. We await the answers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for getting the old team together. I was missing the Employment Rights Bill, which had been such an important part of my life, so it is always good to get a refresh.
On UK employment tribunal waiting times—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on—a 2026 analysis based on published decisions estimated an average of about 17 months for unfair dismissal cases in England and Wales, and a slightly better 14 months in Scotland. In some cases, the BBC reports that claimants in England and Wales have had to wait much longer than that. Tribunal delays vary a lot by case type and whether a case is single or multiple. Simpler unfair dismissal cases are obviously faster than discrimination or whistleblower cases, which tend to have longer hearings and require more evidence.
There is also regional diversity. As I have pointed out, Scotland appears to be materially faster than England and Wales. Can the Minister explain why that is the case, and what Scotland is doing that is significantly better, although still taking longer than it should?
The noble Lord asked whether the system is resilient and able to sustain this change. It is fair to say that this does not look like a resilient system; it looks like a system that has been stretched to or beyond breaking point. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the joint task force is beginning to offer some measures —he did not go into details as to what those measures are. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about triage. Triage would be a sensible way of sifting cases and filing them in the right way to improve the workflow through the tribunals that we have. Has analysis of the current waiting list been done to identify the sticking points and how they might be relieved? Are some tribunals better than others? Is there a league table? What extra resources have already been allocated, and what can be allocated? The Minister said that the task force was working “at pace”—a phrase that we all know we should avoid. I am sure that it was accidental.
Overall, this regret amendment is less about the measures it is seeking to regret and more about concern about the tribunal. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, we talked a lot about the tribunal during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. At that time, I said that once a case goes to a tribunal, both the employer and the employee are already in a losing position. Justice delayed, and delayed a long time, is justice denied, both for the employer and for the employee. I hope the Minister can address the issues we have raised, which, I would say to your Lordships, have very little to do with the statutory instruments in front of us. The regret amendment is merely a device that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has deployed to make sure that we miss the football—I point out that the England team are still 0-0; I wish them the very best, and I wish the Minister speed in his response.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will be speedy. First, I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, which I respect. I will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are committed to reviewing Section 10. I am sure that we will update the House on that in due course, but I cannot say more at this stage.
On the dispute resolution task force, the Government are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient. The expertise of the task force—which, as I mentioned earlier, will be made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders—will help inform the Government’s development of these reform measures. We are working on a mix of both more immediate targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We intend to use a phased approach, rather than doing everything in one go, and we will work on some of the measures already in train, such as targeted awareness-raising to reduce workplace conflict.
The Government are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges who will add capacity from 2027. In addition, recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, so we are adding capacity and recruiting as things stand today. For 2026-27, the employment tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, which is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years up to 2024-25. Remote hearings are expanding through virtual means, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits.
As noble Lords know, one of the key points of the Employment Rights Act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, which will now enforce rights including the national minimum wage. In time, it will enforce additional rights, including holiday pay, and ease pressure on employment tribunals. From 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights—as I said earlier, holiday pay and statutory sick pay—to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. We are working on a mix of both immediate targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Government’s longer-term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement where that would help workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to the employment tribunal. With all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the caseload that we currently experience.
In closing, I reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and commend our ongoing reforms of the employment tribunal system so that it is more resilient to any future changes.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the passage of the Employment Rights Act, with one voice, and that voice tonight has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage. This is the key, rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure, although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of overreliance and overcapacity.
I will say just two things about early resolution. I am troubled that discussions are taking place about the lack of resources for ACAS. ACAS could provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution. I will also just say that I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it was, or one of his colleagues, pressing for a review of Section 10, including the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Given the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree—perhaps he might write to me about this—that better support for employees at an earlier stage might prevent some workplace disputes escalating unnecessarily? Will he at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed? There will be lots of opportunities, I hope, to resolve this.
Lord Fox (LD)
I was planning to write a letter on that very subject, because I felt that it was not necessarily due in this debate, so there is a letter heading in the Minister’s direction on the right to accompany. I appreciate the noble Lord raising that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
That is another demonstration that the Opposition speak with one voice. It is now up to the Minister to answer, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 April be approved.